Self-concept mediates the relationships between childhood traumatic experiences and adolescent depression in both clinical and community samples.

BACKGROUND: Childhood trauma is a pivotal risk factor for adolescent depression. While the association between childhood trauma and depression is well-established, the mediating role of self-concept has not been acknowledged. Specifically, limited attention has been paid to how childhood maltreatment impacts adolescent depression through physical and social self-concept, both in clinical and community samples. This study aims to investigate how distinct and cumulative childhood trauma affects adolescent depression, as well as the potential mediating role of self-concept in their relationships. METHODS: We recruited 227 depressed adolescents (dataset 1, 45 males, age = 15.34 ± 1.96) and 574 community adolescents (dataset 2, 107 males, age = 16.79 ± 0.65). Each participant was assessed on five subtypes of childhood trauma severity, cumulative trauma index, physical and social self-concept, and depression. Mediation models were tested separately in the clinical and community samples. RESULTS: Clinically depressed adolescents experienced a higher level of trauma severity, a greater number of trauma subtypes, and had lower levels of physical and social self-concept compared to community adolescents. Analyses on childhood trauma severity and cumulative trauma index jointly indicated that physical and social self-concept played mediation roles in the relationships between childhood trauma experiences and depression. Moreover, the mediating effects of self-concept were stronger in depressed adolescents when compared to community samples. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that physical and social self-concept play mediating roles in the pathway linking childhood trauma and adolescent depression, particularly in clinically depressed individuals.

Connecting the dots: Exploring brain connectivity during responsibility recognition in construction contract negotiations.

Despite recent advancements in monitoring brain activity, causal relationships within the brain during responsibility identification in construction contracts remain unexplored. We aimed to understand the neural mechanisms involved in the cognitive components and their interactions related to contract text reading by delving into the brain mechanisms of contract responsibility identification. This study investigated students' brain connectivity using electroencephalography (EEG) data during a text-based contract responsibility-identification task. It employed an adaptive directed transfer function based on Granger causality to simulate directed and time-varying information flow in observed brain activity. We evaluated the EEG records of 18 participants under two reading conditions (involving or not involving contractor responsibility). During responsibility identification, the most substantial information exchange occurs in the somatosensory area of the brain. The results revealed a "top-down" cortical mechanism for responsibility identification, with the left parietal-occipital area (PO3) as the central hub promoting connectivity structures. These findings indicate that the perceptual processing of contract responsibility texts is associated with higher visual learning and memory quality. Contracts without contractor-responsibility clauses resulted in more substantial information flow output in the frontal cortex and consumed more cognitive resources. Our findings advance the understanding of cognitive processes involved in contract responsibility identification, providing a framework for investigating causal relationships within the brain and novel insights into cortical mechanisms. By identifying the neural basis of responsibility identification, stakeholders can develop effective training programs for negotiators and enhance their ability to interpret and implement construction contracts.

New energy vehicles' technology innovation coordination strategy based on alliance negotiation under dual credit policy.

The development of new energy vehicles (NEVs) is one of the effective ways to alleviate carbon emissions, environmental pollution, and energy scarcity in the transportation sector. The Chinese government has innovatively proposed the "dual credit policy," but it is still a hot topic whether it can promote the NEVs' technological innovation. In this study, we construct game models and obtain the technological innovation strategies for NEVs under the dual credit policy, considering that the NEV supply chain contains one manufacturer and N suppliers. Further, we construct bargaining game models and study how to encourage manufacturers and suppliers to enhance technological innovation, realize supply chain coordination, and give the alliance strategy to maximize suppliers' profit. We found that the dual credit policy can effectively stimulate technological innovation, and the higher the credit price or technological innovation credit factor, the higher the technical level of NEVs. The findings could guide the government to adjust and revise the policy. Second, we found that the bargaining games could coordinate the NEV supply chain so that decentralized enterprises can achieve optimal technological innovation under centralized decision-making. Third, we found that suppliers can improve their profits by choosing a suitable alliance strategy under the manufacturer's different negotiating power.

