Search

This study surveyed psychological assessment practice for cross-cultural mission candidates in Australasia. It hypothesized that there would be a difference in knowledge about assessments between mission chief executive officers (CEOs), member care specialists, and psychological assessors. Sixty-nine mission organization staff and nine independent assessors responded to an online survey about psychological assessment, compliance with Australian legislation and government recommendations, and the use of psychometric tests. The results suggested that pre-field psychological assessments were a vital part of member care. Assessors were more likely to report organizations struggled to apply the results to candidate selection, that assessments were used to screen out people with mental illness, and were looking for different key attributes in candidates compared with organizations. The key areas that were identified as being important to assess were strong interpersonal skills, physical and psychological resilience, and contentment with current relationship status. The study also identified several systemic problems in relation to the focus of assessments, payment, measurement, and whether reports complied with law and government recommendations, and previous recommendations in the mission literature. This study suggested a need for a more standardized purposeful approach to conducting pre-field psychological assessments for cross-cultural mission candidates.

Missionary attrition together with the problem of institutional child sexual abuse in the Church has highlighted the importance of a standardized psychological assessment process for mission and ministry candidates. This scoping review aimed to examine peer-reviewed publications, from 2001 to 2021, which focused on the psychological assessment of ministry and cross-cultural mission candidates, to find knowledge gaps that exist. Using scoping review guidelines, 6,739 references were identified and 2,476 duplicates were removed. A further 4,254 references were excluded because they did not meet screening criteria. A total of nine high-quality articles remained, together with five articles that were added based on the bibliography of these references. This scoping review found the few papers published either focused on the use of personality tests or made recommendations about how these assessments should be conducted. The studies reported that candidates for ministry and mission in US samples have normative personality profiles regardless of age or ethnicity. Other papers reviewed knowledge and opinion and highlighted the need for screening for psychosexual development and to prevent attrition in mission and ministry roles. The overall dearth of publications suggested a need for more international research into how to standardize and utilize psychological assessments.

Psychological assessments are routinely conducted by many cross-cultural mission organizations when recruiting candidates. This qualitative research aimed to clarify the purpose of these assessments, to provide a way forward to improving them. It is part of a larger project which has investigated the use of psychological assessments in the Australasian region. A subsample of six chief executive officers (CEOs), six-member care specialists, and six professional assessors consented to a 1-hour interview about the purpose of psychological assessments. Thematic analysis was used to extract the key themes, and the data from each group were triangulated to form overarching themes. The results suggested each group approached purpose from their professional standpoint. CEOs focused on missiology, member care specialists on pastoral care, and assessors on psychological frameworks for understanding candidates. Five key purposes were identified for these assessments: (1) screening risk, (2) candidate self-awareness and growth, (3) fit for role, (4) discerning call, and (5) normalizing prevention of harm. These assessments are a key part of the discernment process for ministry. They need to be improved based on our increased understanding of the purpose they can potentially serve in ameliorating harm to people who volunteer for cross-cultural work.

Background The impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on mental health is still being unravelled. It is important to identify which individuals are at greatest risk of worsening symptoms. This study aimed to examine changes in depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms using prospective and retrospective symptom change assessments, and to find and examine the effect of key risk factors. Method Online questionnaires were administered to 34 465 individuals (aged 16 years or above) in April/May 2020 in the UK, recruited from existing cohorts or via social media. Around one-third (n = 12 718) of included participants had prior diagnoses of depression or anxiety and had completed pre-pandemic mental health assessments (between September 2018 and February 2020), allowing prospective investigation of symptom change. Results Prospective symptom analyses showed small decreases in depression (PHQ-9: −0.43 points) and anxiety [generalised anxiety disorder scale – 7 items (GAD)-7: −0.33 points] and increases in PTSD (PCL-6: 0.22 points). Conversely, retrospective symptom analyses demonstrated significant large increases (PHQ-9: 2.40; GAD-7 = 1.97), with 55% reported worsening mental health since the beginning of the pandemic on a global change rating. Across both prospective and retrospective measures of symptom change, worsening depression, anxiety and PTSD symptoms were associated with prior mental health diagnoses, female gender, young age and unemployed/student status. Conclusions We highlight the effect of prior mental health diagnoses on worsening mental health during the pandemic and confirm previously reported sociodemographic risk factors. Discrepancies between prospective and retrospective measures of changes in mental health may be related to recall bias-related underestimation of prior symptom severity.

