Vellingogle5466

Background Many studies have been conducted in intensive care units (ICUs) to identify the stress factors involved in the health of professionals and the quality and safety of care. The objectives are to identify the psychometric scales used in these studies to measure stressors and to assess their relevance and validity/reliability. Methods All peer-reviewed full-text articles published in English between 1997 and 2016 and focusing on an empirical quantitative study of job stressors were identified through searches on seven databases and editorial portals. Results From the 102 studies analyzed, we identified 59 different scales 17 "all settings scales" (16 validated scales), 20 "healthcare settings scales" (13 validated scales), and 22 "ICU settings scales" (two validated scales). All these scales used measured stressors from at least one of the following eight broad categories High job demands, Problematic relationships with other professionals, Lack of control over work situations and career, Lack of organizational resources, Problematic situations with users and relatives, Dealing with ethical- and moral-related situations, Risk management issues, and Disadvantages in comparison to other occupational situations. The "all settings scales" and "healthcare settings scales," the most often validated, did not measure, or only slightly measured, the stressors most specific to ICUs. Where these were taken into account, the authors were forced to develop their own tools or modify existing scales without testing the validity of the tool used. Conclusions This review highlights the lack of a tool that meets both the criteria of validity and relevance with regard to the specificity of work in ICUs. Future research must focus on developing reliable/valid tools covering all types of relevant stressors to ensure the quality of the studies carried out in this field. Copyright © 2020 Laurent, Lheureux, Genet, Martin Delgado, Bocci, Prestifilippo, Besch and Capellier.Schizophrenia is a debilitating psychiatric disorder, leading to both physical and social morbidity. Despite its importance, the etiology of schizophrenia remains poorly understood. Furthermore, its mainstream treatments fail to address all aspects of the disorder and are associated with significant side-effects. Recently, there has been growing interest in the relationship between the gut microbiome and mental health, including in schizophrenia. In this article, we review the existing evidence implicating dysbiosis in schizophrenia and discuss how the presumed dysbiosis could fit within known hypotheses of its pathogenesis, focusing on inflammation, tryptophan metabolites, and BDNF levels. We also evaluate the clinical potential of manipulating the gut microbiome with probiotics and prebiotics as adjunctive treatments in schizophrenia, based on existing clinical and pre-clinical studies. Overall, the current data showing microbiome alterations in schizophrenia are highly discrepant and insufficient to conclude whether microbiome changes are associated with increased risk of the disorder, or are simply the result of external factors or treatment. Despite some encouraging results of pro/prebiotic supplementation, there is also inconclusive evidence for their efficacy in schizophrenia. Thus, further research and more clinical