Fidelity Assessment in Community Programs: An Approach to Validating Simplified Methodology.

Fidelity to intervention protocol is linked to best outcomes for individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD; see Boyd & Corley [Autism 5(4):430-441, 2001]; Pellecchia et al. [J Autism Dev Disord 45(9):2917-2927, 2015]); however, fidelity measurement tools that are both accurate and feasible for community use are often not available. In this paper we explore methods for validated simplification of fidelity assessment procedures toward the goal of increased use in clinical practice. Video recordings (n = 36) of therapists working with children with ASD were coded using three variations of fidelity assessment methodology (trial-by-trial, 5-point Likert Scale, and 3-point Likert Scale), and the results were compared for exact agreement, mastery criterion agreement, and overall reliability. The results indicated overall a very high percentage of exact agreement (mean 99.44%, range 94.4-100%) and excellent reliability (mean Krippendorff's alpha [Kα] 1.0) between the trial-by-trial and 5-point Likert Scale across all components; however, the 3-point method may be viewed as being the more feasible strategy within community programs

Caregiver Participation Engagement in Child Mental Health Prevention Programs: a Systematic Review

Prevention programs are a key method to reduce the prevalence and impact of mental health disorders in childhood and adolescence. Caregiver participation engagement (CPE), which includes caregiver participation in sessions as well as follow-through with homework plans, is theorized to be an important component in the effectiveness of these programs. This systematic review aims to (1) describe the terms used to operationalize CPE and the measurement of CPE in prevention programs, (2) identify factors associated with CPE, (3) examine associations between CPE and outcomes, and (4) explore the effects of strategies used to enhance CPE. Thirty-nine articles representing 27 unique projects were reviewed. Articles were included if they examined CPE in a program that focused to some extent on preventing child mental health disorders. There was heterogeneity in both the terms used to describe CPE and the measurement of CPE. The majority of projects focused on assessment of caregiver home practice. There were no clear findings regarding determinants of CPE. With regard to the impact of CPE on program outcomes, higher levels of CPE predicted greater improvements in child and caregiver outcomes, as well as caregiver-child relationship quality. Finally, a small number of studies found that motivational and behavioral strategies (e.g., reinforcement, appointment reminders) were successful in promoting CPE. This review highlights the importance of considering CPE when developing, testing, and implementing prevention programs for child mental health disorders. Increased uniformity is needed in the measurement of CPE to facilitate a better understanding of determinants of CPE. In addition, the field would benefit from further evaluating strategies to increase CPE as a method of increasing the potency of prevention programs

Time courses of improvement and symptom remission in children treated with atomoxetine for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: analysis of Canadian open-label studies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The relatively short durations of the initial pivotal randomized placebo-controlled trials involving atomoxetine HCl for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) provided limited insight into the time courses of ADHD core symptom responses to this nonstimulant, selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate time courses of treatment responses or remission, as assessed by attainment of prespecified scores on the ADHD Rating Scale-IV-Parent Version: Investigator Administered and Scored (ADHDRS-IV-PI) and the Clinical Global Impressions-ADHD-Severity (CGI-ADHD-S) scales, during up to 1 year of atomoxetine treatment in children with ADHD.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using pooled data from three Canadian open-label studies involving 338 children ages 6-11 years with ADHD who were treated with atomoxetine for 3, 6 and 12 months, and survival analysis methods for interval-censored data, we estimated the time to: 1) improvement and robust improvement defined by ≥25% and ≥40% reductions from baseline ADHDRS-IV-PI total scores, respectively; and 2) remission using two definitions: a final score of ADHDRS-IV-PI ≤18 or a final score of CGI-ADHD-S ≤2.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The median time to improvement was 3.7 weeks (~1 month), but remission of symptoms did not occur until a median of 14.3 weeks (~3.5 months) using the most stringent CGI-ADHD-S threshold. Probabilities of robust improvement were 47% at or before 4 weeks of treatment; 76% at 12 weeks; 85% at 26 weeks; and 96% at 52 weeks. Probabilities of remission at these corresponding time points were 30%, 59%, 77%, and 85% (using the ADHDRS-IV scale) and 8%, 47%, 67%, and 75% (using the CGI-ADHD-S scale). The change from atomoxetine treatment month 5 to month 12 of -1.01 (1.03) was not statistically significant (<it>p </it>= .33).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Reductions in core ADHD symptoms during atomoxetine treatment are gradual. Although approximately one-half of study participants showed improvement at 1 month of atomoxetine treatment, remission criteria were not met until about 3 months. Understanding the time course of children's responses to atomoxetine treatment may inform clinical decision making and also influence the durations of trials comparing the effects of this medication with other ADHD treatments.</p> <p>Trial Registrations</p> <p>clinicaltrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00191633">NCT00191633</a>, <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00216918">NCT00216918</a>, <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00191880">NCT00191880</a>.</p

