Cross-sectional study examining psychometric properties of the Slovenian version of the 14-item Resilience Scale (RS-14-SL).

PURPOSE: Resilience has become an important concept in health research, addressing mental health outcomes. The purpose of this study was to translate, adapt, and evaluate psychometric properties of the Slovenian version of the 14-item Resilience Scale (RS-14), using a sample of general population and cancer survivors. METHODS: The original version of the RS-14 was first back-translated and pilot tested. The factor structure was assessed with an exploratory analysis and confirmed with a confirmatory analysis. To assess reliability, internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and test-retest (ICC, t student test) were determined. Measurement validity was assessed with demographic (age and gender) and psychological characteristics (symptoms of anxiety and depression and health-related quality of life). RESULTS: An exploratory factor analysis revealed one-factor solution in both samples and the fit indexes showed an acceptable model fit. Internal consistency showed excellent values (0.91-0.96), and test-retest reliability was found to be acceptable (ICC = 0.89). Significant correlations were found between RS-14 and anxiety and depression HADS subscales in Sample 1 (r = - 0.62, - 0.72 for anxiety and depression) and Sample 2 (r = - 0.43, r = - 0.51 for anxiety and depression) and the majority of EQ-5D subscales (usual activities, pain, anxiety/depression). CONCLUSION: The study showed that the Slovenian version of the RS-14 test scores is valid and stable. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 0120-25/2019/6

Family history as an important factor for stratifying participants in genetic studies of major depression

Depression is estimated to affect 350 million people worldwide. The World Mental Health Survey conducted in 17 countries found that, on average, about one in 20 people reported having an episode of depression in the previous year. Although depression has been shown to be moderately heritable by studies conducted in the past, the search for its so-called missing heritability has so far been unsuccessful. The difficulty in identifying common genetic variants predisposing to depression could be due to large sample sizes needed to detect small effects on genetic risk and the heterogeneous nature of major depressive disorder (MDD). The aim of our study was to determine whether there was a connection between a family history of depression in MDD patients and the presence of putative risk variants in the well-studied SLC6A4, COMT and PCLO genes. We analyzed 133 patients with MDD (30.0% with a positive family history for MDD and 70.0% sporadic cases) and compared them to 279 healthy controls. When comparing all the depressed patients to controls, no significant differences in genotype and allele distributions were detected. After stratifying patients according to their family history, the PCLO rs2522833 C allele was shown to be significantly less common in patients with a positive family history (p = 0.001), indicating a possible difference in the genetic structure of MDD between familial and sporadic cases and a less important role of the common genetic risk variants for the development of MDD in familial cases

Health-care professionals' responsibility to patients' relatives in genetic medicine: a systematic review and synthesis of empirical research

Purpose: the extent of the responsibility of health-care professionals (HCPs) to ensure that patients’ relatives are told of their risk is unclear. Current international guidelines take confidentiality to the individual patient as the default position, but some suggest that disclosure could be default and genetic information could be conceptualized as familial.Methods: our systematic review and synthesis of 17 studies explored the attitudes of HCPs, patients, and the public regarding the extent of HCPs’ responsibility to relatives with respect to disclosure.Results: health-care professionals generally felt a responsibility to patients’ relatives but perceived a variety of reasons why it would be difficult to act on this responsibility. Public/patient views were more wide-ranging. Participants identified several competing and overlapping arguments for and against HCP disclosure: guidelines do not permit/mandate it, privacy, medical benefit, impact on family dynamics, quality of communication, and respecting autonomy.Conclusion: we argue that HCPs can sometimes share genetic information without breaching confidentiality and that they could factor into their considerations the potential harm to family dynamics of nondisclosure. However, we need more nuanced research about their responsibilities to relatives, particularly as genomic tests are used more frequently in clinical practic