Search

ObjectivesValid and reliable instruments for the measurement of mindfulness are crucial for people living with HIV. However, there was no Myanmar version of such an instrument.MethodsWe adapted the English version of the 12-item Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R) based on standard cross-cultural procedures. By randomly sampling methods, a sample of 248 eligible people living with HIV was contacted from a closed Myanmar Facebook group; 159 PLHIV completed the initial 12-item version of the adapted survey.ResultsThree items were removed due to low item-to-total correlations of the corrected item-total correlation as well as having infit and outfit mean squares outside the range of 0.6 to 1.4. After deleting the 3 items, the three-factor structure was confirmed by confirmatory factor analysis, which indicated good model fit. The resultant 9-item CAMS-R in Myanmar (CAMS-R-M-2) achieved good internal reliability (Cronbach’sαof 0.75 to 0.87, and the corrected item-total correlation ranged from 0.44 to 0.81). Construct validity of the scale was demonstrated by significant association with self-reported HIV stigma and social support levels (r = 0.63, and − 0.53). In Rasch analysis, the infit and outfit mean squares for each item ranged from 0.49 to 1.24, and the person reliability was 2.17 and the separation index was 0.83.ConclusionsThe 9-item CAMS-R-M-2 with a three-factor structure has good reliability and validity. Higher total scores and subscale score reflected greater mindfulness qualities in people living with HIV in Myanmar.

Background Self-management is a promising approach to improve quality of life after stroke. However, evidence for the appropriateness and effectiveness of self-management for stroke survivors with aphasia is limited. This article reports on the process used to develop a supported self-management intervention for stroke survivors with aphasia (SSWA) using co-production and behaviour change theory. Preparatory research included systematic reviews, and qualitative interviews and focus groups with SSWA, family members and speech and language therapists (SLTs). Materials and methods We conducted six, 2 hour long intervention development workshops with key stakeholders. The workshops were informed by principles of co-production and the intervention development process outlined by the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW). We also incorporated the findings of our preparatory research within workshops. Each workshop included an introduction, 1–2 co-production tasks and time for feedback at the end of the session. Data were analysed on an ongoing basis so that findings could be used to feed in to subsequent workshops and intervention development. Results Workshop participants (n = 12) included; SSWA (n = 5), family members (n = 3) and SLTs (n = 4). Together, participants engaged with accessible and participatory co-production tasks which aligned with the BCW framework. Participants engaged in discussion to define self-management in behavioural terms (behavioural diagnosis) and to identify what needed to change to support self-management. Participant’s co-produced solutions for supporting self-management and discussed options to implement these in practice. Prototype materials were generated by the research team and evaluated by participants. Intervention functions and behaviour change techniques (BCTs) were mapped to the solutions generated by participants by the research team, after the final workshop. A supported self-management intervention for SSWA was developed which will be delivered by SLTs through community stroke services. Conclusions This paper reports the process we used to integrate co-production work with behaviour change theory to develop a complex self-management intervention. This is of relevance for researchers looking to harness the strengths of co-production methods and theory in intervention design. Future research will feasibility test the supported self-management intervention developed. This paper provides transparency to our intervention development process which will help others to better interpret the findings of our feasibility work.

Levy (2021) argues that bad beliefs predominately stem from automatic (albeit rational) updating in response to testimonial evidence. To counteract such beliefs, then, we should focus on ridding our epistemic environments of misleading testimony. This paper responds as follows. First, I argue that the suite of automatic processes related to bad beliefs extends well beyond the deference-based processes that Levy identifies. Second, I push back against Levy's claim that bad beliefs stem from wholly rational processes, suggesting that, in many cases, such processes are better characterized as arational. Finally, I note that Levy is too quick to dismiss the role that individuals can play in cleaning up their own epistemic environments, and I suggest one route through which this is possible.

Motivated by the two-decade-long scientific debate over the existence of the ego-depletion effect, our paper contributes to exploring the scope conditions of ego-depletion theory. Specifically, in a randomized experiment, we depleted students’ self-control with a cognitively demanding task that required students’ effort. We measured the effect of depleted self-control on a subsequent task that required self-control to not engage in fraudulent cheating behavior—measured with an incentivized dice-roll task—and tested ego-depletion in a large-scale preregistered field experiment that was similar to real-life situations. We hypothesized that treated students would cheat more. The data confirms the hypothesis and provides causal evidence of the ego-depletion effect. Our results provide new insights into the scope conditions of ego-depletion theory, contribute methodological information for future research, and offer practical guidance for educational policy.