Teachers "Finding Peace in a Frantic World": An Experimental Study of Self-Taught and Instructor-Led Mindfulness Program Formats on Acceptability, Effectiveness, and Mechanisms.

Mindfulness training (MT) is considered appropriate for school teachers and enhances well-being. Most research has investigated the efficacy of instructor-led MT. However, little is known about the benefits of using self-taught formats, nor what the key mechanisms of change are that contribute to enhanced teacher well-being. This study compared instructor-led and self-taught MT based on a book (Williams & Penman, 2011) in a sample of secondary school teachers. We assessed expectancy, the degree to which participants believed the intervention was effective, their program engagement, well-being and psychological distress, and evaluated whether mindfulness and self-compassion skills acted as mediators of outcomes. In total, 206 teachers from 43 schools were randomized by school to an instructor-led or self-taught course-77% female, mean age 39 years (SD = 9.0). Both MT formats showed similar rates of participant expectancy and engagement, but the instructor-led arm was perceived as more credible. Using linear mixed-effects models, we found the self-taught arm showed significant pre-post improvements in self-compassion and well-being, while the instructor-led arm showed such improvements in mindfulness, self-compassion, well-being, perceived stress, anxiety, depression, and burnout. Changes over time significantly differed between the groups in all these outcomes, favoring the instructor-led arm. The instructor-led arm, compared with the self-taught, indirectly improved teacher outcomes by enhancing mindfulness and self-compassion as mediating factors. Mindfulness practice frequency had indirect effects on teacher outcomes through mindfulness in both self-taught and instructor-led arms. Our results suggest both formats are considered reasonable, but the instructor-led is more effective than the self-taught. Trial registration: ISRCTN18013311

Update to the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a mindfulness training programme in schools compared with normal school provision (MYRIAD): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: MYRIAD (My Resilience in Adolescence) is a superiority, parallel group, cluster randomised controlled trial designed to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a mindfulness training (MT) programme, compared with normal social and emotional learning (SEL) school provision to enhance mental health, social-emotional-behavioural functioning and well-being in adolescence. The original trial protocol was published in Trials (accessible at https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1917-4 ). This included recruitment in two cohorts, enabling the learning from the smaller first cohort to be incorporated in the second cohort. Here we describe final amendments to the study protocol and discuss their underlying rationale. METHODS: Four major changes were introduced into the study protocol: (1) there were changes in eligibility criteria, including a clearer operational definition to assess the degree of SEL implementation in schools, and also new criteria to avoid experimental contamination; (2) the number of schools and pupils that had to be recruited was increased based on what we learned in the first cohort; (3) some changes were made to the secondary outcome measures to improve their validity and ability to measure constructs of interest and to reduce the burden on school staff; and (4) the current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19) pandemic both influences and makes it difficult to interpret the 2-year follow-up primary endpoint results, so we changed our primary endpoint to 1-year follow-up. DISCUSSION: These changes to the study protocol were approved by the Trial Management Group, Trial Steering Committee and Data and Ethics Monitoring Committees and improved the enrolment of participants and quality of measures. Furthermore, the change in the primary endpoint will give a more reliable answer to our primary question because it was collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic in both cohort 1 and cohort 2. Nevertheless, the longer 2-year follow-up data will still be acquired, although this time-point will be now framed as a second major investigation to answer some new important questions presented by the combination of the pandemic and our study design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials ISRCTN86619085 . Registered on 3 June 2016

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a mindfulness training programme in schools compared with normal school provision (MYRIAD): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Mindfulness-based approaches for adults are effective at enhancing mental health, but few controlled trials have evaluated their effectiveness or cost-effectiveness for young people. The primary aim of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a mindfulness training (MT) programme to enhance mental health, wellbeing and social-emotional behavioural functioning in adolescence. METHODS/DESIGN: To address this aim, the design will be a superiority, cluster randomised controlled, parallel-group trial in which schools offering social and emotional provision in line with good practice (Formby et al., Personal, Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) Education: A mapping study of the prevalent models of delivery and their effectiveness, 2010; OFSTED, Not Yet Good Enough: Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education in schools, 2013) will be randomised to either continue this provision (control) or include MT in this provision (intervention). The study will recruit and randomise 76 schools (clusters) and 5700 school students aged 12 to 14 years, followed up for 2 years. DISCUSSION: The study will contribute to establishing if MT is an effective and cost-effective approach to promoting mental health in adolescence. TRIALS REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, identifier: ISRCTN86619085 . Registered on 3 June 2016

Selecting a BRCA risk assessment model for use in a familial cancer clinic

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Risk models are used to calculate the likelihood of carrying a <it>BRCA1 </it>or <it>BRCA2 </it>mutation. We evaluated the performances of currently-used risk models among patients from a large familial program using the criteria of high sensitivity, simple data collection and entry and <it>BRCA </it>score reporting.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Risk calculations were performed by applying the BRCAPRO, Manchester, Penn II, Myriad II, FHAT, IBIS and BOADICEA models to 200 non-<it>BRCA </it>carriers and 100 <it>BRCA </it>carriers, consecutively tested between August 1995 and March 2006. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were determined and sensitivity and specificity were calculated at the conventional testing thresholds. In addition, subset analyses were performed for low and high risk probands.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The BRCAPRO, Penn II, Myriad II, FHAT and BOADICEA models all have similar AUCs of approximately 0.75 for <it>BRCA </it>status. The Manchester and IBIS models have lower AUCs (0. and 0.47 respectively). At the conventional testing thresholds, the sensitivities and specificities for a <it>BRCA </it>mutation were, respectively, as follows: BRCAPRO (0.75, 0.62), Manchester (0.58,0.71), Penn II (0.93,0.31), Myriad II (0.71,0.63), FHAT (0.70,0.63), IBIS (0.20,0.74), BOADICEA (0.70, 0.65).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The Penn II model most closely met the criteria we established and this supports the use of this model for identifying individuals appropriate for genetic testing at our facility. These data are applicable to other familial clinics provided that variations in sample populations are taken into consideration.</p

USPTO Office Action, and Myriad Genetics' Subsequent Response

The USPTO requested that Myriad restrict its application to one invention, and suggested ways to group claims in distinct inventions; Myriad responded with alternate combinations of claims into fewer new distinct inventions

Risk Factors Control and Early Recurrent Cerebral Infarction in Patients with Symptomatic Intracranial Atherosclerotic Disease

•Only one-fifth on patients with symptomatic intracranial atherosclerosis (IAD) had optimal stroke risk factors control during early follow-up.•Uncontrolled systolic blood pressure and physical inactivity were frequent during early follow-up in patients with symptomatic IAD.•None of the participants with optimal risk factors control had early recurrent cerebral infarction, thus suggesting that lifestyle modifications and pharmacotherapy are important in reducing risk of recurrent ischemia in patients with symptomatic IAD. The risk of early recurrent cerebral infarction (RCI) is high in patients with symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic disease (IAD). We sought to determine the relationship between risk factor control and early RCI risk among patients with symptomatic IAD. We analyzed participants with symptomatic IAD in the multi-center prospective observational MYRIAD study. Risk factor control was assessed at 6-8-week follow-up. Optimal risk factor control was defined by target systolic blood pressure, being non-smoker, target physical activity, and antiplatelet and antilipidemic therapy compliance. Age-adjusted associations were calculated between risk factor control and RCI determined by MRI-evident new infarcts in the territory of the stenotic vessel at 6-8 weeks from the index event. Among 82 participants with clinical and brain MRI information available 6-8 weeks after the index event (mean age 63.5 ±12.5 years, 62.2% men), RCI occurred in 21 (25.6%) cases. At 6-8-week follow-up, 37.8% had target systolic blood pressure, 92.7% were non-smokers, 51.2% had target physical activity, and 98.8% and 86.6% were compliant with antiplatelet and antilipidemic therapy, respectively. Optimal risk factor control increased from 4.9% at baseline to 19.5% at 6-8-week follow-up (p=0.01). None of the participants with optimal risk factor control at follow-up had RCI (0% vs. 31.8%, p<0.01). Only one-fifth of MYRIAD participants had optimal risk factor control during early follow-up. Approximately half and two-thirds had physical inactivity and uncontrolled systolic blood pressure, respectively. These risk factors may represent important therapeutic targets to prevent early RCI in patients with symptomatic IAD