Self- but Not Other-Dimensions of Mentalizing Moderate the Impairment Associated With Social Anxiety in Adolescents From the General Population

Mentalizing, or social cognition, refers to the brain's higher order capacity that allows humans to be aware of one's own and others' mental states (e.g., emotions, feelings, intentions). While cognition in social anxiety has been broadly analyzed, there is a paucity of research regarding the role of social cognition. Moreover, mentalizing or social cognition research is traditionally focused on the understanding of others' mental states, rather than self-mentalizing. Finally, most studies analyze the role of social cognition in the development or maintenance of social anxiety, yet no study to date has analyzed whether social cognition moderates functional impairment associated with it. This study analyzes whether self- and other-mentalizing moderate the relationship between social anxiety and impairment in social and self-functioning. A sample of 262 adolescents from the non-clinical population was assessed on measures of social anxiety, self- and other- mentalization, indicators of social functioning (social competence and sociometric status), and indicators of self-functioning (depression and self-esteem). Multiple linear regressions were conducted to test possible moderation effects of self-mentalizing and other-mentalizing on the relationships between social anxiety and social and self-functioning. Results revealed that other-mentalizing does not moderate social- nor self-functioning, while self-mentalizing moderates the impairment of all of them. While impairment in social functioning is buffered by one dimension of self-mentalizing (emotional clarity; b = 0.003, p = 0.043 and b = 0.016, p = 0.008 for social competence and sociometric status, respectively), impairment in self-functioning is strengthened by the other dimension (attention to emotions; b = −0.007, p = 0.008 and b = 0.009, p = 0.047 for self-esteem and depression, respectively). Probing the moderation at the 16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles revealed that the negative imbalance between dimensions (i.e., high attention and low clarity) tended to exacerbate impairment most on all indicators, while the positive imbalance (i.e., low attention and high clarity) was usually the most buffering condition. This supports that "low-flying" or implicit mentalizing provides more resilience than explicit mentalizing (i.e., high attention and high clarity). Findings suggest that the work on emotional self-awareness should be stressed in the intervention of the social anxiety spectrum conditions in order to improve prevention, functioning, and ultimately, treatments, of people impaired by symptoms of social anxiety

Monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) interaction with parenting practices on Callous- Unemotional Traits in Preschoolers

Altres ajuts: Acord transformatiu CRUE-CSICBackground and Objectives: From a gene-by-environment perspective, parenting in interaction with the polymorphism in the Monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) gene (MAOA-uVNTR) might also be associated with increased callous-unemotional traits (CU) in preschoolers. MAOA-uVNTR results in differential enzyme activity, so that high-activity alleles (MAOA-H) are linked to reduced dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine availability in comparison to low-activity allele (MAOA-L). As MAOA-uVNTR has been previously described to moderate the relationship between childhood parental maltreatment and aggressive and antisocial behavior, it may also play a role in CU traits etiology

Global mapping of randomised trials related articles published in high-impact-factor medical journals: a cross-sectional analysis

Abstract Background Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most reliable information to inform clinical practice and patient care. We aimed to map global clinical research publication activity through RCT-related articles in high-impact-factor medical journals over the past five decades. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of articles published in the highest ranked medical journals with an impact factor > 10 (according to Journal Citation Reports published in 2017). We searched PubMed/MEDLINE (from inception to December 31, 2017) for all RCT-related articles (e.g. primary RCTs, secondary analyses and methodology papers) published in high-impact-factor medical journals. For each included article, raw metadata were abstracted from the Web of Science. A process of standardization was conducted to unify the different terms and grammatical variants and to remove typographical, transcription and/or indexing errors. Descriptive analyses were conducted (including the number of articles, citations, most prolific authors, countries, journals, funding sources and keywords). Network analyses of collaborations between countries and co-words are presented. Results We included 39,305 articles (for the period 1965–2017) published in forty journals. The Lancet (n = 3593; 9.1%), the Journal of Clinical Oncology (n = 3343; 8.5%) and The New England Journal of Medicine (n = 3275 articles; 8.3%) published the largest number of RCTs. A total of 154 countries were involved in the production of articles. The global productivity ranking was led by the United States (n = 18,393 articles), followed by the United Kingdom (n = 8028 articles), Canada (n = 4548 articles) and Germany (n = 4415 articles). Seventeen authors who had published 100 or more articles were identified; the most prolific authors were affiliated with Duke University (United States), Harvard University (United States) and McMaster University (Canada). The main funding institutions were the National Institutes of Health (United States), Hoffmann-La Roche (Switzerland), Pfizer (United States), Merck Sharp & Dohme (United States) and Novartis (Switzerland). The 100 most cited RCTs were published in nine journals, led by The New England Journal of Medicine (n = 78 articles), The Lancet (n = 9 articles) and JAMA (n = 7 articles). These landmark contributions focused on novel methodological approaches (e.g. the “Bland-Altman method”) and trials on the management of chronic conditions (e.g. diabetes control, hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women, multiple therapies for diverse cancers, cardiovascular therapies such as lipid-lowering statins, antihypertensive medications, and antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapy). Conclusions Our analysis identified authors, countries, funding institutions, landmark contributions and high-impact-factor medical journals publishing RCTs. Over the last 50 years, publication production in leading medical journals has increased, with Western countries leading in research but with low- and middle-income countries showing very limited representation

