'Traumatisers or traumatised': Trauma experiences and personality characteristics of Australian prisoners

Background: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is over represented in the prisoner population and is predictive of violence and suicide. This raises issues in relation to prisoner management, as well as theoretical issues such as why there is a range of vulnerability for PTSD. The current study examines the relationship between PTSD and personality profiles of prisoners. Method: Data from 1305 participants in the NSW survey of health in prisoners are examined to identify relationships between personality profiles derived from the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) and PTSD. Participants are grouped as experiencing no trauma; with a trauma history but no PTSD; and being diagnosed with PTSD. A logistic regression modelled significant predictors of PTSD. These data indicated that women prisoners report PTSD at twice the rate of males. An increased risk for PTSD is associated with high Harm Avoidance, low Self-Directedness, high Persistence and high Self- Transcendence. Conclusions: a combination of both temperament and character traits influences the trajectory towards PTSD development. Targeted treatment of these traits is needed in addressing the problems of prisoners with PTSD and managing the associated risks of violence and suicide

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated control measures on the mental health of the general population: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis

Background: to what extent the COVID-19 pandemic and its containment measures influenced mental health in the general population is still unclear.Purpose: to assess the trajectory of mental health symptoms during the first year of the pandemic and examine dose–response relations with characteristics of the pandemic and its containment.Data Sources: relevant articles were identified from the living evidence database of the COVID-19 Open Access Project, which indexes COVID-19–related publications from MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase via Ovid, and PsycInfo. Preprint publications were not considered.Study Selection: longitudinal studies that reported data on the general population's mental health using validated scales and that were published before 31 March 2021 were eligible.Data Extraction: an international crowd of 109 trained reviewers screened references and extracted study characteristics, participant characteristics, and symptom scores at each timepoint. Data were also included for the following country-specific variables: days since the first case of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the stringency of governmental containment measures, and the cumulative numbers of cases and deaths.Data Synthesis: in a total of 43 studies (331 628 participants), changes in symptoms of psychological distress, sleep disturbances, and mental well-being varied substantially across studies. On average, depression and anxiety symptoms worsened in the first 2 months of the pandemic (standardized mean difference at 60 days, −0.39 [95% credible interval, −0.76 to −0.03]); thereafter, the trajectories were heterogeneous. There was a linear association of worsening depression and anxiety with increasing numbers of reported cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection and increasing stringency in governmental measures. Gender, age, country, deprivation, inequalities, risk of bias, and study design did not modify these associations.Limitations: the certainty of the evidence was low because of the high risk of bias in included studies and the large amount of heterogeneity. Stringency measures and surges in cases were strongly correlated and changed over time. The observed associations should not be interpreted as causal relationships.Conclusion: although an initial increase in average symptoms of depression and anxiety and an association between higher numbers of reported cases and more stringent measures were found, changes in mental health symptoms varied substantially across studies after the first 2 months of the pandemic. This suggests that different populations responded differently to the psychological stress generated by the pandemic and its containment measures.Primary Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation. (PROSPERO: CRD42020180049

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated control measures on the mental health of the general population

Background: To what extent the COVID-19 pandemic and its containment measures influenced mental health in the general population is still unclear. Purpose: To assess the trajectory of mental health symptoms during the first year of the pandemic and examine dose-response relations with characteristics of the pandemic and its containment. Data sources: Relevant articles were identified from the living evidence database of the COVID-19 Open Access Project, which indexes COVID-19-related publications from MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase via Ovid, and PsycInfo. Preprint publications were not considered. Study selection: Longitudinal studies that reported data on the general population's mental health using validated scales and that were published before 31 March 2021 were eligible. Data extraction: An international crowd of 109 trained reviewers screened references and extracted study characteristics, participant characteristics, and symptom scores at each timepoint. Data were also included for the following country-specific variables: days since the first case of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the stringency of governmental containment measures, and the cumulative numbers of cases and deaths. Data synthesis: In a total of 43 studies (331 628 participants), changes in symptoms of psychological distress, sleep disturbances, and mental well-being varied substantially across studies. On average, depression and anxiety symptoms worsened in the first 2 months of the pandemic (standardized mean difference at 60 days, -0.39 [95% credible interval, -0.76 to -0.03]); thereafter, the trajectories were heterogeneous. There was a linear association of worsening depression and anxiety with increasing numbers of reported cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection and increasing stringency in governmental measures. Gender, age, country, deprivation, inequalities, risk of bias, and study design did not modify these associations. Limitations: The certainty of the evidence was low because of the high risk of bias in included studies and the large amount of heterogeneity. Stringency measures and surges in cases were strongly correlated and changed over time. The observed associations should not be interpreted as causal relationships. Conclusion: Although an initial increase in average symptoms of depression and anxiety and an association between higher numbers of reported cases and more stringent measures were found, changes in mental health symptoms varied substantially across studies after the first 2 months of the pandemic. This suggests that different populations responded differently to the psychological stress generated by the pandemic and its containment measures

Common variants in Alzheimer’s disease and risk stratification by polygenic risk scores

Genetic discoveries of Alzheimer’s disease are the drivers of our understanding, and together with polygenetic risk stratification can contribute towards planning of feasible and efficient preventive and curative clinical trials. We first perform a large genetic association study by merging all available case-control datasets and by-proxy study results (discovery n = 409,435 and validation size n = 58,190). Here, we add six variants associated with Alzheimer’s disease risk (near APP, CHRNE, PRKD3/NDUFAF7, PLCG2 and two exonic variants in the SHARPIN gene). Assessment of the polygenic risk score and stratifying by APOE reveal a 4 to 5.5 years difference in median age at onset of Alzheimer’s disease patients in APOE ɛ4 carriers. Because of this study, the underlying mechanisms of APP can be studied to refine the amyloid cascade and the polygenic risk score provides a tool to select individuals at high risk of Alzheimer’s disease