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]

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]

Nearly four in ten American use complementary or alternative medicine (CAM) each year. Even with a large number of patients, CAM practitioners face scrutiny from physicians and biomedical researchers who, in an era of evidence-based medicine, argue there is little evidence to support CAM treatments. Examining how CAM has or has not been integrated into American health care is crucial in understanding the contemporary boundaries of healthcare systems. An analytical tool from science and technology studies, boundary objects, can help scholars of medicine understand which practices become integrated into these systems. Using a comparative analysis based on archival and interview data, this paper examines the use of boundary objects in two alternative medical practices – acupuncture and Christian Science. While boundary objects alone cannot explain what health practices succeed or fail, juxtaposing the use of boundary objects by different CAM groups identifies the work boundary objects do to facilitate integration and the conditions under which they “work.” I find that acupuncturists' use of sterile needles as a boundary objects assists in their effective integration into U.S. healthcare because needles are both a symbol of biomedical prowess and a potentially unsafe device requiring regulation. Christian Scientists' use of the placebo effect as a boundary object has not succeeded because they fail to acknowledge the different contextual definitions of the placebo effect in biomedical communities. This comparative analysis highlights how context affects which boundary objects “work” for CAM practices and theorizes why alternative health practices succeed or fail to become integrated into healthcare systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For several years there has been a vigorous policy debate on comparative effectiveness research (CER). This debate has focused on whether more evidence should be gathered, and who should be doing the funding and developing of evidence. There has been less emphasis on implementation of CER findings, and examining whether CER has or will have an impact on prescribing patterns, reimbursement, health outcomes, and health care spending. Objective: This paper addresses both empirical and normative aspects of CER in terms of its impact on prescribing, reimbursement, cost-containment, and health outcomes. Results: A significant gap persists between the best available evidence on therapeutic effectiveness and toler-ability and typical patterns of prescribing care, as well as patient choices. Consequently, there is room for building a more systematic evidence base in the United States, so that policymakers are better equipped to understand variation in clinical outcomes while promoting appropriate prescribing and reimbursement patterns. Methods: The author carried out a non-systematic literature review of both empirical and normative aspects pertaining to CER and its policy implications. Keywords for the Medline search were "comparative effectiveness research" and "policy implications." Conclusion: CER has a modest impact on prescribing, reimbursement, cost- containment, and health outcomes. This impact will likely intensify as funding increases and novel models to steer prescribing and reimbursement choices incorporate comparative-effectiveness evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the objectives for performing sensitivity analysis in medical cost-effectiveness analysis and the implications of expected utility maximization for methods to perform such analyses. The analysis suggests specific approaches for optimal decision making under uncertainty and specifying such decisions for subgroups based on the ratio of expected costs to expected benefits, and for valuing research using value of information calculations. Though ideal value of information calculations may be difficult, certain approaches with less stringent data requirements may bound the value of information. These approaches suggest methods by which the vast cost-effectiveness literature may help inform priorities for medical research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]