Search

Background: Ever since alexithymia was defined in the 1970s, robust associations have been observed between alexithymia and a variety of symptoms of psychopathology. Alexithymia is now widely regarded as an important transdiagnostic risk factor, and it is frequently assessed in clinical and research settings. However, despite this strong interest, it remains unclear exactly why (i.e., by which mechanisms) alexithymia is linked to psychopathology. In this paper, we hypothesise that alexithymia is linked to affective disorder symptoms because alexithymia impairs people's ability to regulate their emotions, and we empirically test this hypothesis.Method: We administered a battery of psychometric measures to 501 adults in the United States, and examined the direct and indirect effects between alexithymia (Perth Alexithymia Questionnaire), emotion regulation ability (Perth Emotion Regulation Competency Inventory), and affective disorder symptoms (Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-21).Results: In the Pearson bivariate correlation matrix, alexithymia, emotion regulation difficulties, and affective disorder symptoms were all significantly correlated. In the modelling of direct and indirect effects, alexithymia was indirectly associated with affective disorder symptoms through emotion regulation difficulties (no significant direct effect).Limitations: Our online survey data were all self-report data and cross-sectional. Future longitudinal work would be beneficial.Conclusions: Our findings support contemporary theorising that alexithymia is linked to affective disorder symptoms via emotion regulation difficulties. These results help to clarify the mechanisms by which alexithymia may predispose people to affective disorder symptoms, and highlight the importance of considering the roles of alexithymia and emotion regulation in case conceptualisations and treatment planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Increasing knowledge on suicide prevention has been shown to be important for suicide prevention. This paper exams the accomplishment of research on suicide and examine how those research activities contribute to the change of suicide rates.Methods: Data of the publications relating to suicide from 1990 to 2018 were retrieved from the Web of Science and Scopus. Bibliographic information was analyzed and the relationships between suicide rates with the number of publications per million population and the average article citations per year were examined.Results: From 1990 to 2018, globally, publications on suicide have increased significantly. The United States ("USA") had the greatest number of publications. Research collaborations among different countries/regions have been flourishing and multinational centers have become more common than ever. Nonetheless, in some countries/regions with high rates of suicide, suicide research was scarce. It was found that the number of publications per million population and the average article citations per year were negatively correlated with the suicide rates at the global level (r = - 0.96, p < 0.001; r = -0.91, p < 0.001, respectively), but not in the higher SDI regions (r = -0.05, p = 0.81; r = 0.02, p = 0.91, respectively). Furthermore, research focusing on suicide intervention was also relatively limited.Limitation: The origins of the publications were only based on the corresponding authors' regions.Conclusions: There is significant imbalance in the amount of research effort especially in the regions with high suicide rates. In the higher socioeconomic level regions, the quantity and quality of publications sometimes do not transpire in the reduction of suicide rates. A better connection between the fundamental and practical suicide research should be established. More resources should be made available to the low- and middle-income countries/regions with higher suicide risks, then the effect of suicide prevention might be much more significant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Recent discussion has focused on questions related to the repeal and replacement of portions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). However, issues central to the future of health and health care in the United States transcend the ACA provisions receiving the greatest attention. Initiatives directed to certain strategic and infrastructure priorities are vital to achieve better health at lower cost.Objectives: To review the most salient health challenges and opportunities facing the United States, to identify practical and achievable priorities essential to health progress, and to present policy initiatives critical to the nation's health and fiscal integrity.Evidence Review: Qualitative synthesis of 19 National Academy of Medicine-commissioned white papers, with supplemental review and analysis of publicly available data and published research findings.Findings: The US health system faces major challenges. Health care costs remain high at $3.2 trillion spent annually, of which an estimated 30% is related to waste, inefficiencies, and excessive prices; health disparities are persistent and worsening; and the health and financial burdens of chronic illness and disability are straining families and communities. Concurrently, promising opportunities and knowledge to achieve change exist. Across the 19 discussion papers examined, 8 crosscutting policy directions were identified as vital to the nation's health and fiscal future, including 4 action priorities and 4 essential infrastructure needs. The action priorities-pay for value, empower people, activate communities, and connect care-recurred across the articles as direct and strategic opportunities to advance a more efficient, equitable, and patient- and community-focused health system. The essential infrastructure needs-measure what matters most, modernize skills, accelerate real-world evidence, and advance science-were the most commonly cited foundational elements to ensure progress.Conclusions and Relevance: The action priorities and essential infrastructure needs represent major opportunities to improve health outcomes and increase efficiency and value in the health system. As the new US administration and Congress chart the future of health and health care for the United States, and as health leaders across the country contemplate future directions for their programs and initiatives, their leadership and strategic investment in these priorities will be essential for achieving significant progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The purpose of this paper is to describe the Juvenile Justice-Translational Research on Interventions for Adolescents in the Legal System (JJ-TRIALS) study, a cooperative implementation science initiative involving the National Institute on Drug Abuse, six research centers, a coordinating center, and Juvenile Justice Partners representing seven US states. While the pooling of resources across centers enables a robust implementation study design involving 36 juvenile justice agencies and their behavioral health partner agencies, co-producing a study protocol that has potential to advance implementation science, meets the needs of all constituencies (funding agency, researchers, partners, study sites), and can be implemented with fidelity across the cooperative can be challenging. This paper describes (a) the study background and rationale, including the juvenile justice context and best practices for substance use