Mind your step: the effects of mobile phone use on gaze behavior in stair climbing

Stair walking is a hazardous activity and a common cause of fatal and non-fatal falls. Previous studies have assessed the role of eye movements in stair walking by asking people to repeatedly go up and down stairs in quiet and controlled conditions, while the role of peripheral vision was examined by giving participants specific fixation instructions or working memory tasks. We here extend this research to stair walking in a natural environment with other people present on the stairs and a now common secondary task: Using one's mobile phone. Results show that using the mobile phone strongly draws one's attention away from the stairs, but that the distribution of gaze locations away from the phone is little influenced by using one's phone. Phone use also increased the time needed to walk the stairs, but handrail use remained low. These results indicate that limited foveal vision suffices for adequate stair walking in normal environments, but that mobile phone use has a strong influence on attention, which may pose problems when unexpected obstacles are encountered

EMPOWERED trial: protocol for a randomised control trial of digitally supported, highly personalised and measurement-based care to improve functional outcomes in young people with mood disorders

Objectives Many adolescents and young adults with emerging mood disorders do not achieve substantial improvements in education, employment, or social function after receiving standard youth mental health care. We have developed a new model of care referred to as 'highly personalised and measurement-based care' (HP&MBC). HP&MBC involves repeated assessment of multidimensional domains of morbidity to enable continuous and personalised clinical decision-making. Although measurement-based care is common in medical disease management, it is not a standard practice in mental health. This clinical effectiveness trial tests whether HP&MBC, supported by continuous digital feedback, delivers better functional improvements than standard care and digital support. Method and analysis This controlled implementation trial is a PROBE study (Prospective, Randomised, Open, Blinded End-point) that comprises a multisite 24-month, assessor-blinded, follow-up study of 1500 individuals aged 15-25 years who present for mental health treatment. Eligible participants will be individually randomised (1:1) to 12 months of HP&MBC or standardised clinical care. The primary outcome measure is social and occupational functioning 12 months after trial entry, assessed by the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale. Clinical and social outcomes for all participants will be monitored for a further 12 months after cessation of active care. Ethics and dissemination This clinical trial has been reviewed and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Sydney Local Health District (HREC Approval Number: X22-0042 & 2022/ETH00725, Protocol ID: BMC-YMH-003-2018, protocol version: V.3, 03/08/2022). Research findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, presentations at scientific conferences, and to user and advocacy groups. Participant data will be deidentified. Trial registration number ACTRN12622000882729

Clinical effectiveness of usual care with or without antidepressant medication for primary care patients with minor or mild-major depression: a randomized equivalence trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Minor and mild-major depression are highly prevalent in primary care. There is insufficient evidence for the effectiveness of antidepressants in the treatment of minor and mild-major depression. We compared the effectiveness of usual primary care treatment, with or without antidepressants, in minor and mild-major depression.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A pragmatic patient-randomized equivalence trial with 52 weeks follow-up was conducted in The Netherlands. In total, 59 primary care physicians (PCPs) recruited and treated 181 adult patients with minor or mild-major depression. Patients were randomized to four consultations within 3 months of usual care plus antidepressants (UCandAD) or usual care alone (UCnoAD). The Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) was used to assess changes in severity of depressive symptoms. The predefined equivalence margin was set at five points. Multilevel analysis was used to analyze the data. Secondary outcome measures were the Short-Form 36 (SF-36), and the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Patients received on average 3.0 (SD 1.4) 15-min consultations within 3 months with (n = 85) or without paroxetine (n = 96). Equivalence of UCandAD and UCnoAD was demonstrated in the intention-to-treat analyses as well as the per-protocol analysis after 6 weeks, but not at 13, 26 and 52 weeks follow-up. No statistical differences in effectiveness between treatment groups were found in the intention-to-treat analysis. No differences in the physical and mental functioning (SF-36) were found between the treatment groups. Patients allocated to UCandAD were slightly more satisfied with their treatment at 13 weeks follow-up (but not at 52 weeks follow-up) than patients allocated to UCnoAD. Preliminary analyses suggested that subgroups such as patients with mild-major (instead of a minor) depression might benefit from antidepressant treatment. Patients who were assigned to their preferred treatment (in particular to UCnoAD) were more often compliant and had better clinical outcomes.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>UCandAD was as effective as UCnoAD over the first 6 weeks, but not at 13, 26, and 52 weeks. However, superiority of either treatment could not be demonstrated either. The question whether antidepressants add any clinical effect to usual care remains unresolved. We recommend future studies to look for subgroups of patients who may benefit from antidepressants.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Dutch Trial Registry ISRCN03007807.</p

Motor performance in chronic low back pain: is there an influence of pain-related cognitions? A pilot study

Background: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is often accompanied by an abnormal motor performance. However, it has not been clarified yet whether these deviations also occur during motor tasks not involving the back and whether the performance is influenced by pain and pain-related cognitions. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to get insight in the contribution of both pain experience and pain-related cognitions to general motor task performance in CLBP. Methods. 13 CLBP patients and 15 healthy subjects performed a hand-function task in three conditions: sitting, lying prone (lying) and lying prone without trunk support (provoking). The last condition was assumed to provoke pain-related cognitions, which was considered successful when a patients' pain expectancy on a numeric rating scale was at least 1 point higher than actual pain experienced. Subjects' performance was expressed in reaction time and movement time. Repeated measures analysis of variance was performed to detect main effect for group and condition. Special interest was given to group*condition interaction, since significant interaction would indicate that patients and healthy subjects performed differently throughout the three conditions. Results: Patients were slower throughout all conditions compared to healthy subjects. With respect to the provoking condition, patients showed deteriorated performance compared to lying while healthy subjects' performance remained equal between these two conditions. Further analysis of patients' data showed that provocation was successful in 54% of the patients. Especially this group showed deteriorated performance in the provoking condition. Conclusion: It can be concluded that CLBP patients in general have worse motor task performance compared to healthy subjects and that provoking pain-related cognitions further worsened performanc

Understanding Ferguson's delta: time to say good-bye?

A critique of Hankins, M: 'How discriminating are discriminative instruments?' Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2008, 6:3

Keep an eye on your hands: on the role of visual mechanisms in processing of haptic space

The present paper reviews research on a haptic orientation processing. Central is a task in which a test bar has to be set parallel to a reference bar at another location. Introducing a delay between inspecting the reference bar and setting the test bar leads to a surprising improvement. Moreover, offering visual background information also elevates performance. Interestingly, (congenitally) blind individuals do not or to a weaker extent show the improvement with time, while in parallel to this, they appear to benefit less from spatial imagery processing. Together this strongly points to an important role for visual processing mechanisms in the perception of haptic inputs

Conducting research in individual patients: lessons learnt from two series of N-of-1 trials

BACKGROUND: Double-blind randomised N-of-1 trials (N-of-1 trials) may help with decisions concerning treatment when there is doubt regarding the effectiveness and suitability of medication for individual patients. The patient is his or her own control, and receives the experimental and the control treatment during several periods of time in random order. Reports of N-of-1 trials are still relatively scarce, and the research methodology is not as firmly established as that of RCTs. Recently, we have conducted two series of N-of-1 trials in general practice. Before, during, and after data-collection, difficulties regarding outcome assessment, analysis of the results, the withdrawal of patients, and the follow-up had to be dealt with. These difficulties are described and our solutions are discussed. DISCUSSION: To prevent or anticipate difficulties in N-of-1 trials, we argue that that it is important to individualise the outcome measures, and to carefully consider the objective, type of randomisation and the analysis. It is recommended to use the same dosages and dosage forms that the patient used before the trial, to start the trial with a run-in period, to formulate both general and individualised decision rules regarding the efficacy of treatment, to adjust treatment policies immediately after the trial, and to provide adequate instructions and support if treatment is adjusted. SUMMARY: Because of the specific characteristics of N-of-1 trials it is difficult to formulate general 'how to do it' guidelines for designing N-of-1 trials. However, when the design of each N-of-1 trial is tailored to the specific characteristics of each individual patient and the underlying medical problem, most difficulties in N-of-1 trials can be prevented or overcome. In this way, N-of-1 trials may be of help when deciding on drug treatment for individual patients

Web-based tools can be used reliably to detect patients with major depressive disorder and subsyndromal depressive symptoms

BACKGROUND: Although depression has been regarded as a major public health problem, many individuals with depression still remain undetected or untreated. Despite the potential for Internet-based tools to greatly improve the success rate of screening for depression, their reliability and validity has not been well studied. Therefore the aim of this study was to evaluate the test-retest reliability and criterion validity of a Web-based system, the Internet-based Self-assessment Program for Depression (ISP-D). METHODS: The ISP-D to screen for major depressive disorder (MDD), minor depressive disorder (MinD), and subsyndromal depressive symptoms (SSD) was developed in traditional Chinese. Volunteers, 18 years and older, were recruited via the Internet and then assessed twice on the online ISP-D system to investigate the test-retest reliability of the test. They were subsequently prompted to schedule face-to-face interviews. The interviews were performed by the research psychiatrists using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview and the diagnoses made according to DSM-IV diagnostic criteria were used for the statistics of criterion validity. Kappa (κ) values were calculated to assess test-retest reliability. RESULTS: A total of 579 volunteer subjects were administered the test. Most of the subjects were young (mean age: 26.2 ± 6.6 years), female (77.7%), single (81.6%), and well educated (61.9% college or higher). The distributions of MDD, MinD, SSD and no depression specified were 30.9%, 7.4%, 15.2%, and 46.5%, respectively. The mean time to complete the ISP-D was 8.89 ± 6.77 min. One hundred and eighty-four of the respondents completed the retest (response rate: 31.8%). Our analysis revealed that the 2-week test-retest reliability for ISP-D was excellent (weighted κ = 0.801). Fifty-five participants completed the face-to-face interview for the validity study. The sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values for major depressive disorder were 81.8% and 72.7%, 66.7%, and 85.7% respectively. The overall accuracy was 76.4%. CONCLUSION: The evidence indicates the ISP-D is a reliable and valid online tool for assessing depression. Further studies should test the ISP-D in clinical settings to increase its applications in clinical environments with different populations and in a larger sample size

Most Antidepressant Use in Primary Care Is Justified; Results of the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common illness, often treated in primary care. Many studies have reported undertreatment with antidepressants in primary care. Recently, some studies also reported overtreatment with antidepressants. The present study was designed to assess whether treatment with antidepressants in primary care is in accordance with current guidelines, with a special focus on overtreatment. METHODOLOGY: We used baseline data of primary care respondents from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA) (n = 1610). Seventy-nine patients with treatment in secondary care were excluded. We assessed justification for treatment with antidepressant according to the Dutch primary care guidelines for depression and for anxiety disorders. Use of antidepressants was based on drug-container inspection or, if unavailable, on self-report. Results were recalculated to the original population of primary care patients from which the participants in NESDA were selected (n = 10,677). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Of 1531 included primary care patients, 199 (13%) used an antidepressant, of whom 188 (94.5%) (possibly) justified. After recalculating these numbers to the original population (n = 10,677), we found 908 (95% CI 823 to 994) antidepressant users. Forty-nine (95% CI 20 to 78) of them (5.4%) had no current justification for an antidepressant, but 27 of them (54.5%) had a justified reason for an antidepressant at some earlier point in their life. CONCLUSIONS: We found that overtreatment with antidepressants in primary care is not a frequent problem. Too long continuation of treatment seems to explain the largest proportion of overtreatment as opposed to inappropriate initiation of treatment