Examining the reliability of the emotional conflict resolution and adaptation effects in the emotional conflict task via secondary data analysis, systematic review, and meta-analysis.

The emotional conflict task measures emotional conflict resolution and adaptation, but some studies are unable to find resolution or adaptation effects using this task. We examined boundary conditions and replicability of the emotional conflict resolution and adaptation effects through secondary data analysis, systematic review, and meta-analysis of studies in the field. In our data, we were unable to fully replicate the emotional conflict resolution or adaptation effects and found that most studies using this task (n = 94) do not report analysis of emotional conflict resolution, with only 28% (n = 26) studies doing so. Our meta-analysis suggests that studies reporting emotional conflict resolution and adaptation analyses overall report significant but small effects, suggesting the effect is difficult to consistently replicate. Our meta-analysis revealed that controlling for contingency learning may impact the ability of studies to identify conflict resolution. These findings have implications for assessment and interpretation of the emotional conflict task. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Entrepreneurship in the Favela: Negotiating Precarity and Mental Health During Covid-19.

This paper aims to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the health and mental health of necessary entrepreneurs in Brasilian favelas, the social problems they experienced and implications for public health social work. The study used structured in-person interviews within selected Favela's, with a sample size of 721 entrepreneurs, aged between 16-70 years. All participants both worked and were resident in 15 out of the 27 Brasilian federal states. The bespoke questions explored socio-demographic questions, sought information on their entrepreneurship, health and administered the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale for Health. The results highlighted that many entrepreneurs have engaged in this form of enterprise due to economic necessity, with 64% of women and 43.6% of men identifying increased levels of anxiety through the pandemic, with the presence of children in the family being statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05 chi-square test) for anxiety. Of the 9.8% sample respondents have accessed the health care service and for women with children, the impact of the pandemic accentuated existing problems of childcare and patriarchy. We conclude by highlighting the importance of universal and accessible health and mental health support and care, their ongoing accessibility, along with the importance of social work during crisis.

Sibling Violence and Bullying Behaviors in Peers: The Mediational Role of Self-Esteem.

In the context of the existing research on families, sibling violence is a less explored area. However, it has seemingly received more attention recently, and it can assume a relevant role in understanding the maladaptive behavior of youngsters and bullying. Additionally, adolescents involved in bullying and self-esteem are associated with disruptive violence inside the family context. This study's sample consisted of 286 students, aged between 12 and 17 years, from both sexes. This study intends to explore the association between sibling violence and bullying behavior in peers and the mediator effect of self-esteem. The measures for data collection were a demographic questionnaire, the Social Exclusion and School Violence Questionnaire, The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (Portuguese version for siblings), and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. The results show a negative effect between negotiation in the sibling relationship (victimization) and social exclusion and verbal aggression related to bullying behavior. Self-esteem represents a total and negative mediator in this connection. Our results also show a variety of indirect outcomes amongst the negotiation dimension, psychological aggression and injury between siblings, and the social exclusion and verbal aggression dimensions (on the aggression and victimization scales). The results will be discussed according to the attachment theory but considering the importance of affective bonds with siblings as a predisposing factor to an adaptive development course.

What do consumers understand about predispute arbitration agreements? an empirical investigation.

