Patient Relevance of the Modified Rankin Scale in Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Research: An International Cross-sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is significant heterogeneity in the reporting of outcome measures in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) research. The modified Rankin scale (mRS) is the most commonly reported functional outcome measure. The mRS focuses on physical disability; however, many aSAH survivors experience sequalae in other domains, and the mRS may therefore not capture outcomes important to aSAH survivors. The objective of this study was to assess the clinical relevance of the mRS as a research outcome measure to people with lived aSAH experience. METHODS: We conducted an international cross-sectional survey of 355 aSAH survivors, family members, and caregivers to evaluate patient-perceived outcomes in relation to the mRS. The mRS was assessed using a previously validated web-based tool. RESULTS: Response rate was 60%; respondents from 7 continents were composed of 86% aSAH survivors and 14% family members/caregivers. Agreement between self-assessed outcome and the mRS was poor (Kappa 0.26 [CI 0.14-0.39]). Of the 172 respondents who self-assessed as having had a good aSAH outcome, 122 (71%) had a score of 0-2 on the mRS. Approximately 19% of respondents with a good outcome, based on a measured mRS score of 0-2, self-assessed as having had a poor aSAH outcome. When the mRS score was dichotomized as 0-3 corresponding to a good outcome, agreement between the score and self-assessed outcome remained poor with a Kappa score of 0.40 (CI 0.20-0.60). Approximately 30% of respondents believed that the mRS should not be used as an outcome measure in future aSAH trials. DISCUSSION: The findings suggest that there is poor agreement between aSAH survivors' self-assessed outcome, their actual mRS score, and the dichotomization of the mRS score into good/poor outcomes. Patient-centered and patient-informed outcome measurement tools are needed to guide the aSAH research agenda.

Character Strengths Predict an Increase in Mental Health and Subjective Well-Being Over a One-Month Period During the COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown.

This study examines whether character strengths predict resilience (operationalized as stable or higher mental health and subjective well-being despite an adverse event) over a period of approximately 1 month during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in Spain. Using a longitudinal design, participants (N = 348 adults) completed online measures of sociodemographic data, information regarding their situation in relation to the COVID-19, character strengths, general mental health, life satisfaction, positive affect and negative affect. All variables were measured at Time 1 and Time 2, except for sociodemographic and most COVID-related information (Time 1 only). Time 1 data collection was conducted between March 21, 2020 and April 2, 2020, i.e., approximately the second week of lockdown in Spain. Time 2 data collection was conducted between April 24, 2020 and May 18, 2020, after the Spanish government announced its intention to progressively release the lockdown. A principal component analysis of character strengths was conducted. Five character strength factors were extracted: fortitude, goodness, intellectual, interpersonal, and restraint. Factor structures at Times 1 and 2 were highly consistent. All character strength factors at Time 1 correlated positively with life satisfaction and positive affect, and negatively with negative affect and mental health at T2 (higher scores in the mental health measure indicate poorer mental health). Fortitude strengths showed the highest correlations. We conducted a series of regression analyses with strength factors at Time 1 as predictors, and mental health, life satisfaction, and positive and negative affect as dependent variables, controlling for their baseline levels. To test the directionality of the relationship between strengths and the dependent variables, all analyses were reversed. All character strength factors predicted an increase in mental health. They also predicted positive affect, with the exception of strengths of restraint. Fortitude, intellectual, and interpersonal strengths predicted an increase in life satisfaction. Finally, fortitude strengths, interpersonal strengths, and strengths of restraint, predicted a decrease in negative affect. None of the reversed analyses yielded significant effects. Limitations, implications, and possible character strengths-based interventions aimed at promoting mental health in the COVID-19 pandemic are discussed.

Validation of the Mexican Spanish Version of the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience in a Sample of Medical and Psychology Students.

The Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE) aims to measure affect with high transcultural validity. The bifactor model is the best theoretical option to represent affective balance, although it is not typically used in validation studies. The objectives of this research were to test a bifactor model vis-à-vis the traditional model composed of two correlated factors, to prove its invariance across sexes, and to provide evidence of concurrent validity. A nonprobability sample composed of 600 Mexican students of psychology and medicine was recruit. One-group and multigroup confirmatory factor analyses were carried out. The SPANE and the scales selected to assess depression, perceived stress, and satisfaction with life were applied. The bifactor model showed better goodness-of-fit indices than the two correlated factors model: Δχ2(11) = 121.436, p < . 001, Δχ2/Δdf = 11.04 > 5, ΔGFI = .034, ΔNFI = .025, ΔNNFI = .022, and ΔCFI = .023 >.01. The internal consistency for the general factor as well as for the factor of positive affect was excellent, whereas it was good for the factor of negative affect. The measurement model was valid across sexes. The general factor of affective balance had a very high correlation with depression, high with perceived stress, and medium with satisfaction with life. It is concluded that SPANE is reliable and shows evidence of validity among Mexican student of psychology and medicine, and the bifactor model is adequate to represent affective balance.

The effects of counting blessings on subjective well-being: a gratitude intervention in a Spanish sample.

This study examined a gratitude intervention repeating Emmons and McCullough study (2003) in a Spanish sample, Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions (gratitude, hassles and any event) and kept daily records during 2 weeks of gratitude, affect, quality of relationships, physical and subjective well-being. We added design features to assess the intervention long-term impact (follow-up measures), and to improve the design control (pre-treatment measures). Following the cited authors' analysis, i.e., comparing groups only in the post-test, we replicated their results, finding differences in positive affect and gratitude between the gratitude condition and the hassles condition. However, when including both the pre and the follow-up measures in the analysis, results were replicated only partially, as the difference in gratitude disappeared. Moreover, the difference in positive affect between groups in the post-test seemed to be influenced mainly by a decrease in positive affect in the hassles group. Post-test differences between groups in positive affect disappeared in the follow-up. Gratitude interventions may have an effect on well-being, but we consider other methods to promote gratitude besides gratitude journals should be tested.