(Credit-Canva)
We are always told to never mix work and friendships in social settings. While it is normal to make friendships at work, you should always keep a professional distance to make sure things do not go sour and start affecting your work. This also means that you do not divulge private information or have private conversations with your colleagues as you may never know how this could be brought up and affect you. This is an unsaid rule in corporate culture that if you are sick or you are coming down with a serious issue, you should never bring it up and keep it to yourself. While this may seem unusual to new workers, it is a very common knowledge for people who have been in the industry for a long time. A new study showed that this is much more common than many people believe!
A new poll shows that a lot of U.S. workers with long-term health problems keep it a secret from their bosses. This affects their health and their jobs. It's a big problem that employers could help fix, which would be good for everyone. This isn't just about people having a sniffle. We're talking about serious conditions like heart disease, diabetes, and asthma that require ongoing management and can significantly impact a person's life, both inside and outside of work. The fact that so many people feel they need to hide these conditions shows a larger issue of stigma and lack of support in the workplace.
Most U.S. workers which were over half of the people, have some kind of long-term health problem. But a lot of them, about 6 out of 10, don't tell their boss. They might be afraid their boss will treat them differently or think they can't do their job. Keeping secrets like this can make it hard to get the help you need at work. It can also make your health problems worse because you're stressed about hiding them. It's a tough situation, and it shows that many workplaces aren't as supportive as they could be.
The poll also found that more than a third of people with health problems have had to miss doctor's appointments because of work. This means they're putting their jobs ahead of their health, which isn't good. It's hard to balance work and health, especially when you have a long-term illness. People need understanding bosses who will let them take time off for important medical stuff. Missing appointments can make health problems worse, and it can also make people feel more stressed and anxious.
Almost half of the workers with health problems said they couldn't even take breaks during the day to take care of themselves. They also said they felt like they'd been passed over for promotions because of their health. And some people even got bad reviews at work because of their health problems. This can make people feel really bad about themselves and their jobs. It can also make their health problems worse because they're so stressed. It's not fair, and it's something that needs to change.
It's not just people with health problems who have a hard time. Lots of people are also taking care of someone at home who is sick. Almost half of these caregivers have to help their sick family member during work hours. And many of them have trouble taking time off to care for their loved ones. Some people even have to work fewer hours, which means less money. This shows how much pressure people are under, trying to juggle work and family and health.
Credit: iStock
Delhi-NCR is witnessing a sharp increase in seasonal influenza, with 1,777 confirmed H1N1 (swine flu) cases reported out of 2,392 total Influenza A cases.
According to data from the National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC), the corresponding period last year recorded just 229 H1N1 cases.
Several hospitals in the national capital have reported a significant increase in cases. However, so far there have been no reports of patients requiring ICU care or ventilator support.
“Delhi is fully prepared to deal with the present health situation. There is no shortage of beds, doctors, medicines or essential medical equipment, and every patient will receive timely and appropriate treatment,” health authorities said.
The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has confirmed that the current surge is not due to a new strain of H1N1 and has advised people to follow precautions rather than panic, PTI reported.
According to the apex research body, the Influenza A (H1N1) viruses currently circulating in India belong to the A/Missouri/11/2025 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus strain.
“These viruses belong to clade 6B.1A.5a2a, subclade D.3.1.1, and have been in circulation since 2025,” the ICMR said. “Seasonal influenza, including H1N1, is mostly self-limiting,” it added.
The ICMR said the influenza strains currently circulating in India are well matched with the vaccine strains recommended for the Northern Hemisphere.
For both egg-based vaccines and cell culture-, recombinant protein- or nucleic acid-based vaccines, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends an A/Missouri/11/2025 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus.
HealthandMe spoke to experts to understand whether people should consider getting a flu vaccine amid the current rise in H1N1 cases and who should prioritise vaccination.
Doctors stressed that annual influenza vaccination remains an important tool to reduce the risk of severe illness, complications and hospitalization, particularly among people at higher risk.
“Since the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, H1N1 is no longer given as a separate standalone vaccine. The H1N1 strain is included in the regular seasonal influenza vaccine, whether trivalent or quadrivalent. Therefore, getting the recommended annual flu vaccine also protects against H1N1,” Dr Tushar Tayal, Associate Director, Internal Medicine, CK Birla Hospital, Gurugram, told HealthandMe.
