Cumulative lifetime stressor exposure impairs stimulus-response but not contextual learning.

Greater exposure to stressors over the life course is believed to promote striatum-dependent over hippocampus-dependent learning and memory processes under stressful conditions. However, little research in this context has actually assessed lifetime stressor exposure and, moreover, it remains unknown whether greater cumulative lifetime stressor exposure exerts comparable effects on striatum-dependent learning and hippocampus-dependent learning in non-stressful contexts. To investigate this issue, we used the Stress and Adversity Inventory for Adults (Adult STRAIN) and Multicued Search Task to investigate the relation between cumulative lifetime stressor exposure and striatum-dependent stimulus-response learning and hippocampus-dependent contextual learning under non-stressful conditions among healthcare professionals (N = 205; 157 females, 48 males; Age: M = 34.23, SD 9.3, range 20-59 years). Individuals with moderate, but not low, cumulative lifetime stressor exposure exhibited impaired learning for stimulus-response associations. In contrast, learning for context associations was unrelated to participants' lifetime stressor exposure profiles. These results thus provide first evidence that cumulative lifetime stressor exposure may have negative consequences on human striatum-dependent stimulus-response learning under non-stressful environmental conditions.

Family functioning but not social capital is associated with better mental health in adolescents affected by violence and displacement by armed conflict in Colombia.

BACKGROUND: The effect of the Colombian armed conflict on the mental health of adolescents is still poorly understood. AIMS: Given social interventions are most likely to inform policy, we tested whether two potential intervention targets, family functioning and social capital, were associated with mental health in Colombian adolescents, and whether this was moderated by experience of violence and displacement. METHODS: We examined the cross-sectional association between family functioning, cognitive social capital, structural social capital and 12-month prevalence of Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) diagnosed psychiatric disorder, using data on 12 to 17-year-old adolescents (N = 1,754) from the 2015 National Mental Health Survey of Colombia, a nationally representative epidemiological study. We tested whether associations survived cumulative adjustment for demographic confounders, experience of non-specific violence and harm and displacement by armed conflict. RESULTS: Neither structural nor cognitive social capital were associated with better mental health. Better family functioning was associated with reduced risk of poor mental health in an unadjusted analysis (OR 0.90 [0.85-0.96]), and after cumulative adjustments for demographic confounders (OR 0.91 [0.86-0.97]), non-specific violence and harm (OR 0.91 [0.86-0.97]) and social capital variables (OR 0.91 [0.85-0.97]). In the final model, each additional point on the family APGAR scale was associated with a 9% reduced odds of any CIDI diagnosed disorder in the last 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Better family functioning was associated with better mental health outcomes for all adolescents. This effect remained present in those affected by the armed conflict even after accounting for potential confounders.

La toma de decisiones de gobiernos y sectores de la sociedad, intuiciones y datos en tiempos de pandemia SARS-COVID-19 / Decision-making by Governments and Sectors of Society, Intuitions and Data in Times of the SARS-COVID-19 Pandemic / A tomada de decisões de governos e setores da sociedade, intuições e dados em tempos de pandemia SARS-COVID-19

Uno de los cuestionamientos más recurrentes durante la pandemia ha girado alrededor de la toma de decisiones y el tipo de evidencia que las respalda. Comparada con otras crisis como la económica del 2008, que principalmente afectó al sector financiero; o el escenario de malas decisiones durante la epidemia de la gripe aviar en la década de los setenta (1), la pandemia por COVID-19 ha afectado todo el sistema socioeconómico y generando incertidumbre ha aumentado la percepción de riesgo. Esto ha hecho que se requieran tiempos de respuesta más cortos, así como una reflexión del sistema de valores de las sociedades en el proceso de toma de decisiones. En este contexto, las evidencias provienen de diferentes sectores y de diferentes ramas del conocimiento. La pregunta que razonablemente surge entonces es: ¿A quién escuchar? La rapidez con que se deben tomar las decisiones en tiempos de pandemia requiere un ajuste al modelo de toma de decisiones basado en evidencia que demanda información con alta credibilidad y libre de sesgos. Por ejemplo, el resultado de investigación científica de calidad. Supone además que la información disponible sea el resultado de un exhaustivo análisis y una evaluación metódica, además de accesible y fácil de entender.

One of the most recurrent questions during the pandemic has revolved around decision-making and the type of evidence that supports them. Compared with other crises such as the economic one in 2008, which mainly affected the financial sector; or the scenario of bad decisions during the avian flu epidemic in the 1970s (1), the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the entire socioeconomic system and, generating uncertainty, has increased the perception of risk. This has meant that shorter response times are required, as well as a reflection of the society's value system in the decision-making process. In this context, the evidence comes from different sectors and from different branches of knowledge. The question that reasonably arises then is: Who to listen to? The speed with which decisions must be made in times of pandemic requires an adjustment to the decision-making model based on evidence that demands information with high credibility and free of bias. For example, the result of quality scientific research. It also assumes that the available information is the result of a thorough analysis and methodical evaluation, as well as accessible and easy to understand.

Uma das questões mais recorrentes durante a pandemia girou em torno da tomada de decisões e do tipo de evidência que as apóia. Em comparação com outras crises, como a econômica de 2008, que afetou principalmente o setor financeiro; ou cenário de más decisões durante a epidemia de gripe aviária na década de 1970 (1), a pandemia do COVID-19 afetou todo o sistema socioeconômico e, gerando incerteza, aumentou a percepção de risco. Isso significa que tempos de resposta mais curtos são necessários, bem como um reflexo do sistema de valores da sociedade no processo de tomada de decisão. Nesse contexto, as evidências vêm de diferentes setores e de diferentes ramos do conhecimento. A questão que se levanta razoavelmente é: Quem ouvir? A rapidez com que as decisões devem ser tomadas em tempos de pandemia exige um ajuste no modelo de tomada de decisão com base em evidências que exigem informações de alta credibilidade e isentas de preconceitos. Por exemplo, o resultado de pesquisa científica de qualidade. Também assume que a informação disponível é fruto de uma análise aprofundada e avaliação metódica, além de acessível e de fácil compreensão.