Search

Background: Primary care practitioners worldwide are urged to promote dementia risk reduction as part of preventive care. To facilitate this in Australian primary care, we developed the Umbrella intervention, comprising a waiting room survey and patient information cards for use in consultations. Educational and relational strategies were employed to mitigate implementation barriers. Methods: In this cross-sectional, non-randomised implementation study within the South East Melbourne Primary Health Network, we employed mixed-methods outcome evaluation. Antecedent outcomes (acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility) and actual outcomes (adoption, penetration, and fidelity) were assessed from the perspective of primary care practitioners and patients. Results: Five practices piloted the intervention and implementation strategies, including 16 primary care practitioners engaging with 159 patients. The Umbrella intervention was deemed acceptable, appropriate, and feasible, but penetration was limited. Approximately half of eligible primary care practitioners used the intervention, with moderate fidelity. Engagement with implementation strategies was similarly limited. While most strategies were well-received, improvements in online peer discussions and staff readiness were desired. Conclusions: The Umbrella intervention is a viable approach to promoting dementia risk reduction in Australian general practice, supported by educational and relational strategies. Stakeholder-informed refinements to enhance uptake are recommended before advancing to a definitive trial. Primary care practitioners should be promoting dementia risk reduction as part of preventive care. Using a rigorous, theory-driven, evidence-based, stakeholder-informed approach, we developed an intervention for promoting dementia risk reduction that was acceptable, appropriate, feasible, and complemented by acceptable and appropriate implementation strategies. However, preventive interventions will not be taken up widely in general practice until they are prioritised above competing demands on resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People with Williams syndrome (WS) are said to have sociable and extremely trusting personalities, approaching strangers without hesitation. This study investigated whether people with WS are less likely than controls to attribute negative intent to others when interpreting a series of ambiguous pictures. This may, at least partially, explain their hypersociability toward strangers. Twenty-seven individuals with WS and 54 typically developing controls (27 matched to WS participants on sex and chronological age and 27 matched on sex and mental age) viewed 10 ambiguous pictures, where one person in the picture may be seen as having a negative objective. Participants were asked to describe what was happening in the picture. Responses were scored for negative intention attribution (NIA). NIA was reduced in WS individuals relative to typically developing controls of the same chronological age, but was similar to typically developing controls of the same mental age. Findings are discussed in relation to possible underlying neurological and cognitive mechanisms and practical implications for understanding and teaching stranger danger to people with WS. (Contains 3 figures and 1 table.)

Background: Although people with Williams syndrome (WS) are often characterized as friendly and sociable with relatively good general language abilities, there is emerging evidence of pragmatic difficulties and trouble comprehending aspects of non-literal language. Aims: The main aim was to investigate the comprehension of sarcasm, metaphor and simile in WS relative to typically developing controls. A secondary aim was to examine the association between non-literal language comprehension and a range of other cognitive abilities, both in WS and in the typically developing population. Methods & Procedures: Twenty-six participants with WS were compared with 26 typically developing chronological age-matched controls (TDCA) and 26 typically developing mental age-matched controls (TDMA). Participants listened to stories in which characters made non-literal comments. They were then asked what each character meant by their comment. In order to investigate the second aim of the study, cognitive abilities were also assessed using the Woodcock-Johnson (Revised) Tests of Cognitive Ability, including expressive vocabulary, verbal working memory, perceptual integration, inferential reasoning and overall cognitive ability. Outcomes & Results: Comprehension of non-literal language in WS was significantly below TDCA levels, but was not significantly different to TDMA levels. For typically developing controls, each of the cognitive measures was strongly correlated with each of the measures of non-literal language comprehension. The same relationships were not always found for participants with WS. In particular, sarcasm comprehension in WS was not significantly correlated with any of the assessed cognitive abilities, and expressive vocabulary was not significantly correlated with any measure of non-literal comprehension. Conclusions & Implications: Comprehension of simile in WS is below TDCA levels but seems on par with their mental age level. It appears that comprehension of sarcasm and metaphors is above the cognitive capabilities and mental age level of most individuals with WS. Further, the pattern of correlations between non-literal comprehension and cognitive abilities in WS relative to controls suggests that perhaps the linguistic and cognitive systems that underpin non-literal language comprehension in typically developing individuals interact and integrate in different ways in WS.

Introduction: User engagement in mental health service design is heralded as integral to health systems quality and performance, but does engagement improve health outcomes? This article describes the CORE study protocol, a novel stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial (SWCRCT)to improve psychosocial recovery outcomes for people with severe mental illness. Methods: An SWCRCT with a nested process evaluation will be conducted over nearly 4 years in Victoria, Australia. 11 teams from four mental health service providers will be randomly allocated to one of three dates 9 months apart to start the intervention. The intervention, a modified version of Mental Health Experience Co-Design (MH ECO), will be delivered to 30 service users, 30 carers and 10 staff in each cluster. Outcome data will be collected at baseline (6 months) and at completion of each intervention wave. The primary outcome is improvement in recovery score using the 24-item Revised Recovery Assessment Scale for service users. Secondary outcomes are improvements to user and carer mental health and well-being using the shortened 8-item version of the WHOQOL Quality of Life scale (EUROHIS), changes to staff attitudes using the 19-item Staff Attitudes to Recovery Scale and recovery orientation of services using the 36-item Recovery Self Assessment Scale (provider version). Intervention and usual care periods will be compared using a linear mixed effects model for continuous outcomes and a generalised linear mixed effects model for binary outcomes. Participants will be analysed in the group that the cluster was assigned to at each time point. Ethics and dissemination: The University of Melbourne, Human Research Ethics Committee (1340299.3) and the Federal and State Departments of Health Committees (Project 20/2014) granted ethics approval. Baseline data results will be reported in 2015 and outcomes data in 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent literature suggests a revival of interest in single-case methodology (e.g., the randomised n-of-1 trial is now considered Level 1 evidence for treatment decision purposes by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine). Consequently, the availability of tools to critically appraise single-case reports is of great importance. We report on a major revision of our method quality instrument, the Single-Case Experimental Design Scale. Three changes resulted in a radically revised instrument, now entitled the Risk of Bias in N-of-1 Trials (RoBiNT) Scale: (i) item content was revised and increased to 15 items, (ii) two subscales were developed for internal validity (IV; 7 items) and external validity and interpretation (EVI; 8 items), and (iii) the scoring system was changed from a 2-point to 3-point scale to accommodate currently accepted standards. Psychometric evaluation indicated that the RoBiNT Scale showed evidence of construct (discriminative) validity. Inter-rater reliability was excellent, for pairs of both experienced and trained novice raters. Intraclass correlation coefficients of summary scores for individual (experienced) raters: ICCTotalScore = .90, ICCIVSubscale = .88, ICCEVISubscale = .87; individual (novice) raters: ICCTotalScore = .88, ICCIVSubscale = .87, ICCEVISubscale = .93; consensus ratings between experienced and novice raters (ICCTotalScore = .95, ICCIVSubscale = .93, ICCEVISubscale = .93. The RoBiNT Scale thus shows sound psychometric properties and provides a comprehensive yet efficient examination of important features of single-case methodology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]