Is a Severe Clinical Profile an Effect Modifier in a Web-Based Depression Treatment for Adults With Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes? Secondary Analyses From a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Depression and diabetes are two highly prevalent and co-occurring health problems. Web-based, diabetes-specific cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) depression treatment is effective in diabetes patients, and has the potential to be cost effective and to have large reach. A remaining question is whether the effectiveness differs between patients with seriously impaired mental health and patients with less severe mental health problems. Objective: To test whether the effectiveness of an eight-lesson Web-based, diabetes-specific CBT for depression, with minimal therapist support, differs in patients with or without diagnosed major depressive disorder (MDD), diagnosed anxiety disorder, or elevated diabetes-specific emotional distress (DM-distress). Methods: We used data of 255 patients with diabetes with elevated depression scores, who were recruited via an open access website for participation in a randomized controlled trial, conducted in 2008-2009, comparing a diabetes-specific, Web-based, therapist-supported CBT with a 12-week waiting-list control group. We performed secondary analyses on these data to study whether MDD or anxiety disorder (measured using a telephone-administered diagnostic interview) and elevated DM-distress (online self-reported) are effect modifiers in the treatment of depressive symptoms (online self-reported) with Web-based diabetes-specific CBT. Results: MDD, anxiety disorder, and elevated DM-distress were not significant effect modifiers in the treatment of self-assessed depressive symptoms with Web-based diabetes-specific CBT. Conclusions: This Web-based diabetes-specific CBT depression treatment is suitable for use in patients with severe mental health problems and those with a less severe clinical profile

Thinking fast or slow? Functional magnetic resonance imaging reveals stronger connectivity when experienced neurologists diagnose ambiguous cases:Functional magnetic resonance imaging reveals stronger connectivity when experienced neurologists diagnose ambiguous cases

For almost 40 years, thinking about reasoning has been dominated by dual process theories. This model, consisting of two distinct types of human reasoning, one fast and effortless, the other slow and deliberate, has also been applied to medical diagnosis. Medical experts are trained to diagnose patients based on their symptoms. When symptoms are prototypical for a certain diagnosis, practitioners may rely on fast, recognition-based reasoning. However, if they are confronted with ambiguous clinical information slower, analytical reasoning is required. To examine the neural underpinnings of these two hypothesized forms of reasoning, sixteen highly experienced clinical neurologists were asked to diagnose two types of medical cases, straightforward and ambiguous cases, while functional magnetic resonance imaging was being recorded. Compared to reading control sentences, diagnosing cases resulted in increased activation in brain areas typically found to be active during reasoning such as the caudate nucleus, and frontal and parietal cortical regions. In addition, we found vast increased activity in the cerebellum. Regarding the activation differences between the two types of reasoning, no pronounced differences were observed in terms of regional activation. Notable differences were observed, though, in functional connectivity: cases containing ambiguous information showed stronger connectivity between specific regions in the frontal, parietal, and temporal cortex in addition to the cerebellum. Based on these results we propose that the higher demands in terms of controlled cognitive processing during analytical medical reasoning may be subserved by stronger communication between key regions for detecting and resolving uncertainty.<br/

Medical students' and teachers' perceptions of sexual misconduct in the student-teacher relationship

Teachers are important role models for the development of professional behaviour of young trainee doctors. Unfortunately, sometimes they show unprofessional behaviour. To address misconduct in teaching, it is important to determine where the thresholds lie when it comes to inappropriate behaviours in student–teacher encounters. We explored to what extent students and teachers perceive certain behaviours as misconduct or as sexual harassment. We designed—with a reference group—five written vignettes describing inappropriate behaviours in the student–teacher relationship. Clinical students (n = 1,195) and faculty of eight different hospitals (n = 1,497) were invited to rate to what extent they perceived each vignette as misconduct or sexual harassment. Data were analyzed using t tests and Pearson’s correlations. In total 643 students (54 %) and 551 teachers (37 %) responded. All vignettes were consistently considered more as misconduct than as actual sexual harassment. At an individual level, respondents differed largely as to whether they perceived an incident as misconduct or sexual harassment. Comparison between groups showed that teachers’ and students’ perceptions on three vignettes differed significantly, although the direction differed. Male students were more lenient towards certain behaviours than female students. To conclude, perceptions of misconduct and sexual harassment are not univocal. We recommend making students and teachers aware that the boundaries of others may not be the same as their own