Integrating Collective Art Healing Practices into Contemporary Art Therapy

Five graduate students from the Marital and Family Art Therapy Program at Loyola Marymount University (LMU) conducted a research study to explore the characteristics and attributes of collective art practices and how they contribute to healing. A survey including quantitative measures and qualitative responses were administered on the Qualtrics platform, allowing for a wide geographic reach and rapid data collection. The subsequent qualitative analysis involved the creation of visual artworks by the researchers, utilizing the arts as data to identify additional common themes contributing to healing attributes. The data revealed three major themes, or characteristics, of how art contributes to healing: (1) shared collective experience, (2) validation and space for emotional expression, and (3) art as a conduit of healing. These three themes were recurrent throughout the responses and emerged from participants\u27 responses to three specific questions, driven by a curiosity about the attributes and experiences involving art and community. The results gathered not only provided parallel alignment with significant deviation from those gathered during the literature review, but also shed light on the profound impact of creative expression in fostering well-being, cultivating interpersonal connections, and promoting emotional healing within collective settings. This insight offers valuable guidance for future researchers and art therapists, emphasizing the importance of incorporating collective healing elements into their practice and theoretical frameworks

Digitale Heilsversprechen in Gesundheitsberufen

Dieser Beitrag geht der Frage nach, welche Heilsversprechen unter angehenden Gesundheitsfachpersonen bezüglich digitaler Medien vorherrschen und wodurch sie bedingt sind. Er stützt sich auf Daten einer Erhebung unter Bachelor-Studierenden einer Gesundheitshochschule in der Schweiz. Die Resultate zeigen, dass 59 % der Befragten die Vorteile digitaler Medien mit der Erbringung von Gesundheitsleistungen assoziieren und 41 % ihre Vorteile auf Seite der PatientInnen sehen. Aus der statistischen Analyse geht hervor, dass die Studierenden gehobener Herkunft und die Studierenden früher akademisierter Studienrichtungen die Vorteile digitaler Medien wesentlich häufiger mit der Dienstleistungserbringung als mit den PatientInnen verbinden. Dies scheint nicht nur anzuzeigen, dass in Gesundheitsberufen ein Zusammenhang zwischen den vorherrschenden sozialen Kräften und der Assoziation digitaler Medien mit der Dienstleistungserbringung besteht. Es dürfte auch darauf hin- weisen, dass die „Digitalisierung“ im Gesundheitssektor die herkunftsbedingte kulturelle Spaltung in Gesundheitsberufen befördert

Digital health for migrants, ethnic and cultural minorities and the role of participatory development : a scoping review

Digital health interventions (DHIs) are increasingly used to address the health of migrants and ethnic minorities, some of whom have reduced access to health services and worse health outcomes than majority populations. This study aims to give an overview of digital health interventions developed for ethnic or cultural minority and migrant populations, the health problems they address, their effectiveness at the individual level and the degree of participation of target populations during development. We used the methodological approach of the scoping review outlined by Tricco. We found a total of 2248 studies, of which 57 were included, mostly using mobile health technologies, followed by websites, informational videos, text messages and telehealth. Most interventions focused on illness self-management, mental health and wellbeing, followed by pregnancy and overall lifestyle habits. About half did not involve the target population in development and only a minority involved them consistently. The studies we found indicate that the increased involvement of the target population in the development of digital health tools leads to a greater acceptance of their use

European Cystic Fibrosis Society standards of care: best practice guidelines

Specialised CF care has led to a dramatic improvement in survival in CF: in the last four decades, well above what was seen in the general population over the same period. With the implementation of newborn screening in many European countries, centres are increasingly caring for a cohort of patients who have minimal lung disease at diagnosis and therefore have the potential to enjoy an excellent quality of life and an even greater life expectancy than was seen previously. To allow high quality care to be delivered throughout Europe, a landmark document was published in 2005 that sets standards of care. Our current document builds on this work, setting standards for best practice in key aspects of CF care. The objective of our document is to give a broad overview of the standards expected for screening, diagnosis, pre-emptive treatment of lung disease, nutrition, complications, transplant/end of life care and psychological support. For comprehensive details of clinical care of CF, references to the most up to date European Consensus Statements, Guidelines or Position Papers are provided in Table 1. We hope that this best practice document will be useful to clinical teams both in countries where CF care is developing and those with established CF centres

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570