Search

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is a widespread source of stress with adverse mental health impacts. Meaning in life, both as a trait and as momentary awareness of what is personally meaningful (meaning salience), is associated with positive health outcomes and may buffer against the deleterious effects of stress., Purpose: This project examines prospective associations between baseline meaning salience (daily, post-laboratory stressor) and meaning in life with perceived stress during COVID-19., Methods: A community sample of healthy adults (n = 147) completed a laboratory stress protocol in 2018-2019, where perceived stress, meaning in life, and meaning salience (daily, post-stressor) were assessed. During April and July 2020 (n = 95, and 97, respectively), participants were re-contacted and reported perceived stress. General linear mixed-effects models accounting for repeated measures of stress during COVID-19 were conducted., Results: Partial correlations holding constant baseline perceived stress showed that COVID-19 perceived stress was correlated with daily meaning salience (r = -.28), post-stressor meaning salience (r = -.20), and meaning in life (r = -.22). In mixed-effects models, daily and post-stressor meaning salience and higher meaning in life, respectively, predicted lower perceived stress during COVID-19, controlling for age, gender, and baseline perceived stress., Conclusions: Individuals more capable of accessing meaning when exposed to laboratory stress reported lower perceived stress during a global health crisis. Despite study limitations concerning generalizability, results support meaning in life and meaning salience as important aspects of psychological functioning that may promote well-being by affecting stress appraisals and available resources for coping., (© Society of Behavioral Medicine 2023. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Single-patient, multiple cross-over designs (N-of-1 or single-case randomized clinical trials) with systematic data collection on treatment effects may be useful for increasing the precision of treatments in health psychology., Purposes: To assess the quality of the methods and statistics, describe interventions and outcomes, and explore the heterogeneity of treatment effect of health psychology N-of-1 trials., Methods: We conducted a systematic review of N-of-1 trials from electronic database inception through June 1, 2015. Potentially relevant articles were identified by searching the biomedical electronic databases Ovid, MEDLINE, EMBASE, all six databases in the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, and conference proceedings, dissertations, ongoing studies, Open Grey, and the New York Academy's Grey Literature Report. Studies were included if they had health behavior or psychological outcomes and the order of interventions was randomized. We abstracted study characteristics and analytic methods and used the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials extension for reporting N-of-1 trials as a quality checklist., Results: Fifty-four N-of-1 trial publications composed of 1,193 participants were included. Less than half of these (36%) reported adequate information to calculate the heterogeneity of treatment effect. Nearly all (90%) provided some quantitative information to determine the superior treatment; 79% used an a priori statistical cutoff, 12% used a graph, and 10% used a combination., Conclusions: N-of-1 randomized trials could be the next major advance in health psychology for precision therapeutics. However, they must be conducted with more methodologic and statistical rigor and must be transparently and fully reported.

Background: There is little guidance about to how select dose parameter values when designing behavioral interventions., Purpose: The purpose of this study is to present approaches to inform intervention duration, frequency, and amount when (1) the investigator has no a priori expectation and is seeking a descriptive approach for identifying and narrowing the universe of dose values or (2) the investigator has an a priori expectation and is seeking validation of this expectation using an inferential approach., Methods: Strengths and weaknesses of various approaches are described and illustrated with examples., Results: Descriptive approaches include retrospective analysis of data from randomized trials, assessment of perceived optimal dose via prospective surveys or interviews of key stakeholders, and assessment of target patient behavior via prospective, longitudinal, observational studies. Inferential approaches include nonrandomized, early-phase trials and randomized designs., Conclusions: By utilizing these approaches, researchers may more efficiently apply resources to identify the optimal values of dose parameters for behavioral interventions.

Background: Symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are associated with recurrent ACS events and mortality. Poor sleep may be a mechanism, but the association between PTSD and sleep after ACS is unknown., Purpose: This study aims to estimate the association between ACS-induced PTSD symptoms and self-reported sleep., Methods: ACS-induced PTSD symptoms were assessed 1-month post-ACS in 188 adults using the Impact of Events Scale-Revised. Sleep was assessed using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. Linear and logistic regression models were used to determine whether PTSD symptoms were associated with self-reported sleep, independent of sociodemographic and clinical covariates., Results: In adjusted models, ACS-induced PTSD symptoms were associated with worse overall sleep (β = 0.22, p = 0.003) and greater impairment in six of seven components of sleep (all p values <0.05)., Conclusions: ACS-induced PTSD symptoms may be associated with poor sleep, which may explain why PTSD confers increased cardiovascular risk after ACS.