Prevalence of and Relationship Between Caregiver Adversity Scores and Child Client Eco-systemic Structural Family Therapy (ESFT) Outcome: Implications for Family Based Mental Health Services (FBMHS).

Adverse childhood experiences, especially with primary caregivers, impacts the mental, physical, and relational health of individuals (Felitti et al. in Am J Prev Med, 14(4):245-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-3797(98)00017-8 , 1998). Therefore, caregiver adversity is important to consider when delivering therapeutic interventions to children (Gardner et al. in Clin Soc Work J 42(1):81-89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-012-0428-8 , 2014; Eslinger et al. in J Child Fam Stud 24(9):2757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-0079-1 , 2015; Hagan et al. in J Trauma Stress 30(6):690-697, 2017). This study analyzed archival data to understand the role of caregiver adversity in Eco-Systemic Structural Family Therapy (ESFT) outcomes, within Family Based Mental Health Services. Results indicate caregiver lifetime adversity score did not predict treatment outcome. However, caregiver current adversity and family length of stay were negatively correlated as were length of stay and client discharge level of care. These findings suggest that ESFT benefits families regardless of caregiver childhood adversity level and that clinician attention to caregiver current adversity is important to ensure families receive the full benefits of ESFT. Implications for optimizing ESFT and future directions for ESFT clinical research are discussed.

Contribution of extended family history in assessment of risk for breast and colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Family history is important for identifying candidates for high risk cancer screening and referral for genetic counseling. We sought to determine the percentage of individuals who would be eligible for high risk cancer screening or genetic referral and testing if family history includes an extended (vs limited) family history. METHODS: Family histories were obtained from 626 women at UVMMC associated mammography centers from 2001 to 2002. ACS guidelines were used to determine eligibility for high risk breast or colon cancer screening. Eligibility for referral for genetic counseling for hereditary breast and colon cancer was determined using the Referral Screening Tool and Amsterdam II screening criteria, respectively. All family histories were assessed for eligibility by a limited history (first degree relatives only) and extended history (first and second degree relatives). RESULTS: Four hundred ninety-nine histories were eligible for review. 18/282 (3.6 %) and 62/123 (12 %) individuals met criteria for high risk breast and colon cancer screening, respectively. 13/18 (72 %) in the high risk breast cancer screening group and 12/62 (19 %) in the high risk colon cancer screening group met criteria based upon an extended family history. 9/282 (1.8 %) and 31/123 (6.2 %) individuals met criteria for genetic counseling referral and testing for breast and colon cancer, respectively. 2/9 (22 %) of individuals in the genetic breast cancer screening group and 21/31 (68 %) individuals in the genetic colon cancer screening group met criteria based upon extended family history. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the first studies to suggest that first degree family history alone is not adequate for identification of candidates for high risk screening and referral for genetic counseling for hereditary breast and colon cancer syndromes. A larger population is needed to further validate this data.

DLCO versus DLCO/VA as predictors of pulmonary gas exchange.

BACKGROUND: The diffusing capacity of the lung is usually reported as both the diffusing capacity (DLCO) and the diffusing capacity divided by the alveolar volume (DLCO/VA). However, it is unclear which measure to use when interpreting pulmonary gas exchange. We therefore conducted this study to determine whether the DLCO or the DLCO/VA is a better predictor of oxygen desaturation with exercise. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the pulmonary function records of all patients who had measurement of their diffusing capacity and 6-min walk oximetry in our university pulmonary function laboratory over a 2-year period. RESULTS: There were data available on 97 patients, most of who had interstitial lung disease and/or lung volume restriction. The median DLCO was 51% predicted and the median DLCO/VA was 64% predicted. The prevalence of exercise desaturation was 43%. The overall sensitivity and specificity as determined by the area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve was higher for DLCO than DLCO/VA, with an optimal cut-off of normal of 55% predicted. The positive predictive values were equally low for both measures, ranging from 50% to 70%. After adjustment for VA, there were no differences between the ROC curves or predictive values for DLCO and DLCO/VA. CONCLUSION: After adjusting for VA, neither the DLCO nor the DLCO/VA was better at predicting oxygen desaturation with exercise. The optimal cut-off of normal was 55% predicted.