Understanding jumping to conclusions in patients with persecutory delusions: working memory and intolerance of uncertainty

Background. Persecutory delusions are a key psychotic experience. A reasoning style known as ‘jumping to conclusions’ (JTC) – limited information gathering before reaching certainty in decision making – has been identified as a contributory factor in the occurrence of delusions. The cognitive processes that underpin JTC need to be determined in order to develop effective interventions for delusions. In the current study two alternative perspectives were tested: that JTC partially results from impairment in information-processing capabilities and that JTC is a motivated strategy to avoid uncertainty.Method. A group of 123 patients with persistent persecutory delusions completed assessments of JTC (the 60:40 beads task), IQ, working memory, intolerance of uncertainty, and psychiatric symptoms. Patients showing JTC were compared with patients not showing JTC.Results. A total of 30 (24%) patients with delusions showed JTC. There were no differences between patients who did and did not jump to conclusions in overall psychopathology. Patients who jumped to conclusions had poorer working memory performance, lower IQ, lower intolerance of uncertainty and lower levels of worry.Working memory and worry independently predicted the presence of JTC.Conclusions. Hasty decision making in patients with delusions may partly arise from difficulties in keeping information in mind. Interventions for JTC are likely to benefit from addressing working memory performance, while in vivo techniques for patients with delusions will benefit from limiting the demands on working memory. The study provides little evidence for a contribution to JTC from top down motivational beliefs about uncertainty

Effective patient–clinician interaction to improve treatment outcomes for patients with psychosis: a mixed-methods design

BACKGROUND:At least 100,000 patients with schizophrenia receive care from community mental health teams (CMHTs) in England. These patients have regular meetings with clinicians, who assess them, engage them in treatment and co-ordinate care. As these routine meetings are not commonly guided by research evidence, a new intervention, DIALOG, was previously designed to structure consultations. Using a hand-held computer, clinicians asked patients to rate their satisfaction with eight life domains and three treatment aspects, and to indicate whether or not additional help was needed in each area, with responses being graphically displayed and compared with previous ratings. In a European multicentre trial, the intervention improved patients’ quality of life over a 1-year period. The current programme builds on this research by further developing DIALOG in the UK. RESEARCH QUESTIONS:(1) How can the practical procedure of the intervention be improved, including the software used and the design of the user interface? (2) How can elements of resource-oriented interventions be incorporated into a clinician manual and training programme for a new, more extensive ‘DIALOG+’ intervention? (3) How effective and cost-effective is the new DIALOG+ intervention in improving treatment outcomes for patients with schizophrenia or a related disorder? (4) What are the views of patients and clinicians regarding the new DIALOG+ intervention? METHODS:We produced new software on a tablet computer for CMHTs in the NHS, informed by analysis of videos of DIALOG sessions from the original trial and six focus groups with 18 patients with psychosis. We developed the new ‘DIALOG+’ intervention in consultation with experts, incorporating principles of solution-focused therapy when responding to patients’ ratings and specifying the procedure in a manual and training programme for clinicians. We conducted an exploratory cluster randomised controlled trial with 49 clinicians and 179 patients with psychosis in East London NHS Foundation Trust, comparing DIALOG+ with an active control. Clinicians working as care co-ordinators in CMHTs (along with their patients) were cluster randomised 1 : 1 to either DIALOG+ or treatment as usual plus an active control, to prevent contamination. Intervention and control were to be administered monthly for 6 months, with data collected at baseline and at 3, 6 and 12 months following randomisation. The primary outcome was subjective quality of life as measured on the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life; secondary outcomes were also measured. We also established the cost-effectiveness of the DIALOG intervention using data from the Client Service Receipt Inventory, which records patients’ retrospective reports of using health- and social-care services, including hospital services, outpatient services and medication, in the 3 months prior to each time point. Data were supplemented by the clinical notes in patients’ medical records to improve accuracy. We conducted an exploratory thematic analysis of 16 video-recorded DIALOG+ sessions and measured adherence in these videos using a specially developed adherence scale. We conducted focus groups with patients (n = 19) and clinicians (n = 19) about their experiences of the intervention, and conducted thematic analyses. We disseminated the findings and made the application (app), manual and training freely available, as well as producing a protocol for a definitive trial. RESULTS:Patients receiving the new intervention showed more favourable quality of life in the DIALOG+ group after 3 months (effect size: Cohen’s d = 0.34), after 6 months (Cohen’s d = 0.29) and after 12 months (Cohen’s d = 0.34). An analysis of video-recorded DIALOG+ sessions showed inconsistent implementation, with adherence to the intervention being a little over half of the possible score. Patients and clinicians from the DIALOG+ arm of the trial reported many positive experiences with the intervention, including better self-expression and improved efficiency of meetings. Difficulties reported with the intervention were addressed by further refining the DIALOG+ manual and training. Cost-effectiveness analyses found a 72% likelihood that the intervention both improved outcomes and saved costs. LIMITATIONS:The research was conducted solely in urban east London, meaning that the results may not be broadly generalisable to other settings. CONCLUSIONS:(1) Although services might consider adopting DIALOG+ based on the existing evidence, a definitive trial appears warranted; (2) applying DIALOG+ to patient groups with other mental disorders may be considered, and to groups with physical health problems; (3) a more flexible use with variable intervals might help to make the intervention even more acceptable and effective; (4) more process evaluation is required to identify what mechanisms precisely are involved in the improvements seen in the intervention group in the trial; and (5) what appears to make DIALOG+ effective is that it is not a separate treatment and not a technology that is administered by a specialist; rather, it changes and utilises the existing therapeutic relationship between patients and clinicians in CMHTs to initiate positive change, helping the patients to improve their quality of life. FUTURE RESEARCH:Future studies should include a definitive trial on DIALOG+ and test the effectiveness of the intervention with other populations, such as people with depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN34757603. FUNDING:The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme

A logistic regression analysis of risk factors in ME/CFS pathogenesis

Background: Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) is a complex disease, whose exact cause remains unclear. A wide range of risk factors has been proposed that helps understanding potential disease pathogenesis. However, there is little consistency for many risk factor associations, thus we undertook an exploratory study of risk factors using data from the UK ME/CFS Biobank participants. We report on risk factor associations in ME/CFS compared with multiple sclerosis participants and healthy controls. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of 269 people with ME/CFS, including 214 with mild/moderate and 55 with severe symptoms, 74 people with multiple sclerosis (MS), and 134 healthy controls, who were recruited from primary and secondary health services. Data were collected from participants using a standardised written questionnaire. Data analyses consisted of univariate and multivariable regression analysis (by levels of proximity to disease onset). Results: A history of frequent colds (OR = 8.26, P <= 0.001) and infections (OR = 25.5, P = 0.015) before onset were the strongest factors associated with a higher risk of ME/CFS compared to healthy controls. Being single (OR = 4.41, P <= 0.001), having lower income (OR = 3.71, P <= 0.001), and a family history of anxiety is associated with a higher risk of ME/CFS compared to healthy controls only (OR = 3.77, P < 0.001). History of frequent colds (OR = 6.31, P < 0.001) and infections before disease onset (OR = 5.12, P = 0.005), being single (OR = 3.66, P = 0.003) and having lower income (OR = 3.48, P = 0.001), are associated with a higher risk of ME/CFS than MS. Severe ME/CFS cases were associated with lower age of ME/CFS onset (OR = 0.63, P = 0.022) and a family history of neurological illness (OR = 6.1, P = 0.001). Conclusions: Notable differences in risk profiles were found between ME/CFS and healthy controls, ME/CFS and MS, and mild-moderate and severe ME/CFS. However, we found some commensurate overlap in risk associations between all cohorts. The most notable difference between ME/CFS and MS in our study is a history of recent infection prior to disease onset. Even recognising that our results are limited by the choice of factors we selected to investigate, our findings are consistent with the increasing body of evidence that has been published about the potential role of infections in the pathogenesis of ME/CFS, including common colds/flu

Using Debates to Mimic Clinical Discussion in Experiential Education

Critical thinking and application of knowledge to an ambiguous patient care scenario are often difficult skills to cultivate in learners. Use of traditional teaching techniques (e.g. topic discussions and journal clubs) helps to develop these competencies within learners. However, alternative teaching strategies may help develop critical thinking and direct application. Debates have been used in healthcare education for decades with positive results. This paper provides supporting evidence for use of debates in pharmacy education and is designed to serve as a general guide for preceptors interested in implementing debates into the experiential setting. Specifically, the objectives are to: 1) highlight the pedagogical outcomes as reported in the literature, 2) offer practical considerations to implement debates as a teaching tool in experiential education, and 3) encourage future research and scholarship in this area.   Type: Idea Pape

Nonprofit-public collaborations: understanding governance dynamics

As many of the challenges facing society are too complex to be addressed by single organizations working alone, nonprofit organizations are increasingly working in collaboration with public authorities. The governance of nonprofit–public collaborations is important for their effectiveness, yet it remains poorly understood. Drawing on case study research, this article examines and develops an extant conceptual model developed by Takahashi and Smutny that seeks to explain the formation and demise of nonprofit collaborations in terms of “collaborative windows” and the inability to adapt initial governance structures. The research finds that while initial governance structures are an important constraint on development, they can be adapted and changed. It also suggests that the development of collaborations is not only influenced by changes in the collaborative window but also by how key actors in the collaboration respond to important internal tensions

Reforms to Increase Teacher Effectiveness in Developing Countries: Systematic Review, September 2016

