Dissociation and its biological and clinical associations in functional neurological disorder: : systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundStudies have reported elevated rates of dissociative symptoms and comorbid dissociative disorders in functional neurological disorder (FND); however, a comprehensive review is lacking.AimsTo systematically review the severity of dissociative symptoms and prevalence of comorbid dissociative disorders in FND and summarise their biological and clinical associations.MethodWe searched Embase, PsycInfo and MEDLINE up to June 2021, combining terms for FND and dissociation. Studies were eligible if reporting dissociative symptom scores or rates of comorbid dissociative disorder in FND samples. Risk of bias was appraised using modified Newcastle–Ottawa criteria. The findings weresynthesised qualitatively and dissociative symptom scores were included in a meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42020173263).ResultsSeventy-five studies were eligible (FND n = 3940; control n = 3073), most commonly prospective case–control studies (k = 54). Dissociative disorders were frequently comorbid in FND. Psychoform dissociation was elevated in FND compared with healthy (g = 0.90, 95% CI 0.66–1.14, I2 = 70%) and neurologicalcontrols (g = 0.56, 95% CI 0.19–0.92, I2 = 67%). Greater psychoform dissociation was observed in FND samples with seizure symptoms versus healthy controls (g = 0.94, 95% CI 0.65–1.22, I2 = 42%) and FND samples with motor symptoms (g = 0.40, 95% CI −0.18 to 1.00, I2 = 54%). Somatoform dissociation was elevated in FND versus healthy controls (g = 1.80, 95% CI 1.25–2.34,I2 = 75%). Dissociation in FND was associated with more severe functional symptoms, worse quality of life and brain alterations.ConclusionsOur findings highlight the potential clinical utility of assessing patients with FND for dissociative symptomatology. However, fewer studies investigated FND samples with motor symptoms and heterogeneity between studies and risk of bias were high. Rigorous investigation of the prevalence, features and mechanistic relevance of dissociation in FND is needed

Work, Parenting and Gender: The care-work negotiations of three couple relationships in the UK

Changes globally mean that there are now record numbers of mothers in paid employment and a reported prevalence of involved fathering. This poses challenges to mothers and fathers as they negotiate care-work practices within their relationships. Focusing on interviews with three heterosexual couples (taken from a wider UK qualitative project on working parents), the paper considers care-work negotiations of three couples, against a backdrop of debates about intensive mothering and involved fathering. It aims to consider different configurations of work and care within three different couple relationships. We found that power within the relationships was negotiated along differential axis of gender and working status (full or part time paid work) . We present qualitatively rich insights into these negotiations. Framed by a critical discursive psychological approach, we call on other researchers to think critically about dominant discourses and practices of working, caring and parenting, pointedly how couples situated around the world operationalise these discourses in talking about themselves as worker and carers

Baseline representativeness of patients in clinics enrolled in the PRimary care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial: comparison of trial and non-trial clinics in the same health systems

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic primary care trials aim to test interventions in real world health care settings, but clinics willing and able to participate in trials may not be representative of typical clinics. This analysis compared patients in participating and non-participating clinics from the same health systems at baseline in the PRimary care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial. METHODS: This observational analysis relied on secondary electronic health record and administrative claims data in 5 of 6 health systems in the PROUD trial. The sample included patients 16-90 years at an eligible primary care visit in the 3 years before randomization. Each system contributed 2 randomized PROUD trial clinics and 4 similarly sized non-trial clinics. We summarized patient characteristics in trial and non-trial clinics in the 2 years before randomization ( baseline ). Using mixed-effect regression models, we compared trial and non-trial clinics on a baseline measure of the primary trial outcome (clinic-level patient-years of opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment, scaled per 10,000 primary care patients seen) and a baseline measure of the secondary trial outcome (patient-level days of acute care utilization among patients with OUD). RESULTS: Patients were generally similar between the 10 trial clinics (n = 248,436) and 20 non-trial clinics (n = 341,130), although trial clinics\u27 patients were slightly younger, more likely to be Hispanic/Latinx, less likely to be white, more likely to have Medicaid/subsidized insurance, and lived in less wealthy neighborhoods. Baseline outcomes did not differ between trial and non-trial clinics: trial clinics had 1.0 more patient-year of OUD treatment per 10,000 patients (95% CI: - 2.9, 5.0) and a 4% higher rate of days of acute care utilization than non-trial clinics (rate ratio: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.76, 1.42). CONCLUSIONS: trial clinics and non-trial clinics were similar regarding most measured patient characteristics, and no differences were observed in baseline measures of trial primary and secondary outcomes. These findings suggest trial clinics were representative of comparably sized clinics within the same health systems. Although results do not reflect generalizability more broadly, this study illustrates an approach to assess representativeness of clinics in future pragmatic primary care trials