International perspective on guidelines and policies for child custody and child maltreatment risk evaluations: A preliminary comparative analysis across selected countries in Europe and North America.

Little knowledge exists on how evaluators in child custody and child maltreatment cases are informed by guidelines, the kinds of qualifications required and the types of training provided in different countries. The purpose of this paper is to provide an international preliminary comparison on how child custody and child maltreatment risk assessments are conducted in selected Western countries, and how the assessments are informed by best practice guidelines. Another aim is to increase knowledge on how the guidelines and best-practice standards could be developed further to reflect recent research findings. A total number of 18 guidelines were included in the analyses: four from Canada, five from the United States, three from the United Kingdom, three from the Netherlands, two from Finland, and one from Germany. We conducted a content analysis of the included guidelines in the database, focusing on how the guidelines address the best interest of the child criteria, guidelines for conducting the assessments, considerations for evaluative criteria, and specific guidance for conducting specific assessment procedures (e.g., interviews and observations). Findings show that the qualifications of and training provided to evaluators in child custody and child maltreatment risk evaluations are largely heterogeneous across the countries represented. Guidelines differ in whether and how they highlight the importance of evidence-based practices and scientifically validated assessment measures. Implications are drawn from the review and contextualized by international expert authors in the fields of forensic psychology, and family law. After the content analysis, discussion sessions within the expert group were held. The authors provide both commentaries and suggestions to improve the development of standard methods for conducting both child custody and child maltreatment risk evaluations and to consider a more transparent and judicious use of social science research to guide methods and the recommendations offered within these assessments.

Efficacy and moderators of cognitive therapy versus behavioural activation for adults with depression: study protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive therapy and behavioural activation are both widely applied and effective psychotherapies for depression, but it is unclear which works best for whom. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis allows for examining moderators at the participant level and can provide more precise effect estimates than conventional meta-analysis, which is based on study-level data. AIMS: This article describes the protocol for a systematic review and IPD meta-analysis that aims to compare the efficacy of cognitive therapy and behavioural activation for adults with depression, and to explore moderators of treatment effect. (PROSPERO: CRD42022341602). METHOD: Systematic literature searches will be conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, to identify randomised clinical trials comparing cognitive therapy and behavioural activation for adult acute-phase depression. Investigators of these trials will be invited to share their participant-level data. One-stage IPD meta-analyses will be conducted with mixed-effects models to assess treatment effects and to examine various available demographic, clinical and psychological participant characteristics as potential moderators. The primary outcome measure will be depressive symptom level at treatment completion. Secondary outcomes will include post-treatment anxiety, interpersonal functioning and quality of life, as well as follow-up outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this will be the first IPD meta-analysis concerning cognitive therapy versus behavioural activation for adult depression. This study has the potential to enhance our knowledge of depression treatment by using state-of-the-art statistical techniques to compare the efficacy of two widely used psychotherapies, and by shedding more light on which of these treatments might work best for whom.

The health and well-being of LGBTQ serving and ex-serving personnel: a narrative review.

The relaxation of discriminatory policies against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) service personnel has led to increased diversity among military populations. Given this increase, it is important to assess sexual and gender minority groups' health and well-being in the context of military service. This narrative review assessed these outcomes in LGBTQ military personnel. The electronic databases OVID Medline, PsycInfo, and Embase were searched for papers published between January 2000 and July 2018. Thirty papers were included. In line with life course model, studies aligned with four themes: (1) mental health and well-being; (2) stigma and healthcare utilization; (3) sexual trauma; and (4) physical health. These themes highlighted that LGBTQ military personnel and veterans have poorer mental health and well-being; report more stigma and barriers to mental healthcare, which reduces uptake of accessed healthcare services; experience more sexual trauma; and have poorer physical health than heterosexual military personnel and veterans. However, there are substantial gaps in the current evidence for this population. Future research should aim to address limitations of the literature, and to ensure that data on LGBTQ personnel and veterans is collected as standard.

A prospective, multi-center cohort study: investigating the ability of warfarin-treated patients to predict their INR.