Global mapping of randomised trials related articles published in high-impact-factor medical journals: a cross-sectional analysis

Abstract Background Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most reliable information to inform clinical practice and patient care. We aimed to map global clinical research publication activity through RCT-related articles in high-impact-factor medical journals over the past five decades. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of articles published in the highest ranked medical journals with an impact factor > 10 (according to Journal Citation Reports published in 2017). We searched PubMed/MEDLINE (from inception to December 31, 2017) for all RCT-related articles (e.g. primary RCTs, secondary analyses and methodology papers) published in high-impact-factor medical journals. For each included article, raw metadata were abstracted from the Web of Science. A process of standardization was conducted to unify the different terms and grammatical variants and to remove typographical, transcription and/or indexing errors. Descriptive analyses were conducted (including the number of articles, citations, most prolific authors, countries, journals, funding sources and keywords). Network analyses of collaborations between countries and co-words are presented. Results We included 39,305 articles (for the period 1965–2017) published in forty journals. The Lancet (n = 3593; 9.1%), the Journal of Clinical Oncology (n = 3343; 8.5%) and The New England Journal of Medicine (n = 3275 articles; 8.3%) published the largest number of RCTs. A total of 154 countries were involved in the production of articles. The global productivity ranking was led by the United States (n = 18,393 articles), followed by the United Kingdom (n = 8028 articles), Canada (n = 4548 articles) and Germany (n = 4415 articles). Seventeen authors who had published 100 or more articles were identified; the most prolific authors were affiliated with Duke University (United States), Harvard University (United States) and McMaster University (Canada). The main funding institutions were the National Institutes of Health (United States), Hoffmann-La Roche (Switzerland), Pfizer (United States), Merck Sharp & Dohme (United States) and Novartis (Switzerland). The 100 most cited RCTs were published in nine journals, led by The New England Journal of Medicine (n = 78 articles), The Lancet (n = 9 articles) and JAMA (n = 7 articles). These landmark contributions focused on novel methodological approaches (e.g. the “Bland-Altman method”) and trials on the management of chronic conditions (e.g. diabetes control, hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women, multiple therapies for diverse cancers, cardiovascular therapies such as lipid-lowering statins, antihypertensive medications, and antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapy). Conclusions Our analysis identified authors, countries, funding institutions, landmark contributions and high-impact-factor medical journals publishing RCTs. Over the last 50 years, publication production in leading medical journals has increased, with Western countries leading in research but with low- and middle-income countries showing very limited representation

Study protocol of EMPOWER: A cluster randomized trial of a multimodal eHealth intervention for promoting mental health in the workplace following a stepped wedge trial design

Objective: This article describes the EMPOWER study, a controlled trial aiming to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an eHealth intervention to prevent common health problems and reduce presenteeism and absenteeism in the workplace. Intervention: The EMPOWER intervention spans universal, secondary and tertiary prevention and consists of an eHealth platform delivered via a website and a smartphone app designed to guide employees throughout different modules according to their specific profiles. Design: A stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial will be implemented in four countries (Finland, Poland, Spain and UK) with employees from small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and public agencies. Companies will be randomly allocated in one of three groups with different times at which the intervention is implemented. The intervention will last 7 weeks. Employees will answer several questionnaires at baseline, pre- and post-intervention and follow-up. Outcome measures: The main outcome is presenteeism. Secondary outcomes include depression, anxiety, insomnia, stress levels, wellbeing and absenteeism. Analyses will be conducted at the individual level using the intention-to-treat approach and mixed models. Additional analyses will evaluate the intervention effects according to gender, country or type of company. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses [based on the use of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYS)] will consider a societal, employers’ and employees’ perspective

Additional file 4 of Mapping age- and sex-specific HIV prevalence in adults in sub-Saharan Africa, 2000–2018

Additional file 4: Supplemental results.1. README. 2. Prevalence range across districts. 3. Prevalence range between sexes. 4. Prevalence range between ages. 5. Age-specific district ranges