The results of a survey of 1,071 adults in the United States reveal that most consumers do not pay attention to, let alone understand, arbitration clauses in their everyday lives. The vast majority of survey respondents (over 97%) report having opened an account with a company that requires disputes to be submitted to binding arbitration (e.g., Netflix, Hulu, Cash App, a phone or cable company), yet most are unaware that they have, in fact, agreed to mandatory arbitration (also known as "forced arbitration"). Indeed, over 99% of respondents who think they have never entered into an arbitration agreement likely have done so. Over 92% of respondents report that they have never based a decision to use a product or service on whether the terms and conditions contain an arbitration agreement. When prompted, they largely endorse the following reasons: they were unaware of the arbitration clause, they did not read the terms and conditions, and they thought they had no choice but to agree to mandatory arbitration. Moreover, many respondents presume that if a dispute arises, they will still be able to access the public courts, notwithstanding that they agreed to the terms and conditions. Consumers are largely unaware of opportunities to opt out of mandatory arbitration. They generally do not pay attention to or retain information about the steps required to opt out successfully (e.g., contacting the company within a specified time period). Generally, consumers are unaware that companies like Cash App and Venmo (mobile payment systems utilized by nearly 60% of respondents) allow customers to opt out of mandatory arbitration if they act within a limited time period. Among the minority of respondents (21%) who stated that they had been given an opportunity to opt out, vanishingly few could name any of the steps required to opt out successfully. When presented with a run-of-the-mill contract, of the type consumers routinely encounter, most respondents did not take notice of the arbitration clause. Less than 5% of respondents could recall that the contract they were shown had said anything at all about arbitration. Furthermore, most consumers misperceive the consequences of signing a predispute arbitration agreement. Most mistakenly believe that, after agreeing to terms and conditions mandating binding arbitration, they can still choose to settle their dispute in court, have a jury decide their case, join a class action, and appeal a decision made based on a legal error. For instance, less than 5% of respondents correctly reported that they could neither appeal an erroneous decision to another arbitrator (or set of arbitrators) nor start all over again in court. Less than 1% of respondents correctly understood the full significance of the arbitration agreement, as indicated by their responses to questions about whether they retained the rights to sue, have a jury decide their case, access the public courts, and appeal a decision based on a legal error. In summary, consumers are generally unaware of arbitration clauses, and they tend to hold mistaken beliefs about how arbitration agreements affect consumers' procedural rights.

Zoti's Social Toolkit: Developing and piloting novel animated tasks to assess emotional understanding and conflict resolution skills in childhood.

Current methods used to investigate emotional inference and conflict resolution knowledge are limited in their suitability for use with children with language disorders due to a reliance on language processing. This is problematic, as nearly 8% of the population are estimated to have developmental language disorder (DLD). In this paper, we present 'Zoti's Social Toolkit', a set of animated scenarios that can be used to assess emotion inferencing and conflict resolution knowledge. All animated scenarios contain interpersonal situations centred around a gender-neutral alien named Zoti. Four studies investigated the face and construct validity of the stimuli. The final stimulus set can be used with children, who may or may not have language difficulties and is openly available for use in research.

Medicare Part D Coverage of Drugs Selected for the Drug Price Negotiation Program.

This cross-sectional study describes and historically benchmarks Medicare Part D coverage in 2019 and 2023 for the first 10 drugs selected for negotiation.

Medicare price negotiation and pharmaceutical innovation following the Inflation Reduction Act.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) requires Medicare to negotiate lower prices for some medicines with high Medicare spending. Using historical data from public and proprietary sources to apply the IRA's negotiation criteria retrospectively, we identify all drugs that met the eligibility criteria from 2012 to 2021 to classify drugs that would have had a negotiated price in effect in 2022 and to calculate associated decreases in industry revenues. Our results suggest that the IRA's reduction in overall industry revenue will be modest, will not affect most top-selling drugs and will not likely result in large-scale defunding of research and development. Changes in the net present value of drug-development projects will be concentrated in medicines where Medicare is a notable purchaser and where the ratio between expected revenue and development costs was only marginally positive before the IRA. Policymakers considering narrowing or expanding the scope of Medicare negotiation should carefully consider the tradeoffs across medicines with diverse characteristics.

Striving for affordable medicine: Lessons in price negotiation learned from the United Kingdom.

In August 2022, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services were granted unprecedented power to negotiate the price of some pharmaceuticals covered under Medicare Part D of the Inflation Reduction Act. Price negotiation was previously banned by Medicare Part D legislation but is not a new idea globally. For decades, nations like the United Kingdom have price set or negotiated the cost of medicine with manufacturers, fine-tuning their methodologies, with mixed success. The United States can learn from other countries' work to develop a methodology capable of achieving increased affordability and patient access to medicine. Secretary Xavier Becerra should consider the United Kingdom's policy approach, which facilitates early and transparent collaboration with key stakeholders like patient groups and industry but limits flexibility in evidence submission, to help the United States minimize unintended damage to patient access to new medicines and achieve the Inflation Reduction Act's goals.

