Victimization of patients with severe psychiatric disorders: prevalence, risk factors, protective factors and consequences for mental health. A longitudinal study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Victimization among people with a Severe Mental Illness is a common phenomenon. The objectives of this study proposal are: to delineate the extent and kind of victimization in a representative sample of chronic psychiatric patients; to contribute to the development and validation of a set of instruments registering victimization of psychiatric patients; to determine risk factors and protective factors; and to gain insight into the possible consequences of victimization.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>An extensive data set of 323 patients with Sever Mental Illness (assessed 4 years ago) is used. In 2010 a second measurement will be performed, enabling longitudinal research on the predictors and consequences of victimization.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The consequences of (re)victimization have barely been subjected to analysis, partially due to the lack of a comprehensive, conceptual model for victimization. This research project will contribute significantly to the scientific development of the conceptual model of victimization in chronic psychiatric patients.</p

Shortened time interval between colorectal cancer diagnosis and risk testing for hereditary colorectal cancer is not related to higher psychological distress

Current diagnostic practices have shortened the interval between colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis and genetic analysis for Lynch syndrome by MSI-testing. We studied the relation of time between MSI-testing since CRC diagnosis (MSI–CRC interval) and psychological distress. We performed a cross-sectional study in 89 patients who had previously been treated for CRC. Data were collected during MSI-testing after genetic counseling. Psychological distress was measured with the IES, the SCL-90 and the POMS; social issues with the ISS, ISB and the ODHCF. The median time of MSI–CRC interval was 24 months (range 0–332), with 23% of the patients diagnosed less than 12 months and 42% more than 36 months prior to MSI-testing. In 34% of the patients cancer specific distress was high (IES scores >26). Mean psychopathology (SCL-90) scores were low, mean mood states (POMS) scores were moderate. Interval MSI–CRC was not related to psychological distress. High cancer specific distress was reported by 24% of patients diagnosed with CRC less than 12 months ago versus 39 and 35% by those diagnosed between 12 and 36 months and more than 36 months ago respectively. Distress was positively related to female gender (P = 0.04), religiousness (P = 0.01), low social support (P = 0.02) and difficulties with family communication (P < 0.001). Shortened time interval between CRC diagnosis and MSI-testing is not associated with higher psychological distress. Females, religious persons, those having low social support and those reporting difficulties communicating hereditary colorectal cancer with relatives are at higher risk for psychological distress

Psychological distress in newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients following microsatellite instability testing for Lynch syndrome on the pathologist’s initiative

According to the Dutch Guideline on Hereditary Colorectal Cancer published in 2008, patients with recently diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) should undergo microsatellite instability (MSI) testing by a pathologist immediately after tumour resection if they are younger than 50 years, or if a second CRC has been diagnosed before the age of 70 years, owing to the high risk of Lynch syndrome (MIPA). The aim of the present MIPAPS study was to investigate general distress and cancer-specific distress following MSI testing. From March 2007 to September 2009, 400 patients who had been tested for MSI after newly diagnosed CRC were recruited from 30 Dutch hospitals. Levels of general distress (SCL-90) and cancer-specific distress (IES) were assessed immediately after MSI result disclosure (T1) and 6 months later (T2). Response rates were 23/77 (30%) in the MSI-positive patients and 58/323 (18%) in the MSI-negative patients. Levels of general distress and cancer-specific distress were moderate. In the MSI-positive group, 27% of the patients had high general distress at T1 versus 18% at T2 (p = 0.5), whereas in the MSI-negative group, these percentage were 14 and 18% (p = 0.6), respectively. At T1 and T2, cancer-specific distress rates in the MSI-positive group and MSI-negative group were 39 versus 27% (p = 0.3) and 38 versus 36% (p = 1.0), respectively. High levels of general distress were correlated with female gender, low social support and high perceived cancer risk. Moderate levels of distress were observed after MSI testing, similar to those found in other patients diagnosed with CRC. Immediately after result disclosure, high cancer-specific distress was observed in 40% of the MSI-positive patients

Complex regional pain syndrome 1 – the Swiss cohort study

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the course of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome 1 and potential factors influencing the course of this disorder over time. The goal of this study is a) to set up a database with patients suffering from suspected CRPS 1 in an initial stadium, b) to perform investigations on epidemiology, diagnosis, prognosis, and socioeconomics within the database and c) to develop a prognostic risk assessment tool for patients with CRPS 1 taking into account symptomatology and specific therapies. METHODS/DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. Patients suffering from a painful swelling of the hand or foot which appeared within 8 weeks after a trauma or a surgery and which cannot be explained by conditions that would otherwise account for the degree of pain and dysfunction will be included. In accordance with the recommendations of International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF model), standardised and validated questionnaires will be used. Patients will be monitored over a period of 2 years at 6 scheduled visits (0 and 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months). Each visit involves a physical examination, registration of therapeutic interventions, and completion of the various study questionnaires. Outcomes involve changes in health status, quality of life and costs/utility. DISCUSSION: This paper describes the rationale and design of patients with CRPS 1. Ideally, potential risk factors may be identified at an early stage in order to initiate an early and adequate treatment in patients with increased risk for delayed recovery

Comparison of tonic spinal cord stimulation, high-frequency and burst stimulation in patients with complex regional pain syndrome: a double-blind, randomised placebo controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) is a disabling disease that is sometimes difficult to treat. Although spinal cord stimulation (SCS) can reduce pain in most patients with CRPS, some do not achieve the desired reduction in pain. Moreover, the pain reduction can diminish over time even after an initially successful period of SCS. Pain reduction can be regained by increasing the SCS frequency, but this has not been investigated in a prospective trial. This study compares pain reduction using five SCS frequencies (standard 40 Hz, 500 Hz, 1200 Hz, burst and placebo stimulation) in patients with CRPS to determine which of the modalities is most effective. DESIGN: All patients with a confirmed CRPS diagnosis that have unsuccessfully tried all other therapies and are eligible for SCS, can enroll in this trial (primary implantation group). CRPS patients that already receive SCS therapy, or those previously treated with SCS but with loss of therapeutic effect over time, can also participate (re-implantation group). Once all inclusion criteria are met and written informed consent obtained, patients will undergo a baseline assessment (T0). A 2-week trial with SCS is performed and, if successful, a rechargeable internal pulse generator (IPG) is implanted. For the following 3 months the patient will have standard 40 Hz stimulation therapy before a follow-up assessment (T1) is performed. Those who have completed the T1 assessment will enroll in a 10-week crossover period in which the five SCS frequencies are tested in five periods, each frequency lasting for 2 weeks. At the end of the crossover period, the patient will choose which frequency is to be used for stimulation for an additional 3 months, until the T2 assessment. DISCUSSION: Currently no trials are available that systematically investigate the importance of variation in frequency during SCS in patients with CRPS. Data from this trial will provide better insight as to whether SCS with a higher frequency, or with burst stimulation, results in more effective pain relief. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN3665525