Background Sleep disturbance is common among young people (15–25 years) with features of borderline personality disorder (BPD). However, the mechanisms underlying sleep disturbance in BPD remain unknown. Understanding these underlying processes is essential to guide the development of sleep-improvement interventions and to optimise their efficacy through identifying beneficial treatment targets. This exploratory study aimed to investigate potential underlying mechanisms to inform future hypotheses, research development, and provide insight into potential treatment targets to improve sleep in young people with BPD. This study explored the indirect roles of emotion regulation difficulties, depression, anxiety and stress in the relationship between BPD features and sleep disturbance in young people. Methods Sleep was measured subjectively (self-report questionnaires) and objectively (10 days wrist actigraphy) in 40 young people with BPD features and 38 healthy young people. Participants also completed the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale. Results Mediation analyses revealed that impulse control difficulties, limited emotion regulation strategies and anxiety indirectly affected the relationship between group (BPD vs. healthy) and subjective sleep disturbance in young people. Lack of emotional awareness and anxiety contributed to associations between group and objectively longer time in bed and bedtime variability, respectively. Conclusions These preliminary findings suggest that targeting emotional dysregulation (impulse control, strategies, emotional awareness) and anxiety might be beneficial for improving sleep in this population.

Background: Reported trauma is associated with differences in the course and outcomes of depression and anxiety. However, no research has explored the association between reported trauma and patterns of clinically relevant symptoms of both depression and anxiety.Methods: We used network analysis to investigate associations between reported trauma and depression and anxiety symptom interactions in affected individuals from the Genetic Links to Anxiety and Depression (GLAD) Study (n = 17720), and population volunteers from the UK Biobank (n = 11120). Participants with current moderate symptoms of depression or anxiety were grouped into reporters and non-reporters of lifetime trauma. Networks of 16 depression and anxiety symptoms in the two groups were compared using the network comparison test.Results: In the GLAD Study, networks of reporters and non-reporters of lifetime trauma did not differ on any metric. In the UK Biobank, the symptom network of reporters had significantly greater density (7.80) than the network of non-reporters (7.05).Limitations: The data collected in the GLAD Study and the UK Biobank are self-reported with validated or semi-validated questionnaires.Conclusions: Reported lifetime trauma was associated with stronger interactions between symptoms of depression and anxiety in population volunteers. Differences between reporters and non-reporters may not be observed in individuals with severe depression and/or anxiety due to limited variance in the presentation of disorder.

Background\udGeneralized anxiety and depression are extremely prevalent and debilitating. There is evidence for age and sex variability in symptoms of depression, but despite comorbidity it is unclear whether this extends to anxiety symptomatology. Studies using questionnaire sum scores typically fail to address this phenotypic complexity.\ud\udMethod\udWe conducted exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses on Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) items to identify latent factors of anxiety and depression in participants from the Genetic Links to Anxiety and Depression Study (N = 35,637; 16–93 years). We assessed age- and sex-related variability in latent factors and individual symptoms using multiple logistic regression.\ud\udResults\udFour factors of mood, worry, motor, and somatic symptoms were identified (comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.99, Tucker–Lewis Index [TLI] = 0.99, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.07, standardized root mean square residuals [SRMR] = 0.04). Symptoms of irritability (odds ratio [OR] = 0.81) were most strongly associated with younger age, and sleep change (OR = 1.14) with older age. Males were more likely to report mood and motor symptoms (p

BackgroundRisk factors for severe COVID-19 include older age, male sex, obesity, black or Asian ethnicity and underlying medical conditions. Whether these factors also influence susceptibility to developing COVID-19 is uncertain.MethodsWe undertook a prospective, population-based cohort study (COVIDENCE UK) from 1 May 2020 to 5 February 2021. Baseline information on potential risk factors was captured by an online questionnaire. Monthly follow-up questionnaires captured incident COVID-19. We used logistic regression models to estimate multivariable-adjusted ORs (aORs) for associations between potential risk factors and odds of COVID-19.ResultsWe recorded 446 incident cases of COVID-19 in 15 227 participants (2.9%). Increased odds of developing COVID-19 were independently associated with Asian/Asian British versus white ethnicity (aOR 2.28, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.91), household overcrowding (aOR per additional 0.5 people/bedroom 1.26, 1.11 to 1.43), any versus no visits to/from other households in previous week (aOR 1.31, 1.06 to 1.62), number of visits to indoor public places (aOR per extra visit per week 1.05, 1.02 to 1.09), frontline occupation excluding health/social care versus no frontline occupation (aOR 1.49, 1.12 to 1.98) and raised body mass index (BMI) (aOR 1.50 (1.19 to 1.89) for BMI 25.0–30.0 kg/m2 and 1.39 (1.06 to 1.84) for BMI >30.0 kg/m2 versus BMI 2). Atopic disease was independently associated with decreased odds (aOR 0.75, 0.59 to 0.97). No independent associations were seen for age, sex, other medical conditions, diet or micronutrient supplement use.ConclusionsAfter rigorous adjustment for factors influencing exposure to SARS-CoV-2, Asian/Asian British ethnicity and raised BMI were associated with increased odds of developing COVID-19, while atopic disease was associated with decreased odds.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04330599).

