Search

Theory of mind (ToM) has been argued to be a multidimensional construct, with ToM inferences depending on distinct processes across affective and cognitive ToM tasks and across first-order cognitive and second-order cognitive ToM tasks. Behavioural evidence for a multidimensional account has primarily depended on dissociations identified via analysis of variance, a statistical approach insufficient for assessing dimensionality. Instead, state-trace analysis (STA) is a more appropriate statistical technique to uncover dimensionality. The current study first applied STA to two summary datasets that had previously identified key dissociations between cognitive and affective ToM; these reanalyses did not support a multidimensional account of ToM. Next, STA was applied to a more detailed dataset to reveal whether ToM is based on multiple processes in a sample of 115 older adults aged 60–85 years (M = 68.5, SD = 5.92, 61.7% female) with higher or lower emotion perception ability. Participants made ToM judgements about different social exchanges (e.g., sarcasm or lying). STA results supported a multidimensional account of ToM across first-order cognitive, second-order cognitive, and affective ToM subdomains. These results lay a more rigorous foundation for subsequent studies to further examine the dimensionality of ToM and to apply formal modelling, progressing the field's understanding and measurement of the cognitive processes driving ToM judgements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A common method of pain assessment is the numerical rating scale, where patients are asked to rate their pain on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is "no pain" and 10 is "pain as bad as you can imagine". We hypothesize such language is suboptimal as it involves a test of a cognitive skill, imagination, in the assessment of symptom severity. Methods: We used a large-scale online research registry, ResearchMatch, to conduct a randomized controlled trial to compare the distributions of pain scores of two different pain scale anchors. We recruited adults located in the United States who reported a chronic pain problem (> 3 months) and were currently in pain. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive pain assessment based on a modified Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), where the anchor for a score of 10 was either "extremely severe pain", or the original BPI, with the anchor "pain as bad as you can imagine". Participants in both groups also answered additional questions about pain, other symptomatology and creativity. Results: Data were obtained from 405 participants for the modified and 424 for the original BPI. Distribution of responses to pain questions were similar between groups (all p-values ≥ 0.12). We did not see evidence that the relationship between pain score and the anchor text differed based on self-perceived creativity (all interaction p-values ≥ 0.2). However, in the key analysis, correlations between current pain assessments and known correlates (fatigue, anxiety, depression, current pain compared to a typical day, pain compared to other people) were stronger for "extreme" vs. "imaginable" anchor text (p = 0.005). Conclusion: Pain rating scales should utilize the modified anchor text "extremely severe pain" instead of "pain as bad as you can imagine". Further research should explore the effects of anchors for other symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is an inherited disease which causes premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. However, less than 10% of individuals with FH have been identified. Objective: To assess parental perspectives for inclusion of FH on routine newborn screening (NBS) and to highlight potential benefits, harms, and ethical concerns. Methods: Telephone interviews of two groups were conducted: 1) parents of children diagnosed with FH, and 2) parents of children diagnosed with a genetic condition through NBS. Stratified purposive sampling was used to ensure adequate representation. The 11 telephone interviews were conducted in 30-min sessions guided by a semi-structured interview script. At the beginning of the interview, participants were educated on the NBS process and FH. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, and a thematic analysis was performed in multiple steps. Results: All interviewees indicated that they would be interested in having their child be screened for FH on the newborn screen. Reasons supporting screening during the newborn period included knowing their child's diagnosis, the ability to screen family members for FH, incorporation of lifestyle changes, and access to preventive care. Negatives surrounding screening during the newborn period included increased stress or anxiety, knowledge, stigma, and the delay from diagnosis to initiation of pharmacotherapy for FH. Conclusion: While these interviewees were in favor of NBS for FH, further education of parents and clinicians is needed to ensure proper implementation. The results of this study may be useful to formulate family notification and care protocols for newborns diagnosed with FH and other diseases. Significance: What is already known on this subject? Familial hypercholesterolemia is a common inherited disorder that predisposes to early cardiovascular disease, but most affected individuals are not diagnosed. Childhood cholesterol screening is an effective but underutilized diagnostic tool. Previous studies report parents find childhood cholesterol screening acceptable, but it is not known if screening newborns would also be acceptable. What does this study add? Interviewees found screening newborns for familial hypercholesterolemia acceptable and would agree to screen their own newborn. The ability to screen other family members and access to early treatment were important factors in their decision to screen. Education of clinicians about familial hypercholesterolemia was an important concern raised by interviewees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Extensive media coverage and potential controversy about COVID-19 vaccination during the pandemic may have affected people's general attitudes towards vaccination. We sought to describe key psychological antecedents related to vaccination and assess how these vary temporally in relationship to the pandemic and availability of COVID-19 vaccination. As part of an ongoing online study, we recruited a national (U.S.) sample of young gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (N = 1,227) between October 2019 and June 2021, and assessed the "4Cs" (antecedents of vaccination; range = 1–5). Overall, men had high levels of confidence (trust in vaccines; M = 4.13), calculation (deliberation; M = 3.97) and collective responsibility (protecting others; M = 4.05) and low levels of complacency (not perceiving disease risk; M = 1.72). In multivariable analyses, confidence and collective responsibility varied relative to the pandemic phase/vaccine availability, reflecting greater hesitancy during later stages of the pandemic. Antecedents also varied by demographic characteristics. Findings suggest negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on key antecedents of general vaccination and identify potential targets for interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]