Report on Comprehensive City Plan for Sarasota, Florida

Sarasota, Florida Report on comprehensive city plan for Sarasota, Florida. John Nolen, City Planner. Philip W. Foster, Associate. Cambridge, Mass. : John Nolen, 1925

The role of rumination, attentional biases and stress in psychological distress

This experimental study examines the relationship between rumination and attentional bias. Additionally, the study aims to determine, within a diathesis-stress framework, whether rumination or attentional bias (or both) can prospectively predict psychological distress. Eighty-one participants completed selected measures of rumination and psychological distress at time one, in addition to experimental manipulations of rumination and mood and measures of mood and attentional bias at time two. Seventy-three participants (90% follow-up) completed final measures of stress and psychological distress approximately three weeks later. In combination with negative mood, inducing rumination decreased positive attentional bias, whilst inducing distraction increased positive attentional bias. Rumination and stress interacted to predict change in psychological distress. Negative attentional bias showed a trend towards interacting with rumination and stress to predict dysphoria. The findings supported the proposed diathesis-stress models. In addition, a causal relationship between rumination and positive attentional bias has been empirically established for the first time

Self-Pity: Exploring the Links to Personality, Control Beliefs, and Anger

Self-pity is a frequent response to stressful events. So far, however, empirical research has paid only scant attention to this subject. The present article aims at exploring personality characteristics associated with individual differences in feeling sorry for oneself. Two studies with N = 141 and N = 161 university students were conducted, employing multidimensional measures of personality, control beliefs, anger, loneliness, and adult attachment. With respect to personality, results showed strong associations of self-pity with neuroticism, particularly with the depression facet. With respect to control beliefs, individuals high in self-pity showed generalized externality beliefs, seeing themselves as controlled by both chance and powerful others. With respect to anger expression, self-pity was primarily related to anger-in. Strong connections with anger rumination were also found. Furthermore, individuals high in self-pity reported emotional loneliness and ambivalent-worrisome attachments. Finally, in both studies, a strong correlation with gender was found, with women reporting more self-pity reactions to stress than men. Findings are discussed with respect to how they support, extend, and qualify the previous literature on self-pity, and directions for future empirical research are pointed out

Pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression

Background Evidence is limited regarding the most effective pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression: monotherapy with an antidepressant, monotherapy with an antipsychotic, another treatment (e.g. mifepristone), or combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic. This is an update of a review first published in 2005 and last updated in 2015. Objectives 1. To compare the clinical efficacy of pharmacological treatments for patients with an acute psychotic depression: antidepressant monotherapy, antipsychotic monotherapy, mifepristone monotherapy, and the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic versus placebo and/or each other. 2. To assess whether differences in response to treatment in the current episode are related to non-response to prior treatment. Search methods A search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR); Ovid MEDLINE (1950-); Embase (1974-); and PsycINFO (1960-) was conducted on 21 February 2020. Reference lists of all included studies and related reviews were screened and key study authors contacted. Selection criteria All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included participants with acute major depression with psychotic features, as well as RCTs consisting of participants with acute major depression with or without psychotic features, that reported separately on the subgroup of participants with psychotic features. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies, according to criteria from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data were entered into RevMan 5.1. We used intention-to-treat data. Primary outcomes were clinical response for efficacy and overall dropout rate for harm/tolerance. Secondary outcome were remission of depression, change from baseline severity score, quality of life, and dropout rate due to adverse effects. For dichotomous efficacy outcomes (i.e. response and overall dropout), risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Regarding the primary outcome of harm, only overall dropout rates were available for all studies. If the study did not report any of the response criteria as defined above, remission as defined here could be used as an alternative. For continuously distributed outcomes, it was not possible to extract data from the RCTs. Main results The search identified 3947 abstracts, but only 12 RCTs with a total of 929 participants could be included in the review. Because of clinical heterogeneity, few meta-analyses were possible. The main outcome was reduction in severity (response) of depression, not of psychosis. For depression response, we found no evidence of a difference between antidepressant and placebo (RR 8.40, 95% CI 0.50 to 142.27; participants = 27, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) or between antipsychotic and placebo (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.73; participants = 201, studies = 2; very low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, we found no evidence of a difference in overall dropouts with antidepressant (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.51; participants = 27, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) or antipsychotic monotherapy (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.08; participants = 201, studies = 2; very low-certainty evidence). No evidence suggests a difference in depression response (RR 2.09, 95% CI 0.64 to 6.82; participants = 36, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) or overall dropouts (RR 1.79, 95% CI 0.18 to 18.02; participants = 36, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) between antidepressant and antipsychotic. For depression response, low- to very low-certainty evidence suggests that the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic may be more effective than antipsychotic monotherapy (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.38; participants = 447, studies = 4), more effective than antidepressant monotherapy (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.80; participants = 245, studies = 5), and more effective than placebo (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.82; participants = 148, studies = 2). Very low-certainty evidence suggests no difference in overall dropouts between the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic versus antipsychotic monotherapy (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.01; participants = 447, studies = 4), antidepressant monotherapy (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.50; participants = 245, studies = 5), or placebo alone (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.18; participants = 148, studies = 2). No study measured change in depression severity from baseline, quality of life, or dropouts due to adverse events. We found no RCTs with mifepristone that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Risk of bias is considerable: we noted differences between studies with regards to diagnosis, uncertainties around randomisation and allocation concealment, treatment interventions (pharmacological differences between various antidepressants and antipsychotics), and outcome criteria. Authors' conclusions Psychotic depression is heavily under-studied, limiting confidence in the conclusions drawn. Some evidence indicates that combination therapy with an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic is more effective than either treatment alone or placebo. Evidence is limited for treatment with an antidepressant alone or with an antipsychotic alone. Evidence for efficacy of mifepristone is lacking

