Search

Although studies have shown that client feedback can improve treatment outcome, little is known about which factors might possibly moderate the effects of such feedback. The present study investigated potential therapist variables that might influence whether frequent client feedback is effective, including the Big Five personality traits, internal/external feedback propensity and self‐efficacy. Data from two previous studies, a quasi‐experimental study and a randomized controlled trial, were combined. The sample consisted of 38 therapists and 843 clients (55.4% females, mean age = 42.05 years, SD = 11.75) from an outpatient mental health institution. The control condition consisted of cognitive‐behavioural therapies combined with low frequency monitoring of clients' symptoms. In the experimental condition, high‐intensity (i.e., frequent) client feedback as an add‐on to treatment as usual was provided. Outcomes were measured as adjusted post‐treatment symptom severity on the Symptom Checklist‐90 and drop out from treatment. The final model of the multilevel analyses showed that therapists with higher levels of self‐efficacy had poorer treatment outcomes, but when high‐intensity client feedback was provided, their effectiveness improved. Furthermore, higher self‐efficacy was associated with a higher estimation of therapists' own effectiveness, but therapists' self‐assessment of effectiveness was not correlated with their actual effectiveness. The results of this study might indicate that therapists with high levels of self‐efficacy benefit from client feedback because it can correct their biases. However, for therapists with low self‐efficacy, client feedback might be less beneficial, possibly because it can make them more insecure. These hypotheses need to be investigated in future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Objectives: Nonpharmacological interventions, such as biofeedback, cognitive behavioral therapy, and relaxation techniques are Level‐A evidence‐based treatments for headache. The impact of these interventions is often equivalent to or greater than pharmacological interventions, with fewer side effects. Despite such evidence, the rate of participation in nonpharmacological interventions for headache remains low. Once obstacles to optimizing use of behavioral interventions, such as local access to nonpharmacological treatment and primary headache providers are traversed, identification of barriers contributing to low adherence is imperative given the high levels of disability and cost associated with treating headache disorders. In this review of factors in adults associated with underuse of nonpharmacological interventions, we discuss psychological factors relevant to participation in nonpharmacological treatment, including attitudes and beliefs, motivation for change, awareness of triggers, locus of control, self‐efficacy, acceptance, coping styles, personality traits, and psychiatric comorbidities associated with treatment adherence. Finally, future prospects and approaches to optimizing treatment matching and minimizing adherence issues are addressed. Methods: An interdisciplinary team conducted this narrative review. Neuropsychologists conducted a literature search during the month of July 2017 using a combination of the keywords ("headache" or "migraine") and ("adherence" or "compliance") or "barriers to treatment" or various "psychological factors" discussed in this narrative review. Content experts, a psychiatrist, and a complementary and integrative health specialist provided additional commentary and input to this narrative review resulting in integration of additional noteworthy studies, book chapters and books. Results: Various psychological factors, such as attitudes and beliefs, lack of motivation, poor awareness of triggers, external locus of control, poor self‐efficacy, low levels of acceptance, and engagement in maladaptive coping styles can contribute to nonadherence. Conclusions: To maximize adherence, clinicians can assess and address an individual's level of treatment acceptance, beliefs that may present as barriers, readiness for change, locus of control, self‐efficacy and psychiatric comorbidities. Identification of barriers to adherence as well as the application of relevant assessment and intervention techniques have the potential to facilitate adherence and ultimately improve treatment success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Personalized medicine, otherwise called stratified or precision medicine, aims to better target intervention to the individual to maximize benefit and minimize harm. This review discusses how diabetes aetiology, pathophysiology and patient genotype influence response to or side effects of the commonly used diabetes treatments. C-peptide is a useful biomarker that is underused to guide treatment choice, severe insulin deficiency predicts non-response to glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, and thiazolidinediones are more effective in insulin-resistant patients. The field of pharmacogenetics is now yielding clinically important results, with three examples outlined: sulphonylurea sensitivity in patients with HNF1A maturity-onset diabetes of the young; sulphonylurea sensitivity in patients with Type 2 diabetes with reduced function alleles at CYP2C9, resulting in reduced metabolism of sulphonylureas; and severe metformin intolerance associated with reduced function organic cation transporter 1 ( OCT1) variants, exacerbated by drugs that also inhibit OCT1. Genome-wide approaches and the potential of other 'omics', including metagenomics and metabolomics, are then outlined, highlighting the complex interacting networks that we need to understand before we can truly personalize diabetes treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]