Search

Clinical trials for the treatment of schizophrenia now often include cognitive assessments in addition to clinical ratings of symptoms. Recently, these trials have included cross-national assessments. It is not clear if translated psychological tests produce consistent results across different languages. This paper presents the results of a study of the comparability of the results of cognitive assessments in different English-speaking countries and a number of countries where tests were translated into other languages. Performance on tests of executive functioning, verbal and visuo-spatial learning and memory, language skills, psychomotor speed, and vigilance was compared across the first episode patients with schizophrenia (n=301) assessed in six different languages (English, French, Finnish, German, Hebrew, and Afrikaans), including two different countries where patients were assessed in English and other languages: Canada (French) and South Africa (Afrikaans). The variance in performance across the sites tested in English was as large as the variance between English and non-English speakers when all tests were considered. Performance differences across English and other languages were found only for executive functions, vigilance, and psychomotor speed, with executive functioning differences nonsignificant when education was considered. No differences were found between English and non-English speakers in Canada. These results suggest that the translation of tests of memory and verbal skills can lead to consistent results across translated versions of the tests. Differences between countries were greater than differences between languages, suggesting the need to consider representativeness of patient samples in terms of local educational attainment. In general, these data support the validity of cross-national neuropsychological assessments. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Aims: To compare the policy positions of health and medical organisations across Australia, New Zealand, and the UK as they relate to sale and supply of nicotine vaping products (NVPs) and evaluate factors that have informed the differences in policy recommendations among these countries.Methods: We used mixed methods to analyse data from position or policy statements published by health and medical organisations regarding NVPs (n = 30) and consultation documents submitted to government committees regarding policy options for the regulation of NVPs (n = 26). Quality assessment of included documents was conducted using the six-item Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Text and Opinion Papers, and findings were presented narratively. Qualitative data were coded using NVivo 12 software and analysed using thematic analysis.Results: An overwhelming majority of health bodies, charities and government agencies in the UK and New Zealand portrayed NVPs as a life-saving harm reduction tool. In contrast, concerns about addicting non-smoking youth to nicotine, a perceived lack of clear and convincing evidence of safety and efficacy and the potential to undermine tobacco control progress continues to define attitudes and recommendations towards NVPs among Australian health and medical organisations. Although the profoundly divided views among stakeholders seem to arise from empirical uncertainties and disagreements over the level and credibility of evidence, the source of most of these disagreements can be traced back to the fundamental and irreconcilable differences in the framing of the NVP debate, and varied tolerability of risk trade-offs associated with NVPs.Conclusion: Progress in resolving the controversy surrounding NVP policy requires stakeholders to be frame-reflective and engage in a meaningful dialogue of risk trade-offs, as well as both intended and unintended consequences of proposed policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]