An International Society and Journal for Equity in Health: 10 years on

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Commentary June 2010 marked the 10th Anniversary of the foundation meeting of the International Society for Equity in Health (ISEqH). The formation of the Society was a bold statement, with ambitions to be a global body "to promote equity in health and health services internationally through education, research, publication, communication and charitable support"[1]. The Society particularly aimed to be an organisation that facilitated research on how better to understand and address inequities in health. The main activities of the Society have been a series of biannual conferences as well as the establishment of the International Journal for Equity in Health, the official (but independent) publication of the Society. This paper sets out to record some of the milestones of the Society drawing on the reflections of key researchers who attended the conferences as well as others. The history of the Society will help shape its future and how it responds to important issues facing all interested in global efforts to address continuing and unacceptable inequities in health

Pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression

Background Evidence is limited regarding the most effective pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression: combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic, monotherapy with an antidepressant or monotherapy with an antipsychotic. This is an update of a review first published in 2005 and last updated in 2009. Objectives 1. To compare the clinical efficacy of pharmacological treatments for patients with an acute psychotic depression: antidepressant monotherapy, antipsychotic monotherapy and the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic, compared with each other and/or with placebo. 2. To assess whether differences in response to treatment in the current episode are related to non-response to prior treatment. Search methods A search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group Register (CCDANCTR) was carried out (to 12 April 2013). These registers include reports of randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: EMBASE (1970-), MEDLINE (1950-) and PsycINFO(1960-). Reference lists of all studies and related reviews were screened and key authors contacted. Selection criteria All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included participants with acute major depression with psychotic features, as well as RCTs consisting of participants with acute major depression with or without psychotic features, that reported separately on the subgroup of participants with psychotic features. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies, according to the criteria of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data were entered into RevMan 5.1. We used intention-to-treat data. For dichotomous efficacy outcomes, the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. For continuously distributed outcomes, it was not possible to extract data from the RCTs. Regarding the primary outcome of harm, only overall dropout rates were available for all studies. Main results The search identified 3659 abstracts, but only 12 RCTs with a total of 929 participants could be included in the review. Because of clinical heterogeneity, few meta-analyses were possible. The main outcome was reduction of severity (response) of depression, not of psychosis. We found no evidence for the efficacy of monotherapy with an antidepressant or an antipsychotic. However, evidence suggests that the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic is more effective than antidepressant monotherapy (three RCTs; RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.98, P = 0.006), more effective than antipsychotic monotherapy (four RCTs; RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.38, P = 0.00001) and more effective than placebo (two identical RCTs; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.82, P = 0.003). Risk of bias is considerable: there were differences between studies with regard to diagnosis, uncertainties around randomisation and allocation concealment, differences in treatment interventions (pharmacological differences between the various antidepressants and antipsychotics) and different outcome criteria. Authors' conclusions Psychotic depression is heavily understudied, limiting confidence in the conclusions drawn. Some evidence indicates that combination therapy with an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic is more effective than either treatment alone or placebo. Evidence is limited for treatment with an antidepressant alone or with an antipsychotic alone