Survey context and question wording affects self reported annoyance due to road traffic noise: a comparison between two cross-sectional studies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Surveys are a common way to measure annoyance due to road traffic noise, but the method has some draw-backs. Survey context, question wording and answer alternatives could affect participation and answers and could have implications when comparing studies and/or performing pooled analyses. The aim of this study was to investigate the difference in annoyance reporting due to road traffic noise in two types of surveys of which one was introduced broadly and the other with the clearly stated aim of investigating noise and health.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data was collected from two surveys carried out in the municipality of Malmö, southern Sweden in 2007 and 2008 (n = 2612 and n = 3810). The first survey stated an aim of investigating residential environmental exposure, especially noise and health. The second survey was a broad public health survey stating a broader aim. The two surveys had comparable questions regarding noise annoyance, although one used a 5-point scale and the other a 4-point scale. We used geographic information systems (GIS) to assess the average road and railway noise (L_Aeq,24h) at the participants' residential address. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios for annoyance in relation to noise exposure.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Annoyance at least once a week due to road traffic noise was significantly more prevalent in the survey investigating environment and health compared to the public health survey at levels > 45 dB(A), but not at lower exposure levels. However no differences in annoyance were found when comparing the extreme alternatives "never" and "every day". In the study investigating environment and health, "Noise sensitive" persons were more likely to readily respond to the survey and were more annoyed by road traffic noise compared to the other participants in that survey.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The differences in annoyance reporting between the two surveys were mainly due to different scales, suggesting that extreme alternatives are to prefer before dichotomization when comparing results between the two. Although some findings suggested that noise-sensitive individuals were more likely to respond to the survey investigating noise and health, we could not find convincing evidence that contextual differences affected either answers or participation.</p

Does childhood trauma predict poorer metacognitive abilities in people with first-episode psychosis?

Research suggests that people with first-episode psychosis (FEP) report more childhood traumas and have lower metacognitive abilities than non-clinical controls. Childhood trauma negatively affects metacognitive development in population studies, while the association remains largely unexplored in FEP populations. Metacognition refers to the identification of thoughts and feelings and the formation of complex ideas about oneself and others. This study hypothesized that childhood trauma would be associated with lower metacognitive abilities in people with FEP. In a representative sample of 92 persons with non-affective FEP, we assessed childhood trauma, metacognitive abilities and symptoms of psychosis. We used the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) and the Metacognitive Assessment Scale––Abbreviated which includes Self-reflectivity, Awareness of the Mind of the Other, Decentration and Mastery. Hierarchical regression analyses were performed with metacognitive domains as outcome variables and childhood traumas as independent variables, while controlling for age, gender, first-degree psychiatric illness and negative symptoms. We found few significant associations between the different types of childhood trauma and metacognitive domains, and they suggested childhood trauma are associated with better metacognitive abilities. Study limitations included the cross-sectional design and use of self-report measures. Future studies could preferably be prospective and include different measures of psychopathology and neuropsychology

Metacognition in first-episode psychosis and its association with positive and negative symptom profiles

There is growing evidence that metacognitive abilities which include the ability to synthesize knowledge regarding mental states in self and others and use this ability to solve problems are impaired in non-affective psychosis and associated with positive and negative symptom severity. We sought to (a) investigate the severity of metacognitive impairments in first-episode psychosis (FEP) compared to non-clinical controls and (b) explore associations with positive and negative symptom profiles. Ninety-seven people with FEP were compared to 101 control persons. Metacognition was assessed with interviews and the Metacognitive assessment scale-abbreviated. Four groups based on positive and negative symptoms were identified by cluster analysis and compared on metacognition, childhood adversities, duration of untreated psychosis and premorbid social and academic adjustment. Those with high levels of negative symptoms had poorer metacognitive abilities. Those with high positive and low negative symptoms did not have poorer metacognitive abilities than those with low positive and negative symptoms. None of the other predictors differed between the groups. The FEP group had poorer metacognitive abilities than the control group. Inclusion of metacognition in psychosis models may improve our understanding of negative symptoms, while previous findings of a relation with positive symptoms may have been confounded. Implications for current interventions are discussed