Search

ImportanceCurrent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) (DSM-5) diagnoses of substance use disorders rely on criterion count-based approaches, disregarding severity grading indexed by individual criteria.ObjectiveTo examine correlates of alcohol use disorder (AUD) across count-based severity groups (ie, mild, moderate, mild-to-moderate, severe), identify specific diagnostic criteria indicative of greater severity, and evaluate whether specific criteria within mild-to-moderate AUD differentiate across relevant correlates and manifest in greater hazards of severe AUD development.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study involved 2 cohorts from the family-based Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism (COGA) with 7 sites across the United States: cross-sectional (assessed 1991-2005) and longitudinal (assessed 2004-2019). Statistical analyses were conducted from December 2022 to June 2023.Main outcomes and measuresSociodemographic, alcohol-related, psychiatric comorbidity, brain electroencephalography (EEG), and AUD polygenic score measures as correlates of DSM-5 AUD levels (ie, mild, moderate, severe) and criterion severity-defined mild-to-moderate AUD diagnostic groups (ie, low-risk vs high-risk mild-to-moderate).ResultsA total of 13 110 individuals from the cross-sectional COGA cohort (mean [SD] age, 37.8 [14.2] years) and 2818 individuals from the longitudinal COGA cohort (mean baseline [SD] age, 16.1 [3.2] years) were included. Associations with alcohol-related, psychiatric, EEG, and AUD polygenic score measures reinforced the role of increasing criterion counts as indexing severity. Yet within mild-to-moderate AUD (2-5 criteria), the presence of specific high-risk criteria (eg, withdrawal) identified a group reporting heavier drinking and greater psychiatric comorbidity even after accounting for criterion count differences. In longitudinal analyses, prior mild-to-moderate AUD characterized by endorsement of at least 1 high-risk criterion was associated with more accelerated progression to severe AUD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 11.62; 95% CI, 7.54-17.92) compared with prior mild-to-moderate AUD without endorsement of high-risk criteria (aHR, 5.64; 95% CI, 3.28-9.70), independent of criterion count.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of a combined 15 928 individuals, findings suggested that simple count-based AUD diagnostic approaches to estimating severe AUD vulnerability, which ignore heterogeneity among criteria, may be improved by emphasizing specific high-risk criteria. Such emphasis may allow better focus on individuals at the greatest risk and improve understanding of the development of AUD.

Some styles of alcohol consumption are riskier than others. How the level and rate of alcohol exposure contribute to the increased risk of alcohol use disorder is unclear, but likely depends on the alcohol concentration time course. We hypothesized that the brain is sensitive to the alcohol concentration rate of change and that people at greater risk would self-administer faster. We developed a novel intravenous alcohol self-administration paradigm to allow participants direct and reproducible control over how quickly their breath alcohol concentration changes. We used drinking intensity and the density of biological family history of alcohol dependence as proxies for risk. Thirty-five alcohol drinking participants aged 21-28 years provided analytical data from a single, intravenous alcohol self-administration session using our computer-assisted alcohol infusion system rate control paradigm. A shorter time to reach 80 mg/dl was associated with increasing multiples of the binge drinking definition (p = 0.004), which was in turn related to higher density of family history of alcoholism (FHD, p = 0.04). Rate-dependent changes in subjective response (intoxication and stimulation) were also associated with FHD (each p = 0.001). Subsequently, given the limited sample size and FHD range, associations between multiples of the binge drinking definition and FHD were replicated and extended in analyses of the Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism database. The rate control paradigm models binge and high-intensity drinking in the laboratory and provides a novel way to examine the relationship between the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of alcohol and potentially the risk for the development of alcohol use disorders.

Introduction: Decentralized molecular testing for infectious disease diagnosis at the point-of-care (POC) is critical to address inequities in access to timely, informed health care. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the demand, development and adoption of POC tests for infectious diseases globally. This has provided opportunities to maximize the individual benefits and public health impact of POC testing, particularly in remote and resource-limited primary care settings. Despite this, there remains a lack of harmonized, regulatory compliance and quality management frameworks for the delivery of molecular POC testing networks outside the laboratory setting. Areas Covered: This Perspective describes real-world lessons and experiences of delivering a fit-for-purpose, quality framework for one of the world's largest decentralized molecular POC testing programs for infectious disease across rural and remote Australian communities. Here we detail unique, key considerations to ensure the quality of POC testing in primary health settings with global application. Expert Opinion: There is an ethical and public health imperative to provide sustained access to decentralized POC testing for infectious disease in primary care. Genuine partnerships across stakeholders and disciplines are essential to deliver well governed, fit-for-purpose quality management POC testing frameworks and increase equitable access to timely, high-quality person-centered care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic, caused by the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus, has resulted in illness, deaths and societal disruption on a global scale. Societies have implemented various control measures to reduce transmission of the virus and mitigate its impact. Individual behavioural changes are crucial to the successful implementation of these measures. One commonly recommended measure to limit risk of infection is distancing. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of distancing. Objectives: We aimed to identify and synthesise the evidence on malleable psychological and psychosocial factors that determine uptake and adherence to distancing aimed at reducing the risk of infection or transmission of COVID‐19. Search Methods: We searched various literature sources including electronic databases (Medline ALL, Child Development & Adolescent Studies, ERIC, PsycInfo, CINAHL & Web of Science), web searches, conference proceedings, government reports, other repositories of literature and grey literature. The search strategy was built around three concepts of interest including (1) context (terms relating to COVID‐19), (2) behaviour of interest and (3) terms related to psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID‐19 Health‐Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with distancing, to capture malleable determines. Searches capture studies up until October 2021. Selection Criteria: Eligibility criteria included observational studies (both retrospective and prospective) and experimental studies that measure and report malleable psychological and psychosocial determinants and distancing (social and/or physical) at an individual level, amongst the general public. We defined physical distancing as, maintaining the recommended distance from others when physically present. And social distancing being defined as, minimising social contact with those outside of your own household. Screening was supported by the Cochrane Crowd. Studies' titles and abstracts were screened against the eligibility criteria by three independent screeners. Following this, all potentially relevant studies were screened at full‐text level by the research team. All conflicts between screeners were resolved by discussion between the core research team. Data Collection and Analysis: All data extraction was managed in EPPI‐Reviewer software. All eligible studies, identified through full‐text screening were extracted by one author. We extracted data on study information, population, determinant, behaviour and effects. A second author checked data extraction on 20% of all included papers. All conflicts were discussed by the two authors until consensus was reached. We assessed methodological quality of all included studies using an adapted version of the Joanna Briggs Institute Quality appraisal tool. Main Results: A total of 91 studies were suitable for inclusion in the review, representing 199,604 participants. The vast majority of studies had samples from the general public, with 15 of the studies focusing on specific samples. The majority of studies included participants over 18 years old, with 5 reporting on specific ages (adolescents and adults over 65). The quality of 29 of the studies was rated as unclear, 48 were rated as low, and 14 rated high risk of bias, predominately due to lack of reporting of recruitment, sample characteristics and methodology. Overall the majority of these relationships were weak. Stronger relationships were observed between attitudes, social norms, perceived behavioural control and both social and physical distancing. And between worry, response effectiveness, self‐efficacy and social distancing. However, there is a high level of heterogeneity in the findings. This heterogeneity might be, partly, due to the differences in measurement of the determinants and distancing across studies. Authors' Conclusions: The findings from this review indicate that social distancing behaviours are more likely to be undertaken by people who are worried about COVID‐19 and who believe that social distancing is an effective way of avoiding COVID‐19. Physical distancing behaviours are more likely to be undertaken by those who believe that they can control physical distancing from others, who believe that physical distancing is the social norm and who have a positive attitude to engaging in this behaviour. It is important to understand how to strengthen these behavioural determinants to develop effective interventions to promote distancing behaviours in any potential future waves of COVID‐19, and other respiratory infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Modern engineering curricula often rely on approaches such as problem and project-based learning (PBL) as a core teaching and learning strategy. With a growing need to move these student-centred active learning curricula to online and blended learning environments, it is essential that practitioners understand the impact that these different modes of delivery may have on student collaboration. This paper aims to identify factors that affect students' perceptions of PBL in an online learning environment. This case study was carried out in an Irish university over a seven-week period with first-year engineering students during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study utilised a questionnaire (n = 94) and semi-structured interviews (n = 7) to collect participant data. Qualitative data were analysed using Braun and Clark's thematic analysis. The analysis identified 6 themes and 18 sub-themes that are linked to students' perceptions of problem and project-based learning (PBL) in an online environment. The identified themes and sub-themes in this study are uniquely reported findings within the context of online PBL in engineering education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Coaching has a well-established history over the past two decades as a development tool and it can help entrepreneurs deal with the psychological challenges of building a venture. But there is a lack of understanding how coaching can support entrepreneurs on their journey. This study uses a coaching psychology framework to investigate the effectiveness of evidence-based (EB) coaching for entrepreneurs. The aim of this study was to understand how coaches can support cognition change, wellbeing, and accelerated performance improvement of entrepreneurs. The study used a within participant design, and data were collected using a pre and post coaching survey. The study involved n = 19 participants who were early-stage entrepreneurs. Pre and post surveys were assessed using paired sample t-tests. For cognitions, the results indicate higher levels in solution-focused thinking, hope sub-scales agency thinking and goal-orientation. No changes were found for sub-scales pathways thinking and self-efficacy. For Wellbeing, the findings show psychological wellbeing increased with sub-scales autonomy, self-acceptance, personal growth and purpose in life while relationship with others and environment mastery did not change. Negative emotions reduced while positive emotions did not change. For performance, the results show that participants progressed significantly towards attaining their coaching goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic, caused by the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus, has resulted in illness, deaths and societal disruption on a global scale. Societies have implemented various control measures to reduce transmission of the virus and mitigate its impact. Individual behavioural changes are crucial to the successful implementation of these measures. One commonly recommended measure to limit risk of infection is face covering. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of face covering. Objectives: We aimed to identify and synthesise the evidence on malleable psychological and psychosocial factors that determine uptake and adherence to face covering aimed at reducing the risk of infection or transmission of COVID‐19. Search Methods: We searched various literature sources including electronic databases (Medline ALL, Child Development & Adolescent Studies, ERIC, PsycInfo, CINAHL & Web of Science), web searches, conference proceedings, government reports, other repositories of literature and grey literature. The search strategy was built around three concepts of interest including (1) context (terms relating to COVID19), (2) behaviour of interest and (3) terms related to psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health‐Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with face covering, to capture malleable determines. Searches capture studies up until October 2021. Selection Criteria: Eligibility criteria included observational studies (both retrospective and prospective) and experimental studies that measure and report malleable psychological and psychosocial determinants and handwashing at an individual level, amongst the general public. Screening was supported by the Cochrane Crowd. Studies titles and abstracts were screened against the eligibility criteria by three independent screeners. Following this, all potentially relevant studies were screened at full‐text level by the research team. All conflicts between screeners were resolved by discussion between the core research team. Data Collection and Analysis: All data extraction was managed in EPPI‐Reviewer software. All eligible studies, identified through full‐text screening were extracted by one author. We extracted data on study information, population, determinant, behaviour and effects. A second author checked data extraction on 20% of all included papers. All conflicts were discussed by the two authors until consensus was reached. We assessed methodological quality of all included studies using an adapted version of the Joanna Briggs Institute Quality appraisal tool for cross‐sectional studies. Main Results: Our initial searches yielded 23,587 results, of which 23 were included in this review. The included studies were cross‐sectional in design, came from nine countries and had a combined sample of 54,401 participants. The vast majority of studies had