Examining the association of eating psychopathology with suicidality: Comparing cross-sectional and longitudinal tests of interpersonal-psychological mediators.

Eating disorders (EDs) are associated with high mortality rates from suicide. Empirical tests of the Interpersonal-Psychological Theory of Suicide (IPTS) have provided preliminary cross-sectional support for its application to individuals with EDs. Because IPTS seeks to predict development and changes in suicidal ideation (SI), longitudinal investigations are ideal. The purpose of this study was to conduct cross-sectional and longitudinal mediational tests of the effect of ED psychopathology on SI as explained by perceived burdensomeness, thwarted belongingness, and hopelessness. Participants were undergraduate students (N = 738) who completed self-report measures of ED symptoms and IPTS variables at up to three time points across 10 weeks. Multiple mediation analyses were conducted on cross-sectional and longitudinal data. Cross-sectional analyses indicate mostly consistent findings with existing literature; however, results from the longitudinal analyses failed to identify any mediational effects of ED psychopathology on SI. These differences emphasize the importance of empirical tests in both cross-sectional and longitudinal data. Given the inconsistent results, the utility of IPTS features in explaining the association between ED psychopathology and SI is unclear. Future studies should seek to replicate these findings using other methods of measurement across time (e.g., ecological momentary assessment) and within clinical ED samples.

Differentiating motives for nonmedical prescription stimulant use by personality characteristics.

Nonmedical prescription stimulant use (NPS) is increasing, particularly among college students. College students typically engage in NPS for cognitive enhancement, recreational, and appetite/weight-related purposes; however, little research has used these motives to identify specific risk for, or consequences of, NPS. Moreover, there may be unique risk factors for motive-specific NPS that have yet to be explored, such as relevant personality traits (i.e., distress tolerance, impulsivity, and perfectionism) that are associated with NPS in general. Therefore, this study aimed to examine whether NPS users and nonusers could be differentiated via facets of impulsivity, perfectionism, and distress tolerance, and whether users could be further differentiated by reported motive for use based on these traits. Midwestern university undergraduate students (N = 668) who were enrolled in a psychology research pool completed an online survey assessing demographics, NPS and motives, and measures of distress tolerance, impulsivity, and perfectionism. Participants were primarily female (78%) and aged 18-54 (M = 20.10, SD = 3.19) years. Univariate and multivariate analysis of variance tests revealed associations between lifetime NPS and higher impulsivity, higher perfectionism, and lower distress tolerance. Further tests revealed NPS for appetite/weight-related purposes was associated with lower distress tolerance, while NPS for recreational purposes was associated with higher impulsivity. These findings contribute novel information regarding NPS motives and personality constructs. This information may aid in comprehensive identification of high-risk individuals for NPS and inform the development of specialized prevention and intervention efforts.

Consensus validation of the FORTA (Fit fOR The Aged) List: a clinical tool for increasing the appropriateness of pharmacotherapy in the elderly.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity and polypharmacy represent a major problem for elderly patients; improvement of medication schemes is important and listing approaches (e.g. Beers list) are considered to be potentially useful. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to perform expert consensus validation of the FORTA (Fit fOR The Aged) List, a drug classification combining positive and negative labelling of drugs chronically prescribed to elderly patients. METHODS: A two-round Delphi procedure was conducted involving 20 experts, 17 geriatric internists and 3 geriatric psychiatrists from Germany and Austria, evaluating the labels assigned to 190 substances or substance groups. These labels ranged from A (indispensable), B (beneficial), C (questionable) to D (avoid), depending on the state of evidence for safety, efficacy and overall age-appropriateness. The experts were also requested to suggest additional substances and indication areas for assessment and possible inclusion in the FORTA List. A weighted (corrected) consensus coefficient was generated for each substance to reflect (1) agreement with the original label, and (2) distribution among raters' labels. RESULTS: The overall consensus for all items and raters was 92% (corrected). For 54/190 items (28.4%), a unanimous response was achieved as to the original author-based FORTA label choice. Twenty-four substances (12.6%) fell short of the consensus cutoff and were re-evaluated in a second round. This yielded confirmation of 171/190, or 90%, of the original author-based FORTA labels. A total of 35 new substances were also accepted for the FORTA List. Drugs used for dementia and dementia syndromes provoked particular response heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: The FORTA List now reflects a wider consensus among experts, increasing its validity for clinical use. It represents a tool to improve the quality of drug prescription in older patients by identifying both inappropriate and omitted drugs, and thus overtreatment and undertreatment. The validation of FORTA's impact on clinical endpoints has yielded promising preliminary results, to be corroborated in ongoing larger trials.