Behavioural and nondirective parent training for children with externalising disorders: First steps towards personalised treatment recommendations.

For children with externalising disorders, parent training programmes with different theoretical foundations are available. Currently, there is little knowledge concerning which programme should be recommended to a family based on their individual needs (e.g., single parenthood). The personalised advantage index (PAI) indicates the predicted treatment advantage of one treatment over another. The aim of the present study was to examine the usefulness of this score in providing individualised treatment recommendations. The analysis considered 110 parents (per-protocol sample) of children (4-11 years) with attention-deficit/hyperactivity (ADHD) or oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), randomised to either a behavioural or a nondirective telephone-assisted self-help parent training. In multiple moderator analyses with four different regression algorithms (linear, ridge, k-nearest neighbors, and tree), the linear model was preferred for computing the PAI. For ODD, families randomised to their PAI-predicted optimal intervention showed a treatment advantage of d = 0.54, 95% CI [0.17, 0.97]; for ADHD, the advantage was negligible at d = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.78]. For children with conduct problems, it may be helpful if the PAI includes the treatment moderators single parent status and ODD baseline symptoms when providing personalised treatment recommendations for the selection of behavioural versus nondirective parent training. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered prospectively with ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier NCT01350986).

The Effects of Different Quantities and Qualities of Protein Intake in People with Diabetes Mellitus.

The recommended amount and quality of protein in diets of diabetic patients are highly controversial. In order to provide evidence-based information, the Diabetes Nutrition Study Group (DNSG) used a grading procedure used for quality of evidence and strength of recommendations (GRADE). A protein intake of 10% to 20% of energy intake (E%) or about 0.8 to 1.3 g/kg body weight in people below 65 years of age, and 15% to 20% of E% in people above 65 years of age appeared safe in weight-stable conditions. There were no intervention studies addressing metabolic effects, mortality, or cardiovascular events over prolonged periods. Body weight is closely linked to metabolic control and high protein diets are often recommended. Weight-loss diets that include 23% to 32% of E% as protein for up to one year reduced blood pressure and body weight slightly but significantly more than lower protein diets, whereas blood lipids, fasting blood glucose, and HbA1c improved similarly with higher or lower protein intakes in participants with a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) >60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Patients with a GFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 did not show a faster decline of GFR or kidney function with protein intakes around 0.8 g/kg body weight as compared with lower intakes, thereby arguing against a restriction. The effects of protein intake on diabetic eye or nerve disease have not been reported. There are a number of studies that have compared different types of animal proteins (milk, chicken, beef, pork, and fish) or compared animal with plant protein in diabetic patients and have reported a greater reduction of serum cholesterol with plant protein. In summary, the suggested range of protein intake appears to be safe and can be adapted according to personal dietary preferences.