samples from the general public, with five of the studies focusing on specific samples. All included studies considered people over the age of 18. The quality of 10 of the studies was rated as unclear, 10 were rated as low, and 3 rated high risk of bias, predominately due to lack of reporting of recruitment, sample characteristics and methodology. Ten studies were included in the meta‐analysis and 16 in the narrative synthesis. Findings from the meta‐analysis indicated that knowledge of COVID‐19 (0.341, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.06, 0.530, I2 = 100%) was the malleable determinant most associated with face covering behaviour. Perceived susceptibility of COVID‐19 (r = 0.088, 95% CI = −0.004, 0.180, I2 = 80%) and COVID‐related worry and anxiety (r = 0.064, 95% CI = −0.066, 0.191, I2 = 93% had little to no effect on face covering behaviour. In the narrative synthesis, the strongest association was found between perceived benefits and effectiveness of behaviours and mask wearing behaviour. Authors' Conclusions: Understanding the effects of various malleable determinants on COVID‐related face covering can aid in the development and implementation of interventions and public health campaigns to promote face covering behaviour in potential new waves of COVID‐19 or other respiratory infections. Knowledge of COVID and perceived benefits of face coverings warrant further consideration in future research and policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic, caused by the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus, has resulted in illness, deaths and societal disruption on a global scale. Societies have implemented various control measures to reduce transmission of the virus and mitigate its impact. Individual behavioural changes are crucial to the successful implementation of these measures. One commonly recommended measure to limit risk of infection is frequent handwashing. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of handwashing. Objectives: We aimed to identify and synthesise the evidence on malleable psychological and psychosocial factors that determine uptake and adherence to handwashing aimed at reducing the risk of infection or transmission of COVID‐19. Search Methods: We searched various literature sources including electronic databases (Medline ALL, Child Development & Adolescent Studies, ERIC, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Web of Science), web searches, conference proceedings, government reports, other repositories of literature and grey literature. The search strategy was built around three concepts of interest including (1) context (terms relating to COVID‐19), (2) behaviour of interest and (3) terms related to psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health‐Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with handwashing, to capture malleable determines. Searches capture studies up until October 2021. Selection Criteria: Eligibility criteria included observational studies (both retrospective and prospective) and experimental studies that measure and report malleable psychological and psychosocial determinants and handwashing at an individual level, amongst the general public. Screening was supported by the Cochrane Crowd. Titles and abstracts were screened against the eligibility criteria by three independent screeners. Following this, all potentially relevant studies were screened at full‐text level by the research team. All conflicts between screeners were resolved by discussion between the core research team. Data Collection and Analysis: All data extraction was managed in EPPI‐Reviewer software. All eligible studies, identified through full‐text screening were extracted by one author. We extracted data on study information, population, determinant, behaviour and effects. A second author checked data extraction on 20% of all included papers. All conflicts were discussed by the two authors until consensus was reached. We assessed methodological quality of all included studies using an adapted version of the Joanna Briggs Institute Quality appraisal tool for cross‐sectional studies. Main Results: Our initial searches yielded 23,587 results, of which 56 studies were included in this review. The included studies were cross sectional in design, came from 22 countries and had a combined sample of 199,376 participants. The vast majority of studies had samples from the general public, with eight of the studies focusing on specific samples. All included studies considered people over the age of 18. The quality of the majority of the studies was good (n = 30 rated low risk of bias), with 8 rated high risk of bias, predominately due to lack of reporting of recruitment, sample characteristics and methodology. Thirty‐four studies were included in the narrative synthesis and 28 in the meta‐analysis. Findings indicated that emotions about COVID‐19 (worry [0.381, confidence interval [CI] = 0.270–0.482, I2 = 92%) and anxiety (0.308, CI = 0.154–0.448, I2 = 91%]), knowledge of COVID‐19 (0.323, CI = 0.223–0.417, I2 = 94%), and perceived social norms (0.303, CI = 0.184–0.413, I2 = 92%) were among the malleable determinants most associated with handwashing. Perceived severity (0.006, CI = ‐0.011–0.023) and susceptibility of COVID‐19 (0.041, CI = −0.034 to 0.115) had little to no effect on handwashing behaviour. Authors' Conclusions: Understanding the effects of various malleable determinants on COVID‐related handwashing can aid in the development and implementation of interventions and public health campaigns to promote handwashing behaviour in potential new waves of COVID‐19 or other respiratory infections. Emotions about COVID, knowledge of COVID and perceived social norms warrant further consideration in future research and policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]