30 research outputs found

    Five years post whiplash injury: Symptoms and psychological factors in recovered versus non-recovered

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Few studies have focused on the differences between persons who are recovered after whiplash injury and those who suffer from persistent disability. The primary aim of this study was therefore to examine differences in symptoms, psychological factors and life satisfaction between subjects classified as recovered and those with persistent disability five years after whiplash injury based on the Neck Disability Index (NDI).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A set of questionnaires was answered by 158 persons (75 men, 83 women) to assess disability (NDI), pain intensity (VAS), whiplash-related symptoms (Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire, RPQ), post-traumatic stress (Impact of Event Scale, IES), depression (Beck's depression inventory, BDI) and life satisfaction (LiSat-11).</p> <p>The participants were divided into three groups based on the results of the NDI: recovered (34.8%), mild disability (37.3%) and moderate/severe disability (27.3%).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The moderate/severe group reported significantly higher VAS, BDI and IES scores and lower level of physical health and psychological health compared to the mild and the recovered groups. Less significant differences were reported between the mild and the recovered groups.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The group with the highest disability score reported most health problems with pain, symptoms, depression, post-traumatic stress and decreased life satisfaction. These findings indicate that classifying these subjects into subgroups based on disability levels makes it possible to optimize the management and treatment after whiplash injury.</p

    Altered Activation of Innate Immunity Associates with White Matter Volume and Diffusion in First-Episode Psychosis

    Get PDF
    First-episode psychosis (FEP) is associated with inflammatory and brain structural changes, but few studies have investigated whether systemic inflammation associates with brain structural changes in FEP. Thirty-seven FEP patients (median 27 days on antipsychotic medication), and 19 matched controls were recruited. Serum levels of 38 chemokines and cytokines, and cardiovascular risk markers were measured at baseline and 2 months later. We collected T1-and diffusion-weighted MRIs with a 3 T scanner from the patients at baseline. We analyzed the association of psychosis-related inflammatory markers with gray and white matter (WM) volume using voxel-based morphometry and WM diffusion using tract-based spatial statistics with whole-brain and region-of-interest (ROI) analyses. FEP patients had higher CCL22 and lower TGFa, CXCL1, CCL7, IFN-alpha 2 and ApoA-I than controls. CCL22 decreased significantly between baseline and 2 months in patients but was still higher than in controls. The association between inflammatory markers and FEP remained significant after adjusting for age, sex, smoking and BMI. We did not observe a correlation of inflammatory markers with any symptoms or duration of antipsychotic treatment. Baseline CCL22 levels correlated negatively with WM volume and positively with mean diffusivity and radial diffusivity bilaterally in the frontal lobes in ROI analyses. Decreased serum lan association between circulating chemokine levels and WM in FEP patients. Interestingly, CCL22 has been previously implicated in autoimmune diseases associated with WM pathology. The results suggest that an altered activation of innate immunity may contribute to WM damage in psychotic disorders.evel of ApoA-I was associated with smaller volume of the medial temporal WM. In whole-brain analyses, CCL22 correlated positively with mean diffusivity and radial diffusivity, and CXCL1 associated negatively with fractional anisotropy and positively with mean diffusivity and radial diffusivity in several brain regions. This is the first report to demonstratePeer reviewe

    Behavior change interventions and policies influencing primary healthcare professionals’ practice—an overview of reviews

    Full text link
    corecore