BACKGROUND: In practice, warfarin-treated patients may share insight regarding their international normalized ratio (INR) value before it is measured. The accuracy and potential utility of these predictions have not been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To (1) test how accurately patients can predict their INR; (2) identify demographic factors associated with their ability to predict their INR accurately; and (3) identify demographic factors associated with the patient's INR being in the therapeutic range. METHODS: A prospective, multi-center cohort study enrolled patients from eight anticoagulation clinics in Iowa. Inclusion criteria were: age ≥ 18 years, warfarin use ≥ 60 days, INR goal of 2.0-3.0, and expected warfarin use > 6 months. Subjects completed a data collection form during enrollment and before each INR measurement. Data included demographics, a set of medication taking beliefs and practices, self-reported adherence, past INR values, INR prediction and reason(s) for the prediction. RESULTS: There were 87 subjects enrolled with 372 INR measurements. The mean (SD) number of INRs per subject was 4.3 (1.8). Thirty percent of subjects reported they could tell when their INR is out of goal range. Patients predicted that 90.5% of their INRs would be within goal range, although only 65.5% of INRs were therapeutic. Patients correctly predicted a low INR as low or high INR as high in only 9.4% of out of range instances. A set of demographic characteristics and medication beliefs were not associated with prediction accuracy or percentage of INR measurements in range (PINRR). Most patients did not give a reason for their predicted result. For those that did, the most common factor was perceived stability at current dose. CONCLUSION: While some patients believed they could predict when their INR was out of range, only few were able to do so. Most patients assumed a therapeutic INR and missed when their INR was high or low. Patients should be advised against modifying their warfarin dose without consulting the provider that manages their therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT 02764112.

A comparison of the ability of levels of urinary biomarker proteins and exosomal mRNA to predict outcomes after renal transplantation.

BACKGROUND: mRNA for biomarkers of kidney injury extracted from urinary exosomes may reflect or predict levels of the corresponding protein after transplantation and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Urinary exosomes were isolated from patients following renal transplantation, from healthy controls, and patients with CKD. Expression of exosomal mRNA for the injury biomarkers neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL), interleukin-18 (IL-18), kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1), and cystatin C was compared with the concentrations of corresponding urinary proteins, 18S RNA and serum creatinine. RESULTS: All biomarker protein concentrations increased after transplantation, and urinary NGAL and IL-18 at 24 and 168 h correlated with the day 7 creatinine reduction ratio (CRR). Exosomal18S RNA increased after transplantation, but exosomal mRNA for NGAL, IL-18 and cystatin C did not correlate with the day 7 CRR, or urinary biomarker concentrations at any time after transplantation. Exosomal NGAL mRNA was lower 4 h after transplantation than in control exosomes. In contrast, exosomal mRNA for cystatin C was unchanged after transplantation and in CKD, although urinary cystatin C temporarily increased following transplantation. Urinary KIM-1 increased after transplantation, but exosomal mRNA for KIM-1 remained undetectable. In CKD 18S RNA was raised, and exosomal mRNA for NGAL, IL-18 and cystatin C was detected in all patients. While urinary NGAL was greater in CKD than control subjects, exosomal NGAL mRNA was unchanged. Exosomal IL-18 mRNA was increased in CKD, but not IL-18 protein. CONCLUSIONS: After renal transplantation, urinary NGAL and IL-18 levels reflect the day 7 CRR. However, while mRNA for these biomarkers is present in exosomes, their levels do not reflect or predict urinary biomarker levels or the CRR. This likely reflects the fact that packaging of mRNA in exosomes is selective, and is not necessarily representative of mRNA in the parent cells responsible for biomarker production.

Routine rapid HIV screening in six community health centers serving populations at risk.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, to increase opportunities for patients to become aware of their HIV status, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released updated guidelines for routine, opt-out HIV screening of adults, adolescents, and pregnant women in healthcare settings. To date, there are few documented applications of these recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To measure the impact of application of the guidelines for routine screening in health centers serving communities disproportionately affected by HIV in the southeastern US. DESIGN: A multi-site program implementation study, describing patients tested and not tested and assessing changes in testing frequency before and after new guidelines were implemented. PARTICIPANTS: All patients aged 13 to 64 seen in participating health centers. INTERVENTIONS: Routine rapid HIV screening in accord with CDC guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: The frequency of testing before and after routine screening was in place and demographic differences in offering and receipt of testing. MAIN RESULTS: Compared to approximately 3,000 patients in the year prior to implementation, 16,148 patients were offered testing with 10,769 tested. Of 39 rapid tests resulting in preliminary positives, 17 were newly detected infections. Among these patients, 12 of 14 receiving referrals were linked to HIV care. Nineteen were false positives. Younger patients, African Americans and Latinos were more likely to receive testing. CONCLUSIONS: By integrating CDC-recommended guidelines and applying rapid test technology, health centers were able to provide new access to HIV testing. Variation across centers in offering and receiving tests may indicate that clinical training could enhance universal access.