Implicit assumptions and interpretation bias in youth with severe, chronic social phobia.

Interpretation bias and dysfunctional social assumptions are proposed to play a pivotal role in the development and maintenance of social phobia (SP), especially in youth. In this study, we aimed to investigate disorder-specific implicit assumptions of rejection and implicit interpretation bias in youth with severe, chronic SP and healthy controls (CG). Twenty-seven youth with SP in inpatient/day-care treatment (M age = 15.6 years, 74% female) and 24 healthy controls (M age = 15.7 years, 54% female) were included. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) and the Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP) were completed to assess implicit assumptions and interpretation bias related to the processing of social and affective stimuli. No group differences were observed for the IAT controlling for depressive symptoms in the analyses. However, group differences were found regarding interpretation bias (p = .017, η2p = .137). Correlations between implicit scores and explicit questionnaire results were medium to large in the SP group (r =|.28| to |.54|, pall ≤ .05), but lower in the control group (r =|.04| to |.46|, pall ≤ .05). Our results confirm the finding of an interpretation bias in youth SP, especially regarding the implicit processing of faces, whereas implicit dysfunctional social assumptions of being rejected do not seem to be specific for SP. Future research should investigate the causal relationship of assumptions/interpretation bias and SP.

Lower-Socioeconomic Status Patients Have Extremely High-Risk Factor Profiles on Entry to Cardiac Rehabilitation.

PURPOSE: Patients with lower socioeconomic status (SES) have higher rates of cardiovascular events, yet are less likely to engage in secondary prevention such as cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Given the low number of lower-SES patients entering CR, characterization of this population has been difficult. Our CR program specifically increased recruitment of lower-SES patients, allowing for careful comparison of medical, psychosocial, and behavioral risk factors between lower- and higher-SES patients eligible for secondary prevention. METHODS: Demographic and clinical characteristics were prospectively gathered on consecutive individuals entering phase 2 CR from January 2014 to December 2022. Patients were classified as lower SES if they had Medicaid insurance. Statistical methods included chi-square and nonpaired t tests. A P value of <.01 was used to determine significance. RESULTS: The entire cohort consisted of 3131 individuals. Compared with higher-SES patients, lower-SES individuals (n = 405; 13%) were a decade younger (57.1 ± 10.4 vs 67.2 ± 11.2 yr), 5.8 times more likely to be current smokers (29 vs 5%), 1.7 times more likely to have elevated depressive symptoms, and significantly higher body mass index, waist circumference, and glycated hemoglobin A 1c , with more abnormal lipid profiles (all P s < .001). Despite being a decade younger, lower-SES patients had lower measures of cardiorespiratory fitness and self-reported physical function (both P s < .001). CONCLUSION: Lower-SES patients have a remarkably prominent high-risk cardiovascular disease profile, resulting in a substantially higher risk for a recurrent coronary event than higher-SES patients. Accordingly, efforts must be made to engage this high-risk population in CR. It is incumbent on CR programs to ensure that they are appropriately equipped to intervene on modifiable risk factors such as low cardiorespiratory fitness, obesity, depression, and smoking.

Financial incentives and case management to improve cardiac rehabilitation participation among patients with lower socio-economic status: Rationale and protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Participation in phase 2 cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is associated with significant decreases in morbidity and mortality. Unfortunately, attendance at CR is not optimal and certain populations, such as those with lower-socioeconomic status (SES), are less likely to participate. In order to remedy this disparity we have designed a trial to examine the efficacy of early case management and/or financial incentives for increasing CR participation among lower-SES patients. METHODS: We will employ a randomized controlled trial with a sample goal of 209 patients who will be randomized 2:3:3:3 to either a usual care control, to receive a case manager starting in-hospital, to receive financial incentives for completing CR sessions, or to receive both interventions. RESULTS: Treatment conditions will be compared on attendance at CR and end-of-intervention (four months) improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness, executive function, and health-related quality of life. The primary outcome measures for this project will be number of CR sessions completed and the percentage who complete ≥30 sessions. Secondary outcomes will include improvements in health outcomes by condition, as well as the cost-effectiveness of the intervention with a focus on potential reductions in emergency department visits and hospitalizations. We hypothesize that either intervention will perform better than the control and that the combination of interventions will perform better than either alone. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic examination of interventions will allow us to test the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of approaches that have the potential to increase CR participation substantially and significantly improve health outcomes among patients with lower-SES.