disorders, (b) the selection and use of an implementation science framework to guide study design and inform selection of implementation components, and (c) the specific study design elements, including research questions, implementation interventions, measurement, and analytic plan.Methods/design: The JJ-TRIALS primary study uses a head-to-head cluster randomized trial with a phased rollout to evaluate the differential effectiveness of two conditions (Core and Enhanced) in 36 sites located in seven states. A Core strategy for promoting change is compared to an Enhanced strategy that incorporates all core strategies plus active facilitation. Target outcomes include improvements in evidence-based screening, assessment, and linkage to substance use treatment.Discussion: Contributions to implementation science are discussed as well as challenges associated with designing and deploying a complex, collaborative project.Trial Registration: NCT02672150 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Building research capacity and increasing scholarly productivity are identified needs of the specialty of family medicine. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has increased the scholarly requirements for residency programs, placing even more pressure on faculty to be productive in the scholarly realm. The Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance (CERA) was created by volunteer members of the specialty with shared interests in overcoming barriers and increasing scholarly production.Methods: CERA has developed the infrastructure and expertise to regularly conduct omnibus surveys of key family medicine educational leaders. Proposals are centrally collected and competitively chosen. The omnibus survey process includes collaboration with experienced mentors, centralized institutional review board clearance, pilot testing, and centralized data collection. The survey results are disseminated back to research teams for presentation and publication of the findings.Results: To date, over 115 research teams have had their projects included in CERA omnibus surveys. Projects have been led by research teams from across the country and with a wide variety of research experience. This collaborative work has resulted in more than 75 scientific presentations and over 55 peer-reviewed papers in the medical literature. The raw data are now available online and serve as a repository for future secondary analysis and as an educational resource.Conclusions: The CERA infrastructure has allowed a large number of research teams to conduct meaningful scholarship at a fraction of the typical cost in terms of time and energy. CERA has expanded family medicine research by removing barriers for teams with limited experience or resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rising rates of childhood obesity over the past 2 decades have spurred a number of public- and private-sector initiatives aimed at halting or even reversing this trend. Recognizing common interests in this issue, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NIH, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation began conversations about creating a formal collaboration aimed at accelerating efforts to address childhood obesity by coordinating research agendas and providing support for evidence-building activities. The National Collaborative on Childhood Obesity Research (NCCOR) was launched in February 2009, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture joined in 2010. Using the model provided by other previously successful collaborations, such as the Youth Tobacco Cessation Collaborative, NCCOR has emphasized several principles suggested by Petrovich as key elements for successful partnerships: (1) delineate a common purpose by identifying key knowledge gaps in the field; (2) create a shared identity around that common purpose; (3) develop structures for democratic and respectful collaboration so as to strategically coordinate efforts for maximum national impact; (4) identify effective leaders capable of articulating challenges in the field and inspiring a commitment of minds and the resolve to address identified needs; (5) facilitate continuous knowledge exchange and synthesis to keep the field informed; and (6) support assessment of progress and feedback loops for ensuring continual progress. This paper examines how NCCOR has used these principles to help build the field of research, evaluation, and surveillance for childhood obesity prevention and management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Context: Over the course of the last decade, interest in the use of large data repositories for clinical research in orthopedic and spine surgery has grown substantially. Detractors maintain that the clinical relevance of research conducted using large registries is limited, and that the academic influence of such studies is minimal. Such contentions have not been empirically evaluated.Purpose: This study sought to perform a systematic review of spinal research conducted using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP).Study Design: This is a systematic review.Outcome Measures: Impact factor (IF) of the journal of publication and number of citations of published articles conducted using the NSQIP.Methods: Orthopedic and spine-specific NSQIP articles published from January 1, 2007 to July 31, 2015, were identified through a query of PubMed or Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus. Articles were classified by journal of publication, year of publication, study topic, study purpose, and method of statistical analysis. Spine surgical publications were compared with other orthopedic research conducted using the NSQIP. The primary dependent variables for the purposes of statistical testing were IF of the journal in which the article was published and the number of citations for each publication. Negative binomial regression was used to evaluate the characteristics of papers associated with increased IF and number of citations.Results: Of the 1,525 articles identified in the initial search, 114 studies were considered eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. The average IF for the journals publishing orthopedic NSQIP articles was 2.75 (standard deviation [SD] 1.22, range 0-5.28), whereas it was 2.52 (SD 0.81, range 1.38-5.28) for spinal research. The average number of citations per article was 6.08 (SD 10.9, range 0-69) and 6.4 (SD 12.0, range 0-69) for spine-specific studies. Following negative binomial regression, only IF (regression coefficients [RC] 0.31; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.08, 0.55) and the year of publication (RC -1.29; 9% CI -1.64, -0.95) were found to have a statistically significant association with number of citations. Among spine-specific research articles, only the year of publication was found to influence the number of citations (RC -1.29; 95% CI -1.94, -0.64).Conclusions: Our findings indicate that the academic impact of orthopedic and spine surgical research conducted using NSQIP is highly variable, with most publications found to have relatively low impact. As our evaluation of study characteristics associated with high-impact publications and increased citations were unable to uncover factors that are likely translatable, we suggest following research design guidelines that highlight best practices when using large datasets for orthopedic research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]