RLOsRLOsProvides high-quality evidence on reforms/interventions in education systems aimed at improving teacher effectiveness, at scale. This executive summary provides an overview of that key evidence to answer three review questions: RQ1. What is the evidence on the impacts of reforms/interventions of education systems, at scale, to increase teacher effectiveness on: the quality of teaching and on learning outcomes in low- and middle-income countries? RQ2. What is the evidence on the relationship between educational reforms/interventions for improving teacher effectiveness, at scale, and the quality of teaching and learning outcomes in low- and middle-income countries? RQ3. Where reforms/interventions to education systems to increase teacher effectiveness, at scale, have occurred, what is the evidence on how technical, financial and political barriers have been overcome?ESRC-DFI

Preferences and skills of Indian public sector teachers

With a sample of 700 future public sector primary teachers in India, a Discrete Choice Experiment is used to measure job preferences, particularly regarding location. General skills are also tested. Urban origin teachers and women are more averse to remote locations than rural origin teachers and men respectively. Women would require a 26-73 percent increase in salary for moving to a remote location. The results suggest that existing caste and gender quotas can be detrimental for hiring skilled teachers willing to work in remote locations. The most preferred location is home, which supports decentralised hiring, although this could compromise skills

How Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) progresses. The natural history of ME/CFS

We propose a framework for understanding and interpreting the pathophysiology of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) that considers wider determinants of health and long-term temporal variation in pathophysiological features and disease phenotype throughout the natural history of the disease. As in other chronic diseases, ME/CFS evolves through different stages, from asymptomatic predisposition, progressing to a prodromal stage, and then to symptomatic disease. Disease incidence depends on genetic makeup and environment factors, the exposure to singular or repeated insults, and the nature of the host response. In people who develop ME/CFS, normal homeostatic processes in response to adverse insults may be replaced by aberrant responses leading to dysfunctional states. Thus, the predominantly neuro-immune manifestations, underlined by a hyper-metabolic state, that characterize early disease, may be followed by various processes leading to multi-systemic abnormalities and related symptoms. This abnormal state and the effects of a range of mediators such as products of oxidative and nitrosamine stress, may lead to progressive cell and metabolic dysfunction culminating in a hypometabolic state with low energy production. These processes do not seem to happen uniformly; although a spiraling of progressive inter-related and self-sustaining abnormalities may ensue, reversion to states of milder abnormalities is possible if the host is able to restate responses to improve homeostatic equilibrium. With time variation in disease presentation, no single ME/CFS case description, set of diagnostic criteria, or molecular feature is currently representative of all patients at different disease stages. While acknowledging its limitations due to the incomplete research evidence, we suggest the proposed framework may support future research design and health care interventions for people with ME/CFS

The role of healthcare professionals in encouraging parents to see and hold their stillborn baby: a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.

Background: Globally, during 2013 there were three million recorded stillbirths. Where clinical guidelines exist some recommend that professionals do not encourage parental contact. The guidance is based on quantitative evidence that seeing and holding the baby is not beneficial for everyone, but has been challenged by bereaved parents' organisations. We aim to inform future guideline development through a synthesis of qualitative studies reporting data relevant to the research question; how does the approach of healthcare professionals to seeing and holding the baby following stillbirth impact parents views and experiences? Methods/Findings: Using a predetermined search strategy of PubMed and PsychINFO we identified robust qualitative studies reporting bereaved parental views and/or experiences relating to seeing and holding their stillborn baby (final search 24 February, 2014). Eligible studies were English language, reporting parental views, with gestational loss >20weeks. Quality was independently assessed by three authors using a validated tool. We used meta-ethnographic techniques to identify key themes and a line of argument synthesis. We included 12 papers, representing the views of 333 parents (156 mothers, 150 fathers, and 27 couples) from six countries. The final themes were: "[Still]birth: Nature of care is paramount", "Real babies: Perfect beauties, monsters and spectres", and "Opportunity of a lifetime lost." Our line-of-argument synthesis highlights the contrast between all parents need to know their baby, with the time around birth being the only time memories can be made, and the variable ability that parents have to articulate their preferences at that time. Thus, we hypothesised that how health professionals approach contact between parents and their stillborn baby demands a degree of active management. An important limitation of this paper is all included studies originated from high income, westernised countries raising questions about the findings transferability to other cultural contexts. We do not offer new evidence to answer the question "Should parents see and hold their stillborn baby?", instead our findings advance understanding of how professionals can support parents to make appropriate decisions in a novel, highly charged and dynamic situation. Conclusions: Guidelines could be more specific in their recommendations regarding parental contact. The role of healthcare professionals in encouraging parents to see and hold their stillborn baby is paramount. Parental choice not to see their baby, apprehension, or uncertainty should be continuously revisited in the hours after birth as the opportunity for contact is fleeting and final