The association between naturalistic use of psychedelics and co-occurring substance use disorders.

Objective: Classic psychedelics (LSD, psilocybin, and peyote/mescaline) have been used to support addiction treatment in a variety of contexts ranging from ceremonial use to clinical trials. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that past naturalistic use of classic psychedelics would be associated with decreased prevalence of substance use disorder, when controlling for known confounders. Methods: This cross-sectional study used 2017 NSDUH survey data to evaluate the association between past use of the classic psychedelics LSD, psilocybin and peyote/mescaline and past year substance dependence or abuse. We calculated adjusted odds ratios by multivariate logistic regression, controlling for a range of sociodemographic variables, use of non-psychedelic illicit drugs and mental health related variables. Results: A total of 56,276 participants were included in this study. Past use of LSD and psilocybin were associated with increased odds of substance dependence or abuse compared to those who had never used psychedelics before, and this was more likely for those who had used LSD more recently. However, prior use of peyote or mescaline was associated with lower odds of past year substance dependence or abuse compared to people who had never used psychedelics before (aOR = 0.68, p < 0.001). Past use of classic psychedelics was not associated with nicotine dependence. Conclusion: Past use of peyote/mescaline was associated with decreased odds of substance use disorder compared to people who had never used psychedelics before, while past use of LSD or psilocybin was not. It remains unclear whether this difference is due to pharmacological differences between these compounds or simply due to the context in which peyote/mescaline are traditionally taken. Future research should investigate why naturalistic use of different psychedelics is associated with different substance use disorder effects.

Physician experience is associated with greater underestimation of patient pain.

OBJECTIVE: Procedural pain is unique in that physicians simultaneously cause and assess it. Experienced male physicians are known to underestimate their female patients' pain more than other physicians. However, it is unknown whether this also occurs in obstetrics/gynecology, where all patients are females. This study addresses the gap in literature on procedural pain assessment accuracy. METHODS: The present research compares paired pain evaluations from 20 obstetricians/gynecologists and their 92 female patients. RESULTS: Our data demonstrate that patients' reported pain levels (M = 5.53, SD = 2.7) were significantly higher than their physicians' pain estimates (M = 4.89, SD = 2.19), t = 2.64, p < 0.005. The gap between patients' and physicians' pain estimates was greatest among physicians with the greatest procedural experience (M = 1.49, SD = 2.24), f = 5.72, p < 0.005. Male physicians underestimated their patients' pain significantly more than female physicians do, t = 2.27, p < 0.05. CONCLUSION: Our results shed light on systematic underestimation of procedural pain and highlight the significance of experience and sex differences in pain evaluation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Physicians' experience influences their perception of patient pain while performing procedures. Experienced male physicians, even those who exclusively treat female patients, need to be aware of this ubiquitous bias in assessing their female patients' procedural pain.

Invasive Prenatal Diagnostic Testing Recommendations are Influenced by Maternal Age, Statistical Misconception and Perceived Liability.

Funding policy and medico-legal climate are part of physicians' reality and might permeate clinical decisions. This study evaluates the influence of maternal age and government funding on obstetrician/gynecologist recommendation for invasive prenatal testing (i.e. amniocentesis) for Down syndrome (DS), and its association with the physician's assessment of the risk of liability for medical malpractice unless they recommend amniocentesis. Israeli physicians (N = 171) completed a questionnaire and provided amniocentesis recommendations for women at 18 weeks gestation with normal preliminary screening results, identical except aged 28 and 37. Amniocentesis recommendations were reversed for the younger ('yes' regardless of testing results: 6.4%; 'no' regardless of testing results: 31.6%) versus older woman ('yes' regardless of testing results: 40.9%; 'no' regardless of testing results: 7.0%; χ2 = 71.55, p < .01). About half of the physicians endorsed different recommendations per scenario; of these, 65.6% recommended amniocentesis regardless of testing results for the 37-year-old woman. Physicians routinely performing amniocentesis and those advocating for amniocentesis for all women ≥ age 35 were approximately twice as likely to vary their recommendations per scenario. Physicians who perceived risk of liability for malpractice as large were nearly one-and-a-half times more likely to vary recommendations. The results indicate physicians' recommendations are influenced by maternal age, though age is already incorporated in prenatal DS risk evaluations. The physician's assessment of the risk that they will be sued unless they recommend amniocentesis may contribute to this spurious influence.