Increasing Value and Reducing Waste of Research on Neurofeedback Effects in Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: A State-of-the-Art-Review.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is often considered challenging to treat due to factors that contribute to its complexity. In the last decade, more attention has been paid to non-pharmacological or non-psychological therapies for PTSD, including neurofeedback (NFB). NFB is a promising non-invasive technique targeting specific brainwave patterns associated with psychiatric symptomatology. By learning to regulate brain activity in a closed-loop paradigm, individuals can improve their functionality while reducing symptom severity. However, owing to its lax regulation and heterogeneous legal status across different countries, the degree to which it has scientific support as a psychiatric treatment remains controversial. In this state-of-the-art review, we searched PubMed, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, Scopus, and MEDLINE and identified meta-analyses and systematic reviews exploring the efficacy of NFB for PTSD. We included seven systematic reviews, out of which three included meta-analyses (32 studies and 669 participants) that targeted NFB as an intervention while addressing a single condition-PTSD. We used the MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 and the criteria described by Cristea and Naudet (Behav Res Therapy 123:103479, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2019.103479 ) to identify sources of research waste and increasing value in biomedical research. The seven assessed reviews had an overall extremely poor quality score (5 critically low, one low, one moderate, and none high) and multiple sources of waste while opening opportunities for increasing value in the NFB literature. Our research shows that it remains unclear whether NFB training is significantly beneficial in treating PTSD. The quality of the investigated literature is low and maintains a persistent uncertainty over numerous points, which are highly important for deciding whether an intervention has clinical efficacy. Just as importantly, none of the reviews we appraised explored the statistical power, referred to open data of the included studies, or adjusted their pooled effect sizes for publication bias and risk of bias. Based on the obtained results, we identified some recurrent sources of waste (such as a lack of research decisions based on sound questions or using an appropriate methodology in a fully transparent, unbiased, and useable manner) and proposed some directions for increasing value (homogeneity and consensus) in designing and reporting research on NFB interventions in PTSD.

Cognitive and Behavioral Factors Predicting the Decision to Vaccinate against COVID-19 in Clinical Psychiatric Population-A Cross-Sectional Survey.

The spread of the COVID-19 virus created more than a medical crisis, while it also negatively affected the mental health of the general population. This context increased the vulnerability of the psychiatric population. While research interest highly targeted vaccine hesitancy and acceptance, many studies focused on trust issues-both in vaccine efficacy and in communication with authorities. Less is known about the psychological underpinnings of the COVID vaccination decision, specifically in the high-uncertainty circumstances due to the novelty of the virus. In a cross-sectional study, we investigated the predictive value of several cognitive (perceived risk, vulnerability, uncertainty, and trust in one's decision) and behavioral (previous vaccinations, social media use, and practicing preventive behavior) factors, for the vaccination decision against COVID-19, for 252 psychiatric inpatients (data collected between September 2021 and February 2022). Demographics and diagnostics were also considered. We found a significant relationship between the "Perceived risk of vaccination" and the choice of vaccination (χ2(2, N = 252) = 58.59, p ≤ 0.001), and between the "Trust in own decision to vaccinate" and the decision to vaccinate (χ2(2, N = 252) = 31,5, p ≤ 0.001). The overall regression model was statistically significant (χ2 (9, N = 252) = 97.1, p < 0.001), with between 30% and 45% of the variance in the odds of a positive decision explained by the predictor set. The model coefficients analysis showed that an individual with a psychiatric disorder but with higher confidence in their decision had significant (p < 0.001) increased odds of the decision to vaccinate against COVID-19 by 893%. A former voluntary vaccination did not significantly associate with the decision to vaccinate against COVID-19 (χ2(1, N = 252) = 2.74, p > 0.05) in this special population. No other behavioral factors, diagnosis, or demographics were significant as predictors, for the clinical psychiatric population surveyed, except the educational level. Implications for future vaccination acceptance of this special population are discussed.

A multi-country test of brief reappraisal interventions on emotions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased negative emotions and decreased positive emotions globally. Left unchecked, these emotional changes might have a wide array of adverse impacts. To reduce negative emotions and increase positive emotions, we tested the effectiveness of reappraisal, an emotion-regulation strategy that modifies how one thinks about a situation. Participants from 87 countries and regions (n = 21,644) were randomly assigned to one of two brief reappraisal interventions (reconstrual or repurposing) or one of two control conditions (active or passive). Results revealed that both reappraisal interventions (vesus both control conditions) consistently reduced negative emotions and increased positive emotions across different measures. Reconstrual and repurposing interventions had similar effects. Importantly, planned exploratory analyses indicated that reappraisal interventions did not reduce intentions to practice preventive health behaviours. The findings demonstrate the viability of creating scalable, low-cost interventions for use around the world. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on 12 May 2020. The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.4878591.v1.