Expressed Emotion and Attributions in Paid Dementia Care Staff Regarding Behaviour that Challenges.

Aims This project examined expressed emotion (EE) in paid dementia care staff, determining the proportion who expressed high EE and investigating whether high EE was more likely when the client displayed challenging behaviours (CB). The attributions made by staff regarding CBs and whether these were related to the construct of EE were investigated. The behaviour which staff rated as most challenging was identified. Methodology This project used a within subjects design, obtaining quantitative data from 47 staff participants. Each participant was asked to identify a client who displayed CB and one who did not. Participants completed a Five Minute Speech Sample, Modified Attributional Questionnaire and Challenging Behaviour Scale for each client. Results Overall 89.4% of staff participants expressed high levels of EE in at least one of their Five Minute Speech Samples. Significantly more staff displayed high EE in relation to clients with CB than without CB. More critical comments were made in relation to clients with CB, whilst significantly more positive remarks were made in relation to clients without CB. Participants rated the behaviours displayed by challenging clients as significantly more specific to them, whilst behaviours of the non-challenging group were rated as more controllable by staff. Positive remarks and perceptions of control by staff had a significant positive relationship. The behaviour rated by staff as most challenging was physical aggression. Conclusions The proportion of staff who displayed high EE in this study was higher than rates found to date in studies with family caregivers of people with dementia. This study did not provide support for the attributional theory of EE. The results are considered to be consistent with the state theory of EE and the stress-vulnerability model, and the context of the dominant philosophy of person centred dementia care is explored

Recovery Colleges and Dementia Courses – A Scoping Survey

Purpose: This project aimed to understand how dementia is represented within current UK Recovery College courses and how people with dementia are involved with such courses. Design: A scoping survey was developed with seven multiple choice questions. Information was collected to find out: How many Colleges are currently offering dementia courses; have previously offered courses or plan to start offering courses; how they have developed their courses; who delivers them; who can attend; and how long they have courses been running. Individual Recovery Colleges could leave contact details if they were interested in collaborating on future research projects. UK Recovery Colleges were identified using a published list (Anfossi, 2017) supplemented with internet searching. 86 email messages were sent to Recovery Colleges inviting Leads/Managers to complete the survey through an electronic link. Findings: Of the 28 (32.6%) Recovery Colleges who completed the survey, eleven reported to be currently offering dementia courses, with eight planned to start doing so. Six Recovery Colleges stated they were not currently offering dementia courses, have not done so previously and have no current plans to. Research Implications: The survey results indicate variability in provision of UK Recovery College courses for people with dementia, and raise further questions about the way the courses are used, their acceptability and usefulness. Originality: This service evaluation highlights the variability in what is offered, which is an important step in understanding the current service provision

Measuring adherence in social recovery therapy with people with first episode psychosis

Background:The SUPEREDEN3 study, a phase II randomized controlled trial, suggests that social recovery therapy (SRT) is useful in improving functional outcomes in people with first episode psychosis. SRT incorporates cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) techniques with case management and employment support, and therefore has a different emphasis to traditional CBT for psychosis, requiring a new adherence tool.Aims:This paper describes the SRT adherence checklist and content of the therapy delivered in the SUPEREDEN3 trial, outlining the frequency of SRT techniques and proportion of participants who received a full therapy dose. It was hypothesized that behavioural techniques would be used frequently, consistent with the behavioural emphasis of SRT.Method:Research therapists completed an adherence checklist after each therapy session, endorsing elements of SRT present. Data from 1236 therapy sessions were reviewed to determine whether participants received full, partial or no therapy dose.Results:Of the 75 participants randomized to receive SRT, 57.3% received a full dose, 24% a partial dose, and 18.7% received no dose. Behavioural techniques were endorsed in 50.5% of sessions, with cognitive techniques endorsed in 34.9% of sessions.Conclusions:This report describes an adherence checklist which should be used when delivering SRT in both research and clinical practice. As hypothesized, behavioural techniques were a prominent feature of the SRT delivered in SUPEREDEN3, consistent with the behavioural emphasis of the approach. The use of this adherence tool would be considered essential for anyone delivering SRT looking to ensure adherence to the model

