Search

Copyright of AIDS & Behavior is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background The Sleep Self-Report (SSR) is a questionnaire initially created for use with a sample from the USA to assess sleep patterns and problems in school-aged children. The objective of this study was to validate the SSR among a Spanish sample. Methods Participants were 1228 Spanish children from 8 to 12 years of age who completed the questionnaires at school anonymously. Results Internal consistency was good ( ω= 0.85). Convergent validity with anxiety ( r= 0.54) and perceived welfare ( r=−0.53) measures, and divergent validity with a measure of academic performance and positive influence of peers ( r=−0.22) were acceptable. Exploratory analysis suggested a factorial structure composed by four subscales: sleep quality, sleep anxiety, bedtime refusal and sleep routines. Confirmatory analysis indicated a good fit for the model (RMSEA = 0.04; GFI = 0.95; AGFI = 0.93; χ2/gl = 2.48). Conclusions The SSR has demonstrated to have good psychometric properties in the Spanish-speaking sample of children. The factorial structure supported by exploratory and confirmatory analysis examines the most relevant areas of sleep in children. The satisfactory psychometric properties support the use of the Spanish version of the SSR by researchers and clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The increasing number of foreign patients being attended in our health centres makes it necessary to have tests that are compatible among different countries, especially in Europe. The objective of this study is to compare the Eurotest with other screening tests and to determine whether there are any differences between European (other than Spanish) and Spanish patients., Patients and Methods: We included patients who were referred because of complaints that were compatible with cognitive impairment and they were asked to carry out a protocol of tests that included the global deterioration scale (GDS), Folstein's MMSE (Mini-Mental State Examination), the Clock Test (CT) and the Eurotest. Epidemiological data were collected. The sample used in the study included 45 patients, 21 males and 24 females, with a mean age of 69.76 years; 34 were born in Spain and 11 abroad., Results: Diagnoses were 17 with mild cognitive impairment, 8 with Alzheimer's disease, 6 with age-associated impairment, 5 with vascular dementia, 5 with a psychiatric disorder, 1 with mixed dementia and 1 with dementia with Lewy bodies. The distribution according to the GDS was as follows: 10 with a GDS of 2, 18 with a GDS of 3, and 17 with a GDS of 4. All the patients with a GDS 2 completed the tests correctly, those with a GDS 3 scored below the cut-off point 5 for the Eurotest, 4 for the MMSE and 3 for CT, and in the GDS 4 they were 9, 7 and 6, respectively. Results did not vary between Spaniards and foreigners, the kappa index between MMSE and the Eurotest was 0.39 and the Pearson coefficient was 0.67., Conclusion: The Eurotest was slightly more useful in patients with a greater degree of impairment.

Objectives: To review the characteristics and performance of research ethics committees in Spain in the evaluation of multicentre clinical trial drug protocols., Design: A prospective study of 100 applications., Setting: Forty-one committees reviewing clinical trial protocols, involving 50 hospitals in 25 cities., Main Measures: Protocol-related features, characteristics of research ethics committees and evaluation dynamics., Results: The 100 applications involved 15 protocols (of which 12 were multinational) with 12 drugs. Committees met monthly (except one). They had a mean number of 12 members, requested a mean of six complete dossiers and nine additional copies of the protocol with a mean deadline of 14 days before the meeting. All applications were approved except three (two of the three were open-label long-term safety trials rejected by the same committee), which were approved by the other committees involved. The mean time from submission to approval was 64 days. The mean time from submission to arrival of the approval document at our offices was 85 days. Twenty-five committees raised queries for 38 of the 97 finally approved applications. Impact of evaluation fee, number of members, queries raised and experience of committees on timings were not statistically significant., Conclusion: Obtaining ethical approval is time-consuming. There is much diversity in the research ethics committees' performance. A remarkable delay (> 20 days) exists between the decision and the arrival of the written approval, suggesting administrative or organisational problems.