Rio high for Johnathan: shooter qualifies for olympics after bagging 1Om air pistol gold

Background and objective Previous research suggests that measures of cognitive process may be confounded by the inclusion of items that also assess cognitive content. The primary aims of this content review were to: (1) identify the domains of cognitive processes assessed by measures used in pain research; and (2) determine if pain‐specific cognitive process measures with adequate psychometric properties exist. Databases and data treatment PsychInfo, CINAHL, PsycArticles, MEDLINE, and Academic Search Complete databases were searched to identify the measures of cognitive process used in pain research. Identified measures were double coded and the measure's items were rated as: (1) cognitive content; (2) cognitive process; (3) behavioural/social; and/or (4) emotional coping/responses to pain. Results A total of 319 scales were identified; of these, 29 were coded as providing an un‐confounded assessment of cognitive process, and 12 were pain‐specific. The cognitive process domains assessed in these measures are Absorption, Dissociation, Reappraisal, Distraction/Suppression, Acceptance, Rumination, Non‐Judgment, and Enhancement. Pain‐specific, un‐confounded measures were identified for: Dissociation, Reappraisal, Distraction/Suppression, and Acceptance. Psychometric properties of all 319 scales are reported in supplementary material. Conclusions To understand the importance of cognitive processes in influencing pain outcomes as well as explaining the efficacy of pain treatments, valid and pain‐specific cognitive process measures that are not confounded with non‐process domains (e.g., cognitive content) are needed. The findings of this content review suggest that future research focused on developing cognitive process measures is critical in order to advance our understanding of the mechanisms that underlie effective pain treatment. Significance Many cognitive process measures used in pain research contain a ‘mix’ of items that assess cognitive process, cognitive content, and behavioural/emotional responses. Databases searched: PsychInfo, CINAHL, PsycArticles, MEDLINE and Academic Search Complete. This review describes the domains assessed by measures assessing cognitive processes in pain research, as well as the strengths and limitations of these measures

Cannabinoid use among Americans with MS : Current trends and gaps in knowledge

Acknowledgements: The National Multiple Sclerosis Society (NMSS) provided participant recruitment support. The Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research (MICHR:NIH award number UL1TR002240) provided participant recruitment support through UMHealthResearch.org. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or NMSS. The investigators thank Shubha Kulkarni for her assistance with data collection.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Wellness and Multiple Sclerosis: The National MS Society Establishes a Wellness Research Working Group and Research Priorities

Background: People with multiple sclerosis (MS) have identified “wellness” and associated behaviors as a high priority based on “social media listening” undertaken by the National MS Society (i.e. the Society). Objective: The Society recently convened a group that consisted of researchers with experience in MS and wellness-related research, Society staff members, and an individual with MS for developing recommendations regarding a wellness research agenda. Method: The members of the group engaged in focal reviews and discussions involving the state of science within three approaches for promoting wellness in MS, namely diet, exercise, and emotional wellness. Results: That process informed a group-mediated activity for developing and prioritizing research goals for wellness in MS. This served as a background for articulating the mission and objectives of the Society’s Wellness Research Working Group. Conclusion: The primary mission of the Wellness Research Working Group is the provision of scientific evidence supporting the application of lifestyle, behavioral, and psychosocial approaches for promoting optimal health of mind, body, and spirit (i.e. wellness) in people with MS as well as managing the disease and its consequences

Cognitive rehabilitation, self-management, psychotherapeutic and caregiver support interventions in progressive neurodegenerative conditions: a scoping review

BACKGROUND: Despite their potentially significant impact, cognitive disability may be overlooked in a number of progressive neurodegenerative conditions, as other difficulties dominate the clinical picture. OBJECTIVE: We examined the extent, nature and range of the research evidence relating to cognitive rehabilitation, self-management, psychotherapeutic and caregiver support interventions in Parkinsonian disorders, multiple sclerosis (MS), frontotemporal dementias (FTD), motor neuron disease and Huntington’s disease. METHODS: Scoping review based on searches of MEDLINE and CINAHL up to 15 March 2016. RESULTS: We included 140 eligible papers. Over half of the studies, and almost all the randomised controlled trials, related to MS, while a number of single case studies described interventions for people with FTD. CR interventions addressed functional ability, communication and interaction, behaviour or memory. The majority of psychotherapy interventions involved cognitive behavioural therapy for depression or anxiety. Self-management interventions were mainly available for people with MS. There were few reports of interventions specific to caregivers. Numerous methodological challenges were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The limited range of studies for all conditions except MS suggests a need firstly to synthesise systematically the available evidence across conditions and secondly to develop well-designed studies to provide evidence about the effectiveness of CR and other psychological interventions

