Ethnic Inequalities in Psychological Distress : A Population Data Linkage Study on the Pacific Island of Guåhån/Guam

Psychological distress and mental illness has been found to be elevated in migrant groups living in sovereign countries, as well as for indigenous people living under colonial or administrative rule. The north Pacific island of Guam is unusual in its ethnic composition as it has no majority ethnic group, has a large indigenous population and remains a territory of the U.S. This study aimed to identify ethnic differences in self-reported psychological distress between the main ethnic groups on Guam. The study uses a cross sectional design with data linkage methodology, drawing on the Guam Census and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System health survey for Guam. The results showed that the native Chamorro population had worse self-reported psychological distress (defined as a ‘mental health condition or emotional problem’) than White/Caucasians (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.52–2.87), particularly for severe distress (OR 3.61, 95% CI 1.33–2.77). This relationship persisted even after adjusting for a wide range of socio-demographic and economic factors (OR 2.58, 95% CI 1.15–5.76). Other Pacific Islanders also had higher psychological distress compared to White/Caucasians, but this association was largely explained by the adjusted factors. The findings are discussed in terms of social and economic disadvantage for Pacific Island peoples on Guam, as well as the impact of colonial administration, disaffection, and lack of autonomy for the Chamorro of Guam. Recommendations are made to improve psychiatric treatment for these groups by considering wider socio-political factors in assessment and treatment, as well as broader implications for the national dialogue on self-determination.Peer reviewe

Enhancing assertive community treatment with cognitive behavioral social skills training for schizophrenia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia leads to profound disability in everyday functioning (e.g., difficulty finding and maintaining employment, housing, and personal relationships). Medications can effectively reduce positive symptoms (e.g., hallucinations and delusions), but they do not meaningfully improve daily life functioning. Psychosocial evidence-based practices (EBPs) improve functioning, but these EBPs are not available to most people with schizophrenia. The field must close the research and service delivery gap by adapting EBPs for schizophrenia to facilitate widespread implementation in community settings. Our hybrid effectiveness and implementation study represents an initiative to bridge this divide. In this study we will test whether an existing EBP (i.e., Cognitive Behavioral Social Skills Training (CBSST)) modified to work in practice settings (i.e., Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) teams) commonly available to persons with schizophrenia results in better consumer outcomes. We will also identify key factors relevant to developing future CBSST implementation strategies. METHODS/DESIGN: For the effectiveness study component, persons with schizophrenia will be recruited from existing publicly funded ACT teams operating in community settings. Participants will be randomized to one of the 2 treatments (ACT alone or ACT + Adapted CBSST) and followed longitudinally for 18 months with assessments every 18 weeks after baseline (5 in total). The primary outcome domain is psychosocial functioning (e.g., everyday living skills and activities related to employment, education, and housing) as measured by self-report, testing, and observation. Additional outcome domains of interest include mediators of change in functioning, symptoms, and quality of services. Primary analyses will be conducted using linear mixed-effects models for continuous data. The implementation study component consists of a structured, mixed qualitative-quantitative methodology (i.e., Concept Mapping) to characterize and assess the implementation experience from multiple stakeholder perspectives in order to inform future implementation initiatives. DISCUSSION: Adapting CBSST to fit into the ACT service delivery context found throughout the United States creates an opportunity to substantially increase the number of persons with schizophrenia who could have access to and benefit from EBPs. As part of the implementation learning process training materials and treatment workbooks have been revised to promote easier use of CBSST in the context of brief community-based ACT visits. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02254733. Date of registration: 25 April 2014

The role of open abdomen in non-trauma patient : WSES Consensus Paper

The open abdomen (OA) is defined as intentional decision to leave the fascial edges of the abdomen un-approximated after laparotomy (laparostomy). The abdominal contents are potentially exposed and therefore must be protected with a temporary coverage, which is referred to as temporal abdominal closure (TAC). OA use remains widely debated with many specific details deserving detailed assessment and clarification. To date, in patients with intra-abdominal emergencies, the OA has not been formally endorsed for routine utilization; although, utilization is seemingly increasing. Therefore, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), Abdominal Compartment Society (WSACS) and the Donegal Research Academy united a worldwide group of experts in an international consensus conference to review and thereafter propose the basis for evidence-directed utilization of OA management in non-trauma emergency surgery and critically ill patients. In addition to utilization recommendations, questions with insufficient evidence urgently requiring future study were identified.Peer reviewe

Five insights from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 provides a rules-based synthesis of the available evidence on levels and trends in health outcomes, a diverse set of risk factors, and health system responses. GBD 2019 covered 204 countries and territories, as well as first administrative level disaggregations for 22 countries, from 1990 to 2019. Because GBD is highly standardised and comprehensive, spanning both fatal and non-fatal outcomes, and uses a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of hierarchical disease and injury causes, the study provides a powerful basis for detailed and broad insights on global health trends and emerging challenges. GBD 2019 incorporates data from 281 586 sources and provides more than 3.5 billion estimates of health outcome and health system measures of interest for global, national, and subnational policy dialogue. All GBD estimates are publicly available and adhere to the Guidelines on Accurate and Transparent Health Estimate Reporting. From this vast amount of information, five key insights that are important for health, social, and economic development strategies have been distilled. These insights are subject to the many limitations outlined in each of the component GBD capstone papers.Peer reviewe