Comparing Clinical Examination and Radiological Evaluation in the Preoperative Diagnosis and Location of Symptomatic Interdigital (Morton's) Neuroma.

This study investigates whether clinical examination is as sensitive as ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis and localization of symptomatic interdigital neuroma. A retrospective cohort study was conducted at two tertiary centers on all consecutive patients who underwent excision by a single foot and ankle specialist surgeon for a presumed interdigital neuroma between January 2008 and December 2020. Investigators collected preoperative clinical findings, radiological investigations, and postoperative outcomes. Sensitivity and positive predictive values were calculated and Z-score for 2 populations proportions was performed. One hundred fourteen consecutive patients were operated on for 131 suspected interdigital neuroma. Thirteen patients were excluded due to lack of adequate clinical documentation. Of the remaining 101 patients with 118 suspected interdigital neuroma, 115 were confirmed histologically (97.5%). The sensitivity of clinical assessment to accurately diagnose and place an interdigital neuroma in the correct space was calculated as 96.5%. The most common preoperative clinical feature was pain (99.2%). The calculated sensitivity for ultrasound to accurately diagnose an interdigital neuroma was 83.6%, and to correctly locate neuroma was 79.5% respectively, which were both statistically different compared to clinical assessment (p value: <.001 and p value: <.001). The calculated sensitivity for MRI to accurately diagnose an interdigital neuroma was 93.6%, which was statistically different to clinical assessment (p value: .005). Preoperative clinical assessment has the highest sensitivity to accurately diagnose interdigital neuroma when compared to MRI and ultrasound. Preoperative clinical assessment has higher sensitivity to accurately locate interdigital neuroma when compared to ultrasound.

Service demand for psychological interventions among Australian adults: a population perspective.

BACKGROUND: Psychological interventions (PIs) are good practice treatment for both subthreshold and diagnosed mental disorders. Australia has implemented major reforms to expand the provision of subsidised psychological services for individuals with a diagnosed mental disorder. But there are gaps in knowledge about demand for PIs (i.e., use of and perceived need for PIs) across the population. This study uses nationally representative survey data from the 2007 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing to analyse demand for PIs. It also provides a method for analysing survey data to estimate demand for PIs when new survey data becomes available, along with suggestions to inform future survey development. METHODS: Nationally representative community survey respondents (n = 8841, 16-85 years) indicated their perceived need for nine types of help for mental health problems in the past 12 months, including three PIs (cognitive behavioural therapy, psychotherapy, and counselling), and whether these needs were unmet, partially met, or fully met. Types of help were grouped as: PIs only; PIs plus other; and other only. Chi-square analyses were used to examine the association between type of intervention, sociodemographic and clinical factors, and type of professional consulted; multinomial logistic regression models were used to examine predictors of type of intervention(s) received. RESULTS: 7.9% (95%CI: 7.2-8.6) received PIs. Receipt of PIs was positively associated with higher education and consulting a mental health specialist. Twice as many respondents received PIs plus medication as compared to PIs only (4.2% vs. 2.0%). Almost half (45.4, 95%CI 36.5-54.6) incurred out-of-pocket costs for treatment. The most common reason for partially met need for PIs was cost (24.8, 95%CI 17.2-34.3); for unmet need, it was preference for self-management (33.9, 95%CI 21.2-49.5). Perceived unmet need for PIs only (3.1, 95%CI 2.1-4.6) or PIs plus other interventions (5.2, 95%CI 3.9-6.9%) was lower than for other interventions only (22.8, 95%CI 18.7-27.6). CONCLUSIONS: Continued reforms in Australia means that on-going monitoring of demand for PIs, using nationally representative data, is required. This study provides a baseline for comparison of the long-term effects of these reforms; this comparison may be undertaken using data from the third iteration of Australia's NSMHWB, due for completion in 2021-22.

Disordered eating among Australian adolescents: Prevalence, functioning, and help received.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of disordered eating (DE) among Australian adolescents and examine associations with clinical mental health problems, problems with functioning, and help received. METHOD: We analyzed data from the Young Minds Matter survey (n = 2,298, 13-17 years). We derived an index of DE severity with four levels: (1) no DE; (2) subclinical DE; (3) suspected eating disorder; and (4) lifetime eating disorder diagnosis. RESULTS: In 2013-2014, 31.6% (95%CI 35.5-39.9) of Australian adolescents experienced DE, comprising 25.7% (95%CI 23.9-37.6) with subclinical DE, 11.0% (95%CI 9.7-12.6) with a suspected eating disorder, and 0.9% (95%CI 0.6-1.3) with a lifetime eating disorder diagnosis. DE was more common among girls (41.4%, 95%CI 37.9-44.4) than boys (34.0%, 95%CI 31.1-37.0; p = .002). Adolescents with DE, compared to those without, were more likely to experience clinical mental health problems and problems with functioning. Most adolescents with DE reported help-seeking in the past year, commonly self-help; around 40% used school-based, primary care or specialist services (i.e., formal services). In multivariate analyses, the use of more specialized and intensive services was associated with more severe DE, greater problems with functioning, female gender, and 12-month mental disorder or subthreshold mental disorder symptoms. DISCUSSION: The implementation of mental health promotion and prevention efforts for DE, and screening for DE in school and primary care settings, may facilitate detection and appropriate help-seeking among adolescents with DE.

Measurement properties of the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) family of measures: protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) for adults, and equivalent measures for children and adolescents and older people, are widely used in clinical practice and research contexts to measure mental health and functional outcomes. Additional HoNOS measures have been developed for special populations and applications. Stakeholders require synthesised information about the measurement properties of these measures to assess whether they are fit for use with intended service settings and populations and to establish performance benchmarks. This planned systematic review will critically appraise evidence on the measurement properties of the HoNOS family of measures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Journal articles meeting inclusion criteria will be identified via a search of seven electronic databases: MEDLINE via EBSCOhost, PsycINFO via APA PsycNET, Embase via Elsevier, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature via EBSCOhost, Web of Science via Thomson Reuters, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library. Variants of 'Health of the Nation Outcome Scales' or 'HoNOS' will be searched as text words. No restrictions will be placed on setting or language of publication. Reference lists of relevant studies and reviews will be scanned for additional eligible studies. Appraisal of reliability, validity, responsiveness and interpretability will be guided by the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist. Feasibility/utility will be appraised using definitions and criteria derived from previous reviews. For reliability studies, we will also apply the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies to assess quality of reporting. Results will be synthesised narratively, separately for each measure, and by subgroup (eg, treatment setting, rater profession/experience or training) where possible. Meta-analyses will be undertaken where data are adequate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required as no primary data will be collected. Outcomes will be disseminated to stakeholders via reports, journal articles and presentations at meetings and conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017057871.