The seasonal influenza vaccine is recommended every year for everyone aged six months and above. Doctors say vaccination is particularly important for:
The Indian Medical Association (IMA) advises that the inactivated influenza vaccine can be given to the above high-risk groups.
“The live attenuated influenza vaccine (intranasal spray) can be given only to persons aged 2-49 years (not to pregnant females),” as per the IMA.
“The H1N1 flu vaccine is typically administered annually before flu season, around October, as a single intramuscular dose at clinics, pharmacies or hospitals,” Dr Atul Gogia, Head, Infectious Diseases, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, told HealthandMe.
For most adults and children aged over nine years, one dose each year is sufficient. However, children aged six months to eight years who are receiving the flu vaccine for the first time may require two doses at least four weeks apart. After the initial vaccination, one annual dose is generally sufficient.
In India, influenza vaccination is ideally taken ahead of periods when flu activity tends to increase, particularly during the monsoon and winter months. The vaccine is available through hospitals, clinics and vaccination centers.
With H1N1 cases currently rising in Delhi-NCR, people who fall into high-risk groups may particularly benefit from discussing vaccination with their doctor.
“While the shot drastically reduces hospitalizations and complications, its primary limitation is that it does not offer 100% protection against infection, nor does it cover non-influenza viruses. However, even if contracted, vaccination significantly softens the disease’s severity,” Dr Atul said.
Dr Tayal also explained that vaccine effectiveness can vary from season to season, depending on how well the vaccine strains match the influenza viruses circulating at the time.
According to Dr Tayal, annual vaccination can reduce the risk of severe influenza, complications, hospitalization and flu-related deaths. However, it does not provide complete protection against every respiratory infection.
The flu vaccine protects against influenza viruses, including H1N1, but does not prevent illnesses caused by other viruses or bacteria.
Along with annual vaccination, experts advised people to:
Credit: AI
Higher education has changed far more than we often acknowledge. Universities are no longer simply places where students earn degrees. They are where young adults spend some of the most formative years of their lives, away from familiar support systems, making independent decisions, navigating uncertainty and, for many, encountering the first signs of a mental health condition. That quiet shift has expanded the role of educational institutions in ways that were never envisaged a decade ago.
The conversation around student wellbeing has evolved alongside this change. Mental health is no longer viewed as a subject to be discussed only after a crisis. Students are speaking more openly, parents are asking different questions, faculty members are becoming more aware and institutions are recognising that emotional wellbeing is closely linked to learning, participation and long term outcomes. This change deserves to be welcomed because it has helped move mental health from the margins of campus life to the centre of institutional responsibility.
Yet one assumption continues to shape much of this conversation. The presence of a counsellor is often seen as evidence that a campus is equipped to support student mental health. Counsellors remain indispensable and, for many students, they provide exactly the support that is needed. The challenge arises when counselling is expected to fulfil every role within a mental healthcare system.
Every effective healthcare system is built on layers of expertise. A physician does not replace a surgeon. A laboratory does not replace a diagnosis. Emergency care does not replace rehabilitation. Mental healthcare should be viewed no differently. Counselling is often the first point of contact, but the needs of students do not end there.
Some require structured therapy, others psychiatric evaluation, some ongoing clinical monitoring, and a few immediate crisis intervention. A mature campus mental healthcare system should be equipped to respond across this entire spectrum. The conversation should therefore move beyond whether campuses have counsellors to whether they have a system capable of supporting every stage of care.
Also read: Why People With Mental Health Conditions Are More Likely To Struggle With Tobacco Addiction
Encouragingly, public policy is beginning to recognise this changing reality. The University Grants Commission’s draft guidelines on mental health and wellbeing for higher educational institutions, with recommendations on counsellor ratios, dedicated wellbeing centres, round the clock helplines and mechanisms for early identification of distress, mark an important step in strengthening institutional support. More importantly, they open the door to a broader conversation on what comprehensive mental healthcare within higher education should look like over the coming years.
Building such a system requires looking beyond individual appointments. One of the most valuable lessons from developing healthcare services is that outcomes are rarely determined by the first consultation alone. They depend on how seamlessly care continues afterwards. If a counsellor recognises that a student needs specialised assessment, how quickly can that happen?