Using reflexivity to enhance in-depth interviewing skills for the clinician researcher

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Primary health care clinicians are being encouraged to undertake qualitative research, however the in-depth interviewing skills required are not as straightforward as might be first supposed. While there are benefits and certain skills that clinicians can bring to interview-based research, there are important new skills to develop. To date there has been neither discussion about these new skills, nor any preparatory guidelines for clinicians entering into interview-based research in the qualitative research literature. In the absence of formal guidelines, we suggest the use of reflexivity throughout the interview process as a means to become more accomplished in this area. We present our own experiences as a novice general practitioner (GP) researcher undertaking a PhD study and her experienced supervisors. The PhD study used critical phenomenology through in-depth interviews to understand the experience of the patient-doctor relationship between same-sex attracted women and their usual GP in Australia.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We used reflexivity to improve the rigour of the data collection. This enabled improved probing, fewer assumptions, avoidance of premature interpretation, and an accentuated sense of curiosity during interviews. We also enlisted reciprocity between interviewer and interviewee as a tool to improve engagement and trust, share interview control, and ultimately improve the depth of the interview content.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Preparatory recommendations for novice clinician research interviewers include the importance of recognising the multiple identities that they bring to the interview. In this setting in particular this involves acknowledging the clinician interviewer as a potential insider in relation to interviewees and negotiating shared understanding to avoid insider assumptions. Other essential requirements are having an experienced research supervisor, arranging pilot interviews that include active feedback on interviewing style from interviewees, and being reflexive during interviews. More formal guidelines for in-depth interviewing skills development are needed.</p

Reproductive factors and breast cancer risk according to joint estrogen and progesterone receptor status: a meta-analysis of epidemiological studies

INTRODUCTION: Although reproductive factors have been known for decades to be associated with breast cancer risk, it is unclear to what extent these associations differ by estrogen and progesterone receptor (ER/PR) status. This report presents the first meta-analysis of results from epidemiological studies that have investigated parity, age at first birth, breastfeeding, and age at menarche in relation to ER(+)PR(+ )and ER(-)PR(- )cancer risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We calculated summary relative risks (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a fixed effects model. RESULTS: Each birth reduced the risk of ER(+)PR(+ )cancer by 11% (RR per birth = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.84–0.94), and women who were in the highest age at first birth category had, on average, 27% higher risk of ER(+)PR(+ )cancer compared with women who were in the youngest age at first birth category (RR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.07–1.50). Neither parity nor age at first birth was associated with the risk of ER(-)PR(- )cancer (RR per birth = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.94–1.05; RR of oldest versus youngest age at first birth category = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.85–1.20). Breastfeeding and late age at menarche decreased the risk of both receptor subtypes of breast cancer. The protective effect of late age at menarche was statistically significantly greater for ER(+)PR(+ )than ER(-)PR(- )cancer (RR = 0.72 for ER(+)PR(+ )cancer; RR = 0.84 for ER(-)PR(- )cancer, p for homogeneity = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that breastfeeding (and age at menarche) may act through different hormonal mechanisms than do parity and age at first birth

Differences between children and adolescents in treatment response to atomoxetine and the correlation between health-related quality of life and Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder core symptoms: Meta-analysis of five atomoxetine trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>To explore the influence of age on treatment responses to atomoxetine and to assess the relationship between core symptoms of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) outcomes.</p> <p>Data Sources</p> <p>Data from five similar clinical trials of atomoxetine in the treatment of children and adolescents with ADHD were included in this meta-analysis.</p> <p>Study Selection</p> <p>Atomoxetine studies that used the ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS) and the Child Health and Illness Profile Child Edition (CHIP-CE) as outcome measures were selected.</p> <p>Interventions</p> <p>Treatment with atomoxetine.</p> <p>Main Outcome Measures</p> <p>Treatment group differences (atomoxetine vs placebo) in terms of total score, domains, and subdomains of the CHIP-CE were compared across age groups, and correlations between ADHD-RS scores and CHIP-CE scores were calculated by age.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Data of 794 subjects (611 children, 183 adolescents) were pooled. At baseline, adolescents showed significantly (p < 0.05) greater impairment compared with children in the Family Involvement, Satisfaction with Self, and Academic Performance subdomains of the CHIP-CE. Treatment effect of atomoxetine was significant in both age groups for the Risk Avoidance domain and its subdomains. There was a significant age-treatment interaction with greater efficacy seen in adolescents in both the Risk Avoidance domain and the Threats to Achievement subdomain. Correlations between ADHD-RS and CHIP-CE scores were generally low at baseline and moderate in change from baseline and were overall similar in adolescents and children.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Atomoxetine was effective in improving some aspects of HR-QoL in both age groups. Correlations between core symptoms of ADHD and HR-QoL were low to moderate.</p

Global burden of 288 causes of death and life expectancy decomposition in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

