Search

ObjectiveThe Inter Organizational Practice Committee (IOPC) convened a workgroup to develop guidance on models to provide neuropsychological (NP) care during the COVID-19 pandemic while minimizing risks of novel coronavirus transmission as lockdown orders are lifted and ambulatory clinical services resume.MethodA collaborative panel of experts from major professional organizations developed provisional guidance for models of neuropsychological practice during the pandemic. The stakeholders included the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology/American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology, the National Academy of Neuropsychology, Society of Clinical neuropsychology (Division 40) of the American Psychological Association, the American Board of Professional Neuropsychology, and the American Psychological Association Services, Inc.ResultsThis guidance reviews the risks and benefits of conducting NP exams in several ways, including standard in-person, mitigated in-person, in-clinic teleneuropsychology (TeleNP), and in-home TeleNP. Strategies are provided for selecting the most appropriate model for a given patient, taking into account four levels of patient risk stratification, level of community risk, and the concept of stepped models of care. Links are provided to governmental agency and professional organization resources as well as an outline and discussion of essential infection mitigation processes based on commonalities across recommendations from diverse federal, state, local, and professional organization recommendations.ConclusionThis document provides recommendations and guidance with analysis of the risks relative to the benefits of various models of NP care during the COVID-19 pandemic. These recommendations may be revised as circumstances evolve, with updates posted continuously on the IOPC website (https://iopc.online/).

ObjectiveThe Inter Organizational Practice Committee (IOPC) convened a workgroup to develop guidance on models to provide neuropsychological (NP) care during the COVID-19 pandemic while minimizing risks of novel coronavirus transmission as lockdown orders are lifted and ambulatory clinical services resume.MethodA collaborative panel of experts from major professional organizations developed provisional guidance for models of neuropsychological practice during the pandemic. The stakeholders included the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology/American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology, the National Academy of Neuropsychology, Society of Clinical neuropsychology (Division 40) of the American Psychological Association, the American Board of Professional Neuropsychology, and the American Psychological Association Services, Inc.ResultsThis guidance reviews the risks and benefits of conducting NP exams in several ways, including standard in-person, mitigated in-person, in-clinic teleneuropsychology (TeleNP), and in-home TeleNP. Strategies are provided for selecting the most appropriate model for a given patient, taking into account four levels of patient risk stratification, level of community risk, and the concept of stepped models of care. Links are provided to governmental agency and professional organization resources as well as an outline and discussion of essential infection mitigation processes based on commonalities across recommendations from diverse federal, state, local, and professional organization recommendations.ConclusionThis document provides recommendations and guidance with analysis of the risks relative to the benefits of various models of NP care during the COVID-19 pandemic. These recommendations may be revised as circumstances evolve, with updates posted continuously on the IOPC website (https://iopc.online/).

Objective: The Inter Organizational Practice Committee (IOPC) convened a workgroup to develop guidance on models to provide neuropsychological (NP) care during the COVID-19 pandemic while minimizing risks of novel coronavirus transmission as lockdown orders are lifted and ambulatory clinical services resume.Method: A collaborative panel of experts from major professional organizations developed provisional guidance for models of neuropsychological practice during the pandemic. The stakeholders included the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology/American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology, the National Academy of Neuropsychology, Society of Clinical neuropsychology (Division 40) of the American Psychological Association, the American Board of Professional Neuropsychology, and the American Psychological Association Services, Inc.Results: This guidance reviews the risks and benefits of conducting NP exams in several ways, including standard in-person, mitigated in-person, in-clinic teleneuropsychology (TeleNP), and in-home TeleNP. Strategies are provided for selecting the most appropriate model for a given patient, taking into account four levels of patient risk stratification, level of community risk and the concept of stepped models of care. Links are provided to governmental agency and professional organization resources as well as an outline and discussion of essential infection mitigation processes based on commonalities across recommendations from diverse federal, state, local, and professional organization recommendations.Conclusion: This document provides recommendations and guidance with analysis of the risks relative to the benefits of various models of neuropsychological care during the COVID-19 pandemic. These recommendations may be revised as circumstances evolve, with updates posted continuously on the IOPC website (https://iopc.online/).

The forthcoming National Institute for Health and Care Excellence depression guideline reviews short-term outcomes for long-term depression. We present effect sizes for long-term outcomes in trials that report these data. Psychological therapies become more effective, whereas antidepressants become less effective over the long term. We review other forms of longitudinal research that support these findings.

The forthcoming National Institute for Health and Care Excellence depression guideline reviews short-term outcomes for long-term depression. We present effect sizes for long-term outcomes in trials that report these data. Psychological therapies become more effective, whereas antidepressants become less effective over the long term. We review other forms of longitudinal research that support these findings.

Drawing on the history of public health and anti-vaccination movements in 19th and 20th century Britain, Susan McPherson outlines how the sidelining of academics along gender lines during the COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted efforts to develop and communicate scientific expertise and build public trust in the effectiveness of potential COVID-19 vaccines.

Background Long-term forms of depression represent a significant mental health problem for which there is a lack of effective evidence-based treatment. This study aims to produce findings about the effectiveness of psychoanalytic psychotherapy in patients with treatment-resistant/treatment-refractory depression and to deepen the understanding of this complex form of depression. Methods/Design INDEX GROUP: Patients with treatment resistant/treatment refractory depression. DEFINITION & INCLUSION CRITERIA: Current major depressive disorder, 2 years history of depression, a minimum of two failed treatment attempts, ≥14 on the HRSD or ≥21 on the BDI-II, plus complex personality and/or psycho-social difficulties. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Moderate or severe learning disability, psychotic illness, bipolar disorder, substance dependency or receipt of test intervention in the previous two years. DESIGN: Pragmatic, randomised controlled trial with qualitative and clinical components. TEST INTERVENTION: 18 months of weekly psychoanalytic psychotherapy, manualised and fidelity-assessed using the Psychotherapy Process Q-Sort. CONTROL CONDITION: Treatment as usual, managed by the referring practitioner. RECRUITMENT: GP referrals from primary care. RCT MAIN OUTCOME: HRSD (with ≤14 as remission). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: depression severity (BDI-II), degree of co-morbid disorders Axis-I and Axis-II (SCID-I and SCID-II-PQ), quality of life and functioning (GAF, CORE, Q-les-Q), object relations (PROQ2a), Cost-effectiveness analysis (CSRI and GP medical records). FOLLOW-UP: 2 years. Plus: a). Qualitative study of participants’ and therapists’ problem formulation, experience of treatment and of participation in trial. (b) Narrative data from semi-structured pre/post psychodynamic interviews to produce prototypes of responders and non-responders. (c) Clinical case-studies of sub-types of TRD and of change. Discussion