Also read: Lindsay Clancy Trial: What Postpartum Psychosis Really Looks Like, From A Survivor
If medication becomes necessary, is psychiatric care available without delay? If a student experiences a crisis outside campus hours, is there a clearly defined pathway to immediate support? If treatment begins, who ensures continuity during semester breaks or after the student returns home? These are not administrative questions. They are questions that shape recovery.
A comprehensive campus mental healthcare ecosystem should therefore bring together different levels of expertise rather than rely on one profession alone. Counsellors, clinical psychologists, psychiatrists, experienced mental health specialists and emergency support services each play a distinct role. Their contribution becomes most effective when they work as part of an integrated network with clear referral pathways, shared clinical responsibility and continuity of care that extends beyond the physical boundaries of the campus.
Also read: Sugar Rationing In First 1,000 Days Linked To Lower Depression, Cancer Risk In Adulthood
Equally important is recognising that mental healthcare should not begin only after a student seeks help. Institutions have long understood the value of preventive healthcare through regular physical health assessments, vaccination drives and awareness programmes. Mental health deserves the same thoughtful approach.
Periodic, voluntary mental health check ins, appropriate screening, trained faculty and peer support networks, backed by specialist expertise, can help identify concerns early while respecting privacy, dignity and informed consent. Early recognition is not about labelling students. It is about ensuring that support reaches them before distress becomes disabling.
Technology can strengthen this ecosystem, but it cannot replace it. Digital consultations, secure follow up, coordinated records and access to specialists across locations can make care more continuous, particularly for students studying away from home. Their real value lies in connecting different parts of the system rather than functioning as isolated solutions.
The quality of a university has traditionally been measured through its academic standards, faculty and research. Increasingly, it will also be measured by how well it supports the people who make learning possible. Mental healthcare deserves to be seen as part of that institutional foundation, not as an additional welfare service that sits alongside education.
The conversation has already moved beyond whether student mental health matters. The next step is to recognise that no single professional, however skilled, can meet every need that students may bring with them. Every campus needs more than a counsellor because every student deserves access to a mental healthcare system that is prepared not only to listen, but also to respond, support and care through every stage of that journey.
By Dr. Jothi Neeraja, Founder, Chairwoman and Managing Director, Maarga Mindcare
Credit: iStock
Anxiety and depression are major concerns in adulthood, but could nutrition during the earliest stages of life influence health decades later? Two new studies suggest that lower sugar exposure during the first 1,000 days of life may be associated with lower risks of anxiety, depression and even several cancers later in life.
The findings, from studies published in Translational Psychiatry and PNAS point to the potential long-term effects of early-life nutrition. However, the findings do not mean that restricting sugar in infancy directly prevents these diseases.
A 2026 study led by researchers from the University of Surrey, UK, analyzed 46,448 people born between October 1951 and March 1956.
Participants were grouped according to how long they were exposed to sugar rationing: from in utero only to 24 months. People conceived after food rationing had ended served as the main comparison group.
Researchers also analyzed brain MRI data from 5,990 participants.
Compared with people conceived after rationing ended, those exposed to sugar rationing for the three longest periods had significantly lower hazards of both anxiety and depression.
When later-life sugar intake was considered, the association with anxiety persisted among those exposed throughout pregnancy and the first two years of life, while the association with depression weakened and was no longer statistically significant.
Further, MRI analysis found differences across rationing groups in 80 of 139 gray matter regions. Analysis identified 11 regions that differed from participants conceived immediately after rationing ended, including the brainstem, occipital fusiform gyrus and several cerebellar regions.
A separate study published in PNAS examined whether sugar exposure during the first 1,000 days could influence cancer risk later in life.
Researchers from China Agricultural University and the University of Cambridge used the abrupt end of UK sugar rationing in September 1953 as a natural experiment. The analysis included 64,761 UK Biobank participants born between 1951 and 1956.
Compared with those whose first 1,000 days were not affected by rationing, participants exposed to rationing showed lower incidence of several cancers:
The researchers identified two possible pathways behind the association.
Sugar is an important source of energy for the brain, and very low blood glucose can impair brain function. However, excess sugar intake has also been associated with metabolic problems that can affect long-term health.
When it comes to cancer, sugar does not directly cause cancer, and cutting out all sugar does not “starve” cancer cells. Both healthy and cancer cells use glucose for energy.
However, consistently consuming excessive amounts of added sugar can contribute to weight gain and obesity, which are established risk factors for several cancers.
© 2024 Bennett, Coleman & Company Limited