Should we educate about the risks of medication overuse headache?

BACKGROUND: Medication-overuse headache (MOH) is caused by the regular use of medications to treat headache. There has been a lack of research into awareness of MOH. We distributed an electronic survey to undergraduate students and their contacts via social networking sites. Analgesic use, awareness of MOH, perceived change in behaviour following educational intervention about the risks of MOH and preferred terminology for MOH was evaluated. FINDINGS: 485 respondents completed the questionnaire (41% having received healthcare training). 77% were unaware of the possibility of MOH resulting from regular analgesic use for headache. Following education about MOH, 80% stated they would reduce analgesic consumption or seek medical advice. 83% indicated that over the counter analgesia should carry a warning of MOH. The preferred terminology for MOH was painkiller-induced headache. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the lack of awareness of MOH. Improved education about MOH and informative packaging of analgesics, highlighting the risks in preferred lay terminology (i.e. painkiller-induced headache), may reduce this iatrogenic morbidity and warrants further evaluation

Consensus-based care recommendations for adults with myotonic dystrophy type 1

Purpose of review Myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) is a severe, progressive genetic disease that affects between 1 in 3,000 and 8,000 individuals globally. No evidence-based guideline exists to inform the care of these patients, and most do not have access to multidisciplinary care centers staffed by experienced professionals, creating a clinical care deficit. Recent findings The Myotonic Dystrophy Foundation (MDF) recruited 66 international clinicians experienced in DM1 patient care to develop consensus-based care recommendations. MDF created a 2-step methodology for the project using elements of the Single Text Procedure and the Nominal Group Technique. The process generated a 4-page Quick Reference Guide and a comprehensive, 55-page document that provides clinical care recommendations for 19 discrete body systems and/or care considerations. Summary The resulting recommendations are intended to help standardize and elevate care for this patient population and reduce variability in clinical trial and study environments. Described as “one of the more variable diseases found in medicine,” myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) is an autosomal dominant, triplet-repeat expansion disorder that affects somewhere between 1:3,000 and 1:8,000 individuals worldwide.1 There is a modest association between increased repeat expansion and disease severity, as evidenced by the average age of onset and overall morbidity of the condition. An expansion of over 35 repeats typically indicates an unstable and expanding mutation. An expansion of 50 repeats or higher is consistent with a diagnosis of DM1. DM1 is a multisystem and heterogeneous disease characterized by distal weakness, atrophy, and myotonia, as well as symptoms in the heart, brain, gastrointestinal tract, endocrine, and respiratory systems. Symptoms may occur at any age. The severity of the condition varies widely among affected individuals, even among members of the same family. Comprehensive evidence-based guidelines do not currently exist to guide the treatment of DM1 patients. As a result, the international patient community reports varied levels of care and care quality, and difficulty accessing care adequate to manage their symptoms, unless they have access to multidisciplinary neuromuscular clinics. Consensus-based care recommendations can help standardize and improve the quality of care received by DM1 patients and assist clinicians who may not be familiar with the significant variability, range of symptoms, and severity of the disease. Care recommendations can also improve the landscape for clinical trial success by eliminating some of the inconsistencies in patient care to allow more accurate understanding of the benefit of potential therapies

A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions1, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process2. In April 2020, an influential paper3 proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms ‘physical distancing’ and ‘social distancing’. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization

A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions 1, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process 2. In April 2020, an influential paper 3 proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms ‘physical distancing’ and ‘social distancing’. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization

A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

DATA AVAILABILITY : All data and study material are provided either in the Supplementary information or through the two online repositories (OSF and Tableau Public, both accessible via https://psyarxiv.com/58udn). No code was used for analyses in this work.Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process. In April 2020, an influential paper proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms ‘physical distancing’ and ‘social distancing’. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization.The National Science Foundation; Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Brazilian Federal Agency for the Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education); Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Brazilian Federal Agency for the Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education); the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation | Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development); National Science Foundation grants; the European Research Council; the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.http://www.nature.com/naturehj2024Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS)Non

Mortality from gastrointestinal congenital anomalies at 264 hospitals in 74 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries: a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study

Summary Background Congenital anomalies are the fifth leading cause of mortality in children younger than 5 years globally. Many gastrointestinal congenital anomalies are fatal without timely access to neonatal surgical care, but few studies have been done on these conditions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared outcomes of the seven most common gastrointestinal congenital anomalies in low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries globally, and identified factors associated with mortality. Methods We did a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of patients younger than 16 years, presenting to hospital for the first time with oesophageal atresia, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, intestinal atresia, gastroschisis, exomphalos, anorectal malformation, and Hirschsprung’s disease. Recruitment was of consecutive patients for a minimum of 1 month between October, 2018, and April, 2019. We collected data on patient demographics, clinical status, interventions, and outcomes using the REDCap platform. Patients were followed up for 30 days after primary intervention, or 30 days after admission if they did not receive an intervention. The primary outcome was all-cause, in-hospital mortality for all conditions combined and each condition individually, stratified by country income status. We did a complete case analysis. Findings We included 3849 patients with 3975 study conditions (560 with oesophageal atresia, 448 with congenital diaphragmatic hernia, 681 with intestinal atresia, 453 with gastroschisis, 325 with exomphalos, 991 with anorectal malformation, and 517 with Hirschsprung’s disease) from 264 hospitals (89 in high-income countries, 166 in middleincome countries, and nine in low-income countries) in 74 countries. Of the 3849 patients, 2231 (58·0%) were male. Median gestational age at birth was 38 weeks (IQR 36–39) and median bodyweight at presentation was 2·8 kg (2·3–3·3). Mortality among all patients was 37 (39·8%) of 93 in low-income countries, 583 (20·4%) of 2860 in middle-income countries, and 50 (5·6%) of 896 in high-income countries (p<0·0001 between all country income groups). Gastroschisis had the greatest difference in mortality between country income strata (nine [90·0%] of ten in lowincome countries, 97 [31·9%] of 304 in middle-income countries, and two [1·4%] of 139 in high-income countries; p≤0·0001 between all country income groups). Factors significantly associated with higher mortality for all patients combined included country income status (low-income vs high-income countries, risk ratio 2·78 [95% CI 1·88–4·11], p<0·0001; middle-income vs high-income countries, 2·11 [1·59–2·79], p<0·0001), sepsis at presentation (1·20 [1·04–1·40], p=0·016), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score at primary intervention (ASA 4–5 vs ASA 1–2, 1·82 [1·40–2·35], p<0·0001; ASA 3 vs ASA 1–2, 1·58, [1·30–1·92], p<0·0001]), surgical safety checklist not used (1·39 [1·02–1·90], p=0·035), and ventilation or parenteral nutrition unavailable when needed (ventilation 1·96, [1·41–2·71], p=0·0001; parenteral nutrition 1·35, [1·05–1·74], p=0·018). Administration of parenteral nutrition (0·61, [0·47–0·79], p=0·0002) and use of a peripherally inserted central catheter (0·65 [0·50–0·86], p=0·0024) or percutaneous central line (0·69 [0·48–1·00], p=0·049) were associated with lower mortality. Interpretation Unacceptable differences in mortality exist for gastrointestinal congenital anomalies between lowincome, middle-income, and high-income countries. Improving access to quality neonatal surgical care in LMICs will be vital to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 of ending preventable deaths in neonates and children younger than 5 years by 2030

How do feelings contribute to the experience of paranoia, in those that are understood to have experienced a first episode of psychosis?

There is continued debate amongst service-users and professionals about how psychosis is conceptualised and managed. The medical model typically dominates, although there is no consistent evidence for an underlying biological process. Gaining an understanding of the factors that contribute to experience of psychosis within the first episode of psychosis (FEP) population, could further enhance the interventions and support available and impact on long-term outcomes.Literature review:Shame is associated with poorer outcomes within the broader area of psychosis. However, there are no reviews that consider the role of shame specifically in the FEP population. The aim was to explore the role of shame in a population that is understood to have experienced the first episode of psychosis. The systematic review examined 10 articles identified from five databases. Shame was associated with poorer outcomes and increased distress in the FEP population, particularly related to social anxiety and depression. Therefore, shame needs to be considered when working with this population at a clinical and service level.Research report:With a particular focus on paranoia, the current study aimed to explore an alternative perspective to the dominant model, focussed on understanding how feelings contribute to the experience of paranoia (based on Cromby’s work). Feelings, in this context, are broader than simply emotion and integrally includes relationally, social and material influences. Critical Narrative Analysis was utilised to explore seven people’s experiences of paranoia and the associated feelings, with consideration of their wider social context. The results highlighted that feelings and feeling traps contributed to the experience of paranoia, within the context of social relationships and life experiences. The hermeneutic of suspicion introduced the notion that the current psychological and psychiatric models can leave people feeling disempowered and stuck, fighting to be their ‘normal’ self. Clinical implications are discussed.</div