SummaryBackgroundRisk factors for severe COVID-19 include older age, male sex, obesity, Black or Asian ethnicity and underlying medical conditions. Whether these factors also influence susceptibility to developing COVID-19 is uncertain.MethodsWe undertook a prospective, population-based cohort study (COVIDENCE UK) from 1stMay 2020 to 5thFebruary 2021. Baseline information on potential risk factors was captured by an online questionnaire. Monthly follow-up questionnaires captured incident COVID-19. We used logistic regression models to estimate multivariable-adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for associations between potential risk factors and risk of COVID-19.FindingsWe recorded 446 incident cases of COVID-19 in 15,227 participants (2.9%). Increased risk of developing COVID-19 was independently associated with Asian/Asian Britishvs. White ethnicity (aOR 2.31, 95% CI 1.35-3.95), household overcrowding (aOR per additional 0.5 people/bedroom 1.26, 1.11-1.43), anyvs. no visits to/from other households in previous week (aOR 1.33, 1.07-1.64), number of visits to indoor public places (aOR per extra visit per week 1.05, 1.01-1.09), frontline occupation excluding health/social carevs. no frontline occupation (aOR 1.49, 1.12-1.98), and raised body mass index (BMI) (aOR 1.51 [1.20-1.90] for BMI 25.0-30.0 kg/m2and 1.38 [1.05-1.82] for BMI >30.0 kg/m2vs. BMI 2). Atopic disease was independently associated with decreased risk (aOR 0.76, 0.59-0.98). No independent associations were seen for age, sex, other medical conditions, diet, or micronutrient supplement use.InterpretationAfter rigorous adjustment for factors influencing exposure to SARS-CoV-2, Asian/Asian British ethnicity and raised BMI were associated with increased risk of developing COVID-19, while atopic disease was associated with decreased risk.FundingBarts Charity, Health Data Research UK

BackgroundUnderstanding and improving outcomes for people with anxiety or depression often requires large studies. To increase participation and reduce costs, such research is typically unable to utilise “gold-standard” methods to ascertain diagnoses, instead relying on remote, self-report measures.AimsTo assess the comparability of remote diagnostic methods for anxiety and depression disorders commonly used in research.MethodParticipants from the UK-based GLAD and COPING NBR cohorts (N= 58,400) completed an online questionnaire between 2018-2020. Responses to detailed symptom reports were compared to DSM-5 criteria to generate algorithm-based diagnoses of major depressive disorder (MDD), generalised anxiety disorder (GAD), specific phobia, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and agoraphobia. Participants also self-reported any prior diagnoses from health professionals, termed single-item diagnoses. “Any anxiety” included participants with at least one anxiety disorder. Agreement was assessed by calculating accuracy, Cohen’s kappa, McNemar’s chi-squared, sensitivity, and specificity.ResultsAgreement between diagnoses was moderate for MDD, any anxiety, and GAD, but varied by cohort. Agreement was slight to fair for the phobic disorders. Many participants with single-item GAD did not receive an algorithm-based diagnosis. In contrast, algorithm-based diagnoses of the phobic disorders were more common than single-item diagnoses.ConclusionsAgreement for MDD, any anxiety, and GAD was higher for cases in the case-enriched GLAD cohort and for controls in the general population COPING NBR cohort. For anxiety disorders, single-item diagnoses classified most participants as having GAD, whereas algorithm-based diagnoses distributed participants more evenly across the anxiety disorders. Further validation against gold standard measures is required.

BackgroundUnderstanding and improving outcomes for people with anxiety or depression often requires large sample sizes. To increase participation and reduce costs, such research is typically unable to utilise “gold-standard” methods to ascertain diagnoses, instead relying on remote, self-report measures.AimsAssess the comparability of remote diagnostic methods for anxiety and depression disorders commonly used in research.MethodParticipants from the UK-based GLAD and COPING NBR cohorts (N = 58,400) completed an online questionnaire between 2018 and 2020. Responses to detailed symptom reports were compared to DSM-5 criteria to generate symptom-based diagnoses of major depressive disorder (MDD), generalised anxiety disorder (GAD), specific phobia, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and agoraphobia. Participants also self-reported any prior diagnoses from health professionals, termed self-reported diagnoses. “Any anxiety” included participants with at least one anxiety disorder. Agreement was assessed by calculating accuracy, Cohen’s kappa, McNemar’s chi-squared, sensitivity, and specificity.ResultsAgreement between diagnoses was moderate for MDD, any anxiety, and GAD, but varied by cohort. Agreement was slight to fair for the phobic disorders. Many participants with self-reported GAD did not receive a symptom-based diagnosis. In contrast, symptom-based diagnoses of the phobic disorders were more common than self-reported diagnoses.ConclusionsAgreement for MDD, any anxiety, and GAD was higher for cases in the case-enriched GLAD cohort and for controls in the general population COPING NBR cohort. For anxiety disorders, self-reported diagnoses classified most participants as having GAD, whereas symptom-based diagnoses distributed participants more evenly across the anxiety disorders. Further validation against gold standard measures is required.