Social recovery therapy: a treatment manual

Social Recovery Therapy is an individual psychosocial therapy developed for people with psychosis. The therapy aims to improve social recovery through increasing the amount of time individuals spend in meaningful structured activity. Social Recovery Therapy draws on our model of social disability arising as functional patterns of withdrawal in response to early socio-emotional difficulties and compounded by low hopefulness, self-agency and motivation. The core components of Social Recovery Therapy include using an assertive outreach approach to promote a positive therapeutic relationship, with the focus of the intervention on using active behavioural work conducted outside the clinical room and promoting hope, values, meaning, and positive schema. The therapy draws on traditional Cognitive Behavioural Therapy techniques but differs with respect to the increased use of behavioural and multi-systemic work, the focus on the development of hopefulness and positive self, and the inclusion of elements of case management and supported employment. Our treatment trials provide evidence for the therapy leading to clinically meaningful increases in structured activity for individuals experiencing first episode and longer-term psychosis. In this paper, we present the core intervention components with examples in order to facilitate evaluation and implementation of the approach

Virology under the microscope—a call for rational discourse

Viruses have brought humanity many challenges: respiratory infection, cancer, neurological impairment and immunosuppression to name a few. Virology research over the last 60+ years has responded to reduce this disease burden with vaccines and antivirals. Despite this long history, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented attention to the field of virology. Some of this attention is focused on concern about the safe conduct of research with human pathogens. A small but vocal group of individuals has seized upon these concerns – conflating legitimate questions about safely conducting virus-related research with uncertainties over the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The result has fueled public confusion and, in many instances, ill-informed condemnation of virology. With this article, we seek to promote a return to rational discourse. We explain the use of gain-of-function approaches in science, discuss the possible origins of SARS-CoV-2 and outline current regulatory structures that provide oversight for virological research in the United States. By offering our expertise, we – a broad group of working virologists – seek to aid policy makers in navigating these controversial issues. Balanced, evidence-based discourse is essential to addressing public concern while maintaining and expanding much-needed research in virology

Virology under the Microscope—a Call for Rational Discourse

Viruses have brought humanity many challenges: respiratory infection, cancer, neurological impairment and immunosuppression to name a few. Virology research over the last 60+ years has responded to reduce this disease burden with vaccines and antivirals. Despite this long history, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented attention to the field of virology. Some of this attention is focused on concern about the safe conduct of research with human pathogens. A small but vocal group of individuals has seized upon these concerns - conflating legitimate questions about safely conducting virus-related research with uncertainties over the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The result has fueled public confusion and, in many instances, ill-informed condemnation of virology. With this article, we seek to promote a return to rational discourse. We explain the use of gain-of-function approaches in science, discuss the possible origins of SARS-CoV-2 and outline current regulatory structures that provide oversight for virological research in the United States. By offering our expertise, we - a broad group of working virologists - seek to aid policy makers in navigating these controversial issues. Balanced, evidence-based discourse is essential to addressing public concern while maintaining and expanding much-needed research in virology

Virology under the Microscope—a Call for Rational Discourse

Viruses have brought humanity many challenges: respiratory infection, cancer, neurological impairment and immunosuppression to name a few. Virology research over the last 60+ years has responded to reduce this disease burden with vaccines and antivirals. Despite this long history, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented attention to the field of virology. Some of this attention is focused on concern about the safe conduct of research with human pathogens. A small but vocal group of individuals has seized upon these concerns - conflating legitimate questions about safely conducting virus-related research with uncertainties over the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The result has fueled public confusion and, in many instances, ill-informed condemnation of virology. With this article, we seek to promote a return to rational discourse. We explain the use of gain-of-function approaches in science, discuss the possible origins of SARS-CoV-2 and outline current regulatory structures that provide oversight for virological research in the United States. By offering our expertise, we - a broad group of working virologists - seek to aid policy makers in navigating these controversial issues. Balanced, evidence-based discourse is essential to addressing public concern while maintaining and expanding much-needed research in virology

Virology under the Microscope-a Call for Rational Discourse.

Viruses have brought humanity many challenges: respiratory infection, cancer, neurological impairment and immunosuppression to name a few. Virology research over the last 60+ years has responded to reduce this disease burden with vaccines and antivirals. Despite this long history, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented attention to the field of virology. Some of this attention is focused on concern about the safe conduct of research with human pathogens. A small but vocal group of individuals has seized upon these concerns - conflating legitimate questions about safely conducting virus-related research with uncertainties over the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The result has fueled public confusion and, in many instances, ill-informed condemnation of virology. With this article, we seek to promote a return to rational discourse. We explain the use of gain-of-function approaches in science, discuss the possible origins of SARS-CoV-2 and outline current regulatory structures that provide oversight for virological research in the United States. By offering our expertise, we - a broad group of working virologists - seek to aid policy makers in navigating these controversial issues. Balanced, evidence-based discourse is essential to addressing public concern while maintaining and expanding much-needed research in virology