Assessing clinical benefit in the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program: A 2-step approach for improving transparency, consistency, and meaningful patient engagement.

In early 2024, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will send initial price offers to the manufacturers of the first 10 drugs selected for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, established under the Inflation Reduction Act. However, CMS has not specified exactly how it will adjust the starting point for an initial price offer based on assessment of a drug's clinical benefit. This article addresses unanswered questions relating to CMS' methods for assessing clinical benefit. Specifically, we address how CMS can weigh various measures of evidence, ensure transparency and consistency, meaningfully incorporate patient and other stakeholder perspectives, and support addressing evidence gaps. We propose a 2-step approach for assessing the overall clinical benefit of a selected drug compared with its therapeutic alternatives that builds on the framework outlined by CMS. In step 1, CMS would evaluate conventional clinical benefit, defined in terms of outcomes commonly used in clinical studies for the selected drug and indications. In step 2, CMS would evaluate other outcomes broadly related to patient experience that are not adequately represented in the clinical literature. Overall, our approach incorporates the advantages of both qualitative and quantitative approaches to value assessment and decision-making. We describe a set of loose decision rules to improve transparency and consistency, recommend incorporating ranks and weights to signal to researchers and manufacturers which elements of clinical benefit and sources of data are the most important, and center meaningful deliberation with clinical experts, patients, and caregivers.

A summit on amplifying voices of patients, caregivers, and people with disabilities in Inflation Reduction Act drug price negotiations.

On September 18, 2023, Cancer Support Community convened patient and caregiver advocates, health care providers, policy experts, and health care innovators and thought leaders for a roundtable discussion on the need to ensure that patients, people with disabilities, and caregivers have a voice in defining "clinical benefit" for the purpose of Medicare Part D drug price negotiations and future health care policies that impact patients. The meeting featured presentations from Lara Strawbridge, Deputy Director for Policy at the Medicare Drug Rebate and Negotiations Group in the Center for Medicare, regulatory expert, Dr Monique Nolan, Counsel at Arnold and Porter, LLP, and 3 panel discussions: IRA Implementation-What Matters to Patients, a discussion of policies expected to impact patients and caregivers who are likely to rely heavily on high-cost drugs or biologics to treat cancer or other chronic illnesses, as well as the future development of novel therapies; The Science of Measuring Patient Experience, a discussion of current science of measuring patient experience and how it should be incorporated into the definition of clinical benefit; and Developing an Infrastructure for External Feedback, a discussion of actions and goals for patient engagement, advocacy opportunities, and how to best coordinate such efforts. This article represents an analysis of relevant resources as well as highlights from these sessions and subsequent discussions. It also outlines principles for engaging patient and provider advocacy organizations, whether in policy, media, or online discussions, surrounding the implementation of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program.

Conceptualizing negotiation in the clinical encounter - A scoping review using principles from critical interpretive synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: Negotiation as an analytical concept in research about clinical encounters is vague. We aim to provide a conceptual synthesis of key characteristics of the process of negotiation in clinical encounters based on a scoping review. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of relevant literature in Embase, Psych Info, Global Health and SCOPUS. We included 25 studies from 1737 citations reviewed. RESULTS: We found that the process of negotiation is socially situated depending on the individual patient and professional, a dynamic element of the interaction that may occur both tacitly and explicitly at all stages of the encounter and is not necessarily tied to a specific health problem. Hence, negotiation is complex and influenced by both social, biomedical, and temporal contexts. CONCLUSIONS: We found that negotiation between patient and health professional occurs at all stages of the clinical encounter. Negotiation is influenced by social, temporal, and biomedical contexts that encompass the social meeting between patient and health professional. We suggest that health professionals strive to be attentive to patients' tacit negotiation practices. This will strengthen the recognition of the patients' actual wishes for their course of treatment which can thus guide the health professionals' recommendations and treatment.