Psychosocial Pain Management Moderation: The Limit, Activate, and Enhance Model

There is a growing emphasis in the pain literature on understanding the following second-order research questions: Why do psychosocial pain treatments work? For whom do various treatments work? This critical review summarizes research that addresses the latter question and proposes a moderation model to help guide future research. A theoretical moderation framework for matching individuals to specific psychosocial pain interventions has been lacking. However, several such frameworks have been proposed in the broad psychotherapy and implementation science literature. Drawing on these theories and adapting them specifically for psychosocial pain treatment, here we propose a Limit, Activate, and Enhance model of pain treatment moderation. This model is unique in that it includes algorithms not only for matching treatments on the basis of patient weaknesses but also for directing patients to interventions that build on their strengths. Critically, this model provides a basis for specific a priori hypothesis generation, and a selection of the possible hypotheses drawn from the model are proposed and discussed. Future research considerations are presented that could refine and expand the model based on theoretically driven empirical evidence. Perspective The Limit, Activate, and Enhance model presented here is a theoretically derived framework that provides an a priori basis for hypothesis generation regarding psychosocial pain treatment moderators. The model will advance moderation research via its unique focus on matching patients to specific treatments that 1) limit maladaptive responses, 2) activate adaptive responses, and 3) enhance treatment outcomes based on patient strengths and resources

The behavioral activation and inhibition systems: implications for understanding and treating chronic pain

Evidence from a number of sources supports the existence of two relatively independent neurophysiological systems that underlie avoidance- and approach-related emotions, cognitions, and behavior. There is considerable overlap between 1) the emotions, cognitions, and behaviors controlled by these two systems, and 2) the known effects of chronic pain. Here we propose a 2-factor model of chronic pain on the basis of these well established 2-factor models, and discuss the implications of the model for understanding the effects of pain and mechanisms of psychological pain treatments. The model makes specific hypotheses, which are unique to the proposed model, regarding the mechanisms underlying pain's negative influence and the benefits of psychological pain treatments. The model also provides an overarching framework that could enhance outcomes by 1) broadening the assessment of factors that may be influencing pain and its effect on individual patients, and 2) suggesting that specific techniques from different treatments may be combined to better target these factors

Pain catastrophizing, mindfulness and pain acceptance: what’s the difference?

Objectives:It is not known whether psychosocial chronic pain treatments produce benefits through the unique mechanisms specified by theory. Fundamental to gaining an accurate understanding of this issue is to first determine whether the most widely used process measures assess unique constructs and predict unique variance in pain outcomes. This study examined the associations between the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ-SF), and the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ-8), and determined their unique contributions to the prediction of pain intensity, pain interference, and depression.Methods:A cross-sectional study was conducted with undergraduate students (N=260) reporting chronic or intermittent pain. Correlations, regression models, and multiple mediation models were performed. Relevant covariates were included.Results:The PCS, FFMQ-SF scales, and CPAQ-8 were correlated in mostly expected directions, but not so highly as to indicate redundancy. The PCS significantly predicted pain intensity, interference, and depression. The FFMQ-SF Observing and Describing scales predicted pain intensity; Nonreactivity and Nonjudging significantly predicted interference and depression, respectively. The CPAQ-8 was not a significant predictor in any of the regression models. The PCS was a comparatively stronger mediator than the FFMQ-SF scales in the intensity to interference, and intensity to depression mediation models.Discussion:The findings indicate that pain catastrophizing, mindfulness, and pain acceptance are related, but unique constructs. The PCS and select FFMQ-SF scales were uniquely associated with the criterion measures. However, the PCS emerged as the most robust process, highlighting the importance of targeting this cognitive domain in streamlining pain treatments to optimize outcome