A mindfulness-based intervention to increase resilience to stress in university students (the Mindful Student Study): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

Background More young people are going to university, but there is concern about an increasing demand for student mental health services. We designed a pragmatic randomised controlled trial to test the hypothesis that providing mindfulness courses to university students would promote their resilience to stress. Methods University of Cambridge students without severe mental illness or crisis (self-assessed) were remotely randomised to join an 8-week mindfulness course adapted for university students (MSS), or to mental health support as usual (SAU). The primary outcome was self-reported psychological distress during the examination period measured using the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure. Main outcome intention-to-treat analysis was masked to allocation. Trial registration: ACTRN12615001160527 (complete). Findings In total, 616 students were randomised (circa 3% of all students; 309 to MSS, 307 to SAU); 74% completed the primary outcome measure; 65% of the MSS arm participants completed at least half of the MSS course. MSS reduced distress scores during the exam period compared with SAU (β=-0.44, 95%CI -0.60 to -0.29; p < 0.0001); 57% of SAU participants had distress scores above an accepted clinical threshold level compared with 37% of MSS participants. On average, six students needed to be offered the MSS course to prevent one from experiencing clinical levels of distress (number needed to treat 6, 95%CI 4 to 10). SAU distress worsened over the year whereas MSS scores improved after the course and were maintained during exams. Active monitoring revealed no adverse reactions related to self-harm, suicidality or harm to others. Interpretation The main limitation of this trial is the lack of control for non-specific effects. However, the provision of mindfulness training appears an effective component of a wider student mental health strategy. Funding University of Cambridge and NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East of England.University of Cambridge and National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East of England

Protocol for the Mindful Student Study: a randomised controlled trial of the provision of a mindfulness intervention to support university students' well-being and resilience to stress.

INTRODUCTION: Levels of stress in UK university students are high, with an increase in the proportion of students seeking help in recent years. Academic pressure is reported as a major trigger. Mindfulness training has been shown to reduce stress and is popular among students, but its effectiveness in this context needs to be ascertained. In this pragmatic randomised controlled trial, we hypothesise that the provision of a preventative mindfulness intervention in universities could reduce students' psychological distress during the examination period (primary outcome), improve their resilience to stress up to at least 1 year later, reduce their use of mental health support services and improve academic performance. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: At least 550 University of Cambridge students free from active crises or severe mental illness will be randomised to joining an 8-week mindfulness course or to mental health provision as usual (one-to-one allocation rate). Psychological distress will be measured using the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure at baseline, postintervention, examination term and 1-year follow-up. Other outcomes are use of mental health services, inability to sit examinations or special circumstance requests, examination grades, well-being, altruism and coping measured with ecological momentary assessment. Outcome assessment and intention-to-treat primary analysis using linear mixed models adjusted for baseline scores will be blind to intervention allocation. We will also conduct per-protocol, subgroup and secondary outcome analyses. An Independent Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee will be set up. We will systematically monitor for, and react to, possible adverse events. An advisory reference group will comprise student representatives, members of the University Counselling Service and other student welfare staff. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval has been obtained from Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee (PRE.2015.060). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals. A lay summary will be disseminated to a wider audience including other universities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12615001160527; pre-results.University of Cambridge Vice-Chancellor’s Endowment Fund, University Counselling Service, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) East of England, at Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation TrustThis is the final version of the article. It first appeared from BMJ Publishing Group via https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-01230

changeRangeR: An R package for reproducible biodiversity change metrics from species distribution estimates

Conservation planning and decision-making rely on evaluations of biodiversity status and threats that are based upon species' distribution estimates. However, gaps exist regarding automated tools to delineate species' current ranges from distribution estimates and use those estimates to calculate both species- and community-level biodiversity metrics. Here, we introduce changeRangeR, an R package that facilitates workflows to reproducibly transform estimates of species' distributions into metrics relevant for conservation. For example, by combining predictions from species distribution models (SDMs) with other maps of environmental data (e.g., suitable forest cover), researchers can characterize the proportion of a species' range that is under protection, metrics used under the IUCN Criteria A and B guidelines (Area of Occupancy and Extent of Occurrence), and other more general metrics such as taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity and endemism. Further, changeRangeR facilitates temporal comparisons among biodiversity metrics to inform efforts toward complementarity and consideration of future scenarios in conservation decisions. changeRangeR also provides tools to determine the effects of modeling decisions through sensitivity tests. Transparent and repeatable workflows for calculating biodiversity change metrics from SDMs such as those provided by changeRangeR are essential to inform conservation decision-making efforts and represent key extensions for SDM methodology and associated metadata documentation.journal articl

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Trials to Ascertain Fatal Gastrointestinal Bleeding Events Attributable to Preventive Low-Dose Aspirin: No Evidence of Increased Risk.

BACKGROUND: Aspirin has been shown to lower the incidence and the mortality of vascular disease and cancer but its wider adoption appears to be seriously impeded by concerns about gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Unlike heart attacks, stroke and cancer, GI bleeding is an acute event, usually followed by complete recovery. We propose therefore that a more appropriate evaluation of the risk-benefit balance would be based on fatal adverse events, rather than on the incidence of bleeding. We therefore present a literature search and meta-analysis to ascertain fatal events attributable to low-dose aspirin. METHODS: In a systematic literature review we identified reports of randomised controlled trials of aspirin in which both total GI bleeding events and bleeds that led to death had been reported. Principal investigators of studies in which fatal events had not been adequately described were contacted via email and asked for further details. A meta-analyses was then performed to estimate the risk of fatal gastrointestinal bleeding attributable to low-dose aspirin. RESULTS: Eleven randomised trials were identified in the literature search. In these the relative risk (RR) of 'major' incident GI bleeding in subjects who had been randomised to low-dose aspirin was 1.55 (95% CI 1.33, 1.83), and the risk of a bleed attributable to aspirin being fatal was 0.45 (95% CI 0.25, 0.80). In all the subjects randomised to aspirin, compared with those randomised not to receive aspirin, there was no significant increase in the risk of a fatal bleed (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.41, 1.43). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the adverse events caused by aspirin are GI bleeds, and there appears to be no valid evidence that the overall frequency of fatal GI bleeds is increased by aspirin. The substantive risk for prophylactic aspirin is therefore cerebral haemorrhage which can be fatal or severely disabling, with an estimated risk of one death and one disabling stroke for every 1,000 people taking aspirin for ten years. These adverse effects of aspirin should be weighed against the reductions in vascular disease and cancer

The open abdomen in trauma and non-trauma patients : WSES guidelines

Damage control resuscitation may lead to postoperative intra-abdominal hypertension or abdominal compartment syndrome. These conditions may result in a vicious, self-perpetuating cycle leading to severe physiologic derangements and multiorgan failure unless interrupted by abdominal (surgical or other) decompression. Further, in some clinical situations, the abdomen cannot be closed due to the visceral edema, the inability to control the compelling source of infection or the necessity to re-explore (as a "planned second-look" laparotomy) or complete previously initiated damage control procedures or in cases of abdominal wall disruption. The open abdomen in trauma and non-trauma patients has been proposed to be effective in preventing or treating deranged physiology in patients with severe injuries or critical illness when no other perceived options exist. Its use, however, remains controversial as it is resource consuming and represents a non-anatomic situation with the potential for severe adverse effects. Its use, therefore, should only be considered in patients who would most benefit from it. Abdominal fascia-to-fascia closure should be done as soon as the patient can physiologically tolerate it. All precautions to minimize complications should be implemented.Peer reviewe