Guilt is effectively induced by a written auto-biographical essay but not reduced by experimental pain.

Introduction The aim of the present study was (1) to validate the method of guilt-induction by means of a written auto-biographical essay and (2) to test whether experimental pain is apt to alleviate the mental burden of guilt, a concept receiving support from both empirical research and clinical observation. Methods Three independent groups of healthy male participants were recruited. Group allocation was not randomized but within group pain/sham administration was counterbalanced over the two test-days. Groups were tested in the following consecutive order: Group A: guilt induction, heat-pain/sham, N = 59; Group B: guilt induction, cold-pressure-pain/sham, N = 43; Group C: emotionally neutral induction, heat-pain/sham, N = 39. Guilt was induced on both test-days in group A and B before pain/sham administration. Visual analog scale (VAS) guilt ratings immediately after pain/sham stimulation served as the primary outcome. In a control group C the identical heat-pain experiment was performed like in group A but a neutral emotional state was induced. Results A consistently strong overall effect of guilt-induction (heat-pain: p < 0.001, effect size r = 0.71; CPT-pain p < 0.001, r = 0.67) was found when compared to the control-condition (p = 0.25, r = 0.08). As expected, heat- and cold-pressure-stimuli were highly painful in all groups (p < 0.0001, r = 0.89). However, previous research supporting the hypothesis that pain is apt to reduce guilt was not replicated. Conclusion Although guilt-induction was highly effective on both test-days no impact of pain on behavioral guilt-ratings in healthy individuals could be identified. Guilt induction per se did not depend on the order of testing. The result questions previous experimental work on the impact of pain on moral emotions

Pelvimetry and patient acceptability compared between open 0.5-T and closed 1.5-T MR systems

Our objective was to compare maternal pelvimetry and patient acceptability between open low-field (0.5-T) and closed 1.5-T MR systems. Thirty women referred for pelvimetry (pregnant: n=15) were scanned twice in the supine position, once in the vertical open system and once in the closed system. Each patient completed a comfort and acceptability questionnaire. Pelvimetric and questionnaire data were compared between systems. Total scan time was double in the open system (7:52+/-1:47 vs 3:12+/-1:20 min). Poor image quality in the open system prevented assessment of interspinous and intertuberous diameters in one woman and all measurements in another, both pregnant, with abdominal circumferences >120 cm. The open system was much more acceptable in terms of claustrophobia and confinement (both p<0.01). Claustrophobia interrupted one closed examination. Thirty-three percent of pregnant women in both systems reported fear of fetal harm. Sixty percent of all women preferred the open system, 7% the closed system, and 33% had no preference. Limits of agreement of 3-5% from the mean for all diameters confirmed good pelvimetric reproducibility. Women's preference for open-system MR pelvimetry is feasible with abdominal circumferences <or=120 cm

Differences Between Centers in Psychosocial Evaluations for Living Kidney Donors Do Not Influence Outcome: Results From an Observational Multicenter Study

Rather little is known about how psychosocial evaluations for living kidney donation (LKD) are performed. We aimed to explore whether Swiss transplant centers (STCs) vary regarding the rate of living kidney donors refused for psychosocial reasons, the psychosocial evaluation process, and the characteristics of the donors. Methods: We investigated 310 consecutive candidates for LKD in 4 of 6 existing STC during mandatory psychosocial evaluations. We registered (i) sociodemographic data, (ii) the type of the decision-making process regarding LKD (ie, snap decision, postponed, deliberate, other), (iii) the evaluator's perception of the donor's emotional bonding and his/her conflicts with the recipient, (iv) the donor's prognosis from a psychosocial perspective, (v) time taken for the psychosocial evaluation, and (vi) its result (eligible, eligible with additional requirements, not eligible). Results: Centers had comparable proportions of noneligible donors (2.9%-6.0%) but differed significantly in the percentage of donors accepted with additional requirements (3.4%-66%, P < 0.001). Significant differences emerged between centers regarding the time needed for evaluation (75-160 min [interquartile range (IQR) 75-180 min] per single exploration, P < 0.001), the perception of the donor's emotional bonding (visual analogue scale [VAS] 8-9 [IQR 6-10], P < 0.001), his/her conflicts with the recipient (VAS 1.5-2 [IQR 0-3], P = 0.006), the donor's psychosocial prognosis (VAS 8-9 [IQR 7-10], P < 0.001), and the type of decision concerning LKD (59%-82% with snap decision "yes," P = 0.008). However, despite differences in the psychosocial evaluation process, the rates of patients accepted for transplantation (eligible and eligible with additional requirements versus noneligible) were comparable across STC (P = 0.72). Conclusions: Our results emphasize that it is more important to establish clear guidelines to identify potential psychosocial risks than to stringently standardize the procedure for psychosocial evaluation of living kidney donors

Effectiveness of telephone-based aftercare case management for adult patients with unipolar depression compared to usual care: A randomized controlled trial

<div><p>Background</p><p>Patients with depression often have limited access to outpatient psychotherapy following inpatient treatment. The objective of the study was to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of a telephone-based aftercare case management (ACM) intervention for patients with depression.</p><p>Methods</p><p>We performed a prospective randomized controlled trial in four psychotherapeutic inpatient care units with N = 199 patients with major depression or dysthymia (F32.x, F33.x, F34.1, according to the ICD-10). The ACM consisted of six phone contacts at two-week intervals performed by trained and certified psychotherapists. The control group received usual care (UC). The primary outcome was depressive symptom severity (BDI-II) at 9-month follow-up, and secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life (SF-8, EQ-5D), self-efficacy (SWE), and the proportion of patients initiating outpatient psychotherapy. Mixed model analyses were conducted to compare improvements between treatment groups.</p><p>Results</p><p>Regarding the primary outcome of symptom severity, the groups did not significantly differ after 3 months (<i>p</i> = .132; ES = -0.23) or at the 9-month follow-up (<i>p</i> = .284; ES = -0.20). No significant differences in health-related quality of life or self-efficacy were found between groups. Patients receiving ACM were more likely to be in outpatient psychotherapy after 3 months (OR: 3.00[1.12–8.07]; <i>p</i> = .029) and 9 months (OR: 4.78 [1.55–14.74]; <i>p</i> = .006) than those receiving UC.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Although telephone-based ACM did not significantly improve symptom severity, it seems to be a valuable approach for overcoming treatment barriers to the clinical pathways of patients with depression regarding their access to outpatient psychotherapy.</p></div

Results of mixed-model analyses based on the ITT data regarding the primary and secondary outcomes.

<p>Results of mixed-model analyses based on the ITT data regarding the primary and secondary outcomes.</p

Flow of participants through the trial.

<p>Flow of participants through the trial.</p

Results of mixed-model analyses based on completer data regarding the primary and secondary outcomes.

<p>Results of mixed-model analyses based on completer data regarding the primary and secondary outcomes.</p

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of the study participants (n = 199).

<p>Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of the study participants (n = 199).</p

Patients who initiated outpatient psychotherapy at t₂ and t₃ in the ACM and UC groups.

<p>Patients who initiated outpatient psychotherapy at t₂ and t₃ in the ACM and UC groups.</p