BACKGROUND Regular, detailed reporting on population health by underlying cause of death is fundamental for public health decision making. Cause-specific estimates of mortality and the subsequent effects on life expectancy worldwide are valuable metrics to gauge progress in reducing mortality rates. These estimates are particularly important following large-scale mortality spikes, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. When systematically analysed, mortality rates and life expectancy allow comparisons of the consequences of causes of death globally and over time, providing a nuanced understanding of the effect of these causes on global populations. METHODS The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 cause-of-death analysis estimated mortality and years of life lost (YLLs) from 288 causes of death by age-sex-location-year in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations for each year from 1990 until 2021. The analysis used 56 604 data sources, including data from vital registration and verbal autopsy as well as surveys, censuses, surveillance systems, and cancer registries, among others. As with previous GBD rounds, cause-specific death rates for most causes were estimated using the Cause of Death Ensemble model-a modelling tool developed for GBD to assess the out-of-sample predictive validity of different statistical models and covariate permutations and combine those results to produce cause-specific mortality estimates-with alternative strategies adapted to model causes with insufficient data, substantial changes in reporting over the study period, or unusual epidemiology. YLLs were computed as the product of the number of deaths for each cause-age-sex-location-year and the standard life expectancy at each age. As part of the modelling process, uncertainty intervals (UIs) were generated using the 2·5th and 97·5th percentiles from a 1000-draw distribution for each metric. We decomposed life expectancy by cause of death, location, and year to show cause-specific effects on life expectancy from 1990 to 2021. We also used the coefficient of variation and the fraction of population affected by 90% of deaths to highlight concentrations of mortality. Findings are reported in counts and age-standardised rates. Methodological improvements for cause-of-death estimates in GBD 2021 include the expansion of under-5-years age group to include four new age groups, enhanced methods to account for stochastic variation of sparse data, and the inclusion of COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality-which includes excess mortality associated with the pandemic, excluding COVID-19, lower respiratory infections, measles, malaria, and pertussis. For this analysis, 199 new country-years of vital registration cause-of-death data, 5 country-years of surveillance data, 21 country-years of verbal autopsy data, and 94 country-years of other data types were added to those used in previous GBD rounds. FINDINGS The leading causes of age-standardised deaths globally were the same in 2019 as they were in 1990; in descending order, these were, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lower respiratory infections. In 2021, however, COVID-19 replaced stroke as the second-leading age-standardised cause of death, with 94·0 deaths (95% UI 89·2-100·0) per 100 000 population. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted the rankings of the leading five causes, lowering stroke to the third-leading and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to the fourth-leading position. In 2021, the highest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 occurred in sub-Saharan Africa (271·0 deaths [250·1-290·7] per 100 000 population) and Latin America and the Caribbean (195·4 deaths [182·1-211·4] per 100 000 population). The lowest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 were in the high-income super-region (48·1 deaths [47·4-48·8] per 100 000 population) and southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania (23·2 deaths [16·3-37·2] per 100 000 population). Globally, life expectancy steadily improved between 1990 and 2019 for 18 of the 22 investigated causes. Decomposition of global and regional life expectancy showed the positive effect that reductions in deaths from enteric infections, lower respiratory infections, stroke, and neonatal deaths, among others have contributed to improved survival over the study period. However, a net reduction of 1·6 years occurred in global life expectancy between 2019 and 2021, primarily due to increased death rates from COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality. Life expectancy was highly variable between super-regions over the study period, with southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania gaining 8·3 years (6·7-9·9) overall, while having the smallest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 (0·4 years). The largest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 occurred in Latin America and the Caribbean (3·6 years). Additionally, 53 of the 288 causes of death were highly concentrated in locations with less than 50% of the global population as of 2021, and these causes of death became progressively more concentrated since 1990, when only 44 causes showed this pattern. The concentration phenomenon is discussed heuristically with respect to enteric and lower respiratory infections, malaria, HIV/AIDS, neonatal disorders, tuberculosis, and measles. INTERPRETATION Long-standing gains in life expectancy and reductions in many of the leading causes of death have been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the adverse effects of which were spread unevenly among populations. Despite the pandemic, there has been continued progress in combatting several notable causes of death, leading to improved global life expectancy over the study period. Each of the seven GBD super-regions showed an overall improvement from 1990 and 2021, obscuring the negative effect in the years of the pandemic. Additionally, our findings regarding regional variation in causes of death driving increases in life expectancy hold clear policy utility. Analyses of shifting mortality trends reveal that several causes, once widespread globally, are now increasingly concentrated geographically. These changes in mortality concentration, alongside further investigation of changing risks, interventions, and relevant policy, present an important opportunity to deepen our understanding of mortality-reduction strategies. Examining patterns in mortality concentration might reveal areas where successful public health interventions have been implemented. Translating these successes to locations where certain causes of death remain entrenched can inform policies that work to improve life expectancy for people everywhere. FUNDING Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation