The scale matters: assessing body size with figure rating scales in a diverse sample of young adults.

PURPOSE: To explore intersectional differences in weight perception accuracy in a diverse sample of young adults using CDC-defined weight status labels and four separate figure rating scales (FRS). METHODS: This cross-sectional study of 322 18-25-year-olds with body mass index (BMI) ranging from 18.5 to 57.2 (MBMI = 26.01, SD = 6.46) enrolled participants as part of a larger university subject pool cohort in the U.S. MidSouth. Height and weight measurements were obtained. Participants (55% Black, 45% white; 74% female) selected images that best represented their current body size using four FRS and described their weight perception using five labels from "very underweight" to "very overweight/obese". Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were used to compare variability in classification of weight status by FRS and weight perception category across gender and race. RESULTS: Area under the curve (AUC) statistics indicated all scales were significantly better at classifying weight status than chance. Among Black females and Black males, the culturally adapted scale had the strongest discriminatory ability [(AUC = 0.93, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.89-0.97) and (AUC = 0.93, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.86-1.00), respectively]. Among white females, the silhouette scale had the strongest discriminatory ability (AUC = 0.93, SE = .03, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.88-0.99). Among white males, the photo-based scale had the strongest discriminatory ability (AUC = 0.84, SE = 0.06, p = 0.001, 95% CI = 0.71-0.96). Across all groups, weight perception labels were the weakest classifier of weight status. CONCLUSION: Weight perception labels are an ineffective method of assessing weight status and FRS accuracy varies by race and gender, suggesting the value of gender- and culturally tailored scales. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III. Evidence obtained from well-designed cohort or case-control analytic studies.

Randomized trial comparing standard versus light intensity parent training for anxious youth.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy of the parent-led intervention Supportive Parenting for Anxious Childhood Emotions (SPACE) relative to a low-dose version of the protocol among children and adolescents with clinically significant anxiety and/or obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). METHOD: 68 youth (7-17) with anxiety/OCD and their parents were randomized to receive 12 weekly telehealth SPACE sessions (SPACE-Standard) or bibliotherapy plus 4 telehealth sessions over 12 weeks (SPACE-light). After screening, assessments were conducted via videoconferencing at baseline, post-treatment, and one-month follow-up. Independent evaluators were blind to treatment condition. RESULTS: Treatment condition did not predict whether a participant responded to the intervention (SPACE-Standard = 70%; SPACE-Light = 68%), nor was treatment condition a predictor of anxiety severity, parent-reported anxiety, or parent-/child-reported functional impairment at post-treatment or one-month follow-up. Youth in SPACE-Light self-reported higher post-treatment anxiety than youth in SPACE-standard, though this was no longer significant at one-month follow-up. Parent-reported family accommodation total change scores were associated with anxiety severity at post-treatment across both arms. CONCLUSION: This is the second randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating SPACE and provides further support for the efficacy of this intervention both in standard and low-dose formats. This study provides support for parent-led anxiety treatment targeting family accommodation as a primary mechanism of change and extends evidence of efficacy to a more clinically diverse sample. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry: NCT04922502.https://classic. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT04922502.

Demographic factors, personal life experiences, and types of intimate partner violence.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines how demographic factors (i.e., age, employment, or income) and personal life experiences (i.e., witnessing intimate partner violence [IPV] in childhood, number of violent partners, violence perpetration, or stressful life events) are related to IPV frequency across types of IPV (i.e., physical assault, psychological aggression, or sexual coercion) in a racially diverse sample. METHOD: Participants included 126 women recruited from community organizations in the Mid-South, United States who experienced IPV in the past 6 months (Mage = 32.90, SD = 6.82). The majority of the sample self-identified as Black or African American (66%) and reported an annual income below $20,000 (73%). Three linear regressions were run to assess relations between age, employment status, annual income, witnessing IPV in childhood, number of violent partners, violence perpetration, and stressful life events for each type of IPV; all three models also accounted for the other forms of IPV. RESULTS: Psychological aggression was significantly associated with a higher income as well as more frequent physical assault and sexual coercion. Physical assault was linked with younger age, lower income, not witnessing IPV in childhood, IPV perpetration, more psychological aggression, and more sexual coercion. Sexual coercion was associated with more stressful life events, having multiple violent partners, higher psychological aggression, and higher physical assault. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that interventions should target mutable demographic factors and screen for personal life events to reduce IPV frequency and revictimization across types of IPV. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Obsessive compulsive disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic: A brief review of course, psychological assessment and treatment considerations.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is an impairing mental health condition defined by intense distress in the presence of unwanted, recurrent thoughts, images, or impulses which are accompanied by compulsions and avoidance performed to reduce distress. During the COVID-19 pandemic, OCD has continued to be an impairing mental health condition regardless of symptom dimensionality (e.g., contamination, harm, etc.) with varying reports of the overall clinical course. However, changes in the assessment, treatment, and diagnosis of OCD have occurred to personalize care and be aligned with public health guidelines. Exposure and response prevention and pharmacotherapy remain the treatment of choice, even though the setting in which treatment is conducted may have shifted. Telehealth in particular has been a 'game-changer' for clinicians and patients alike. Given the continued health risk posed by the pandemic, treatment personalization should still be made to ensure safety for both patients and providers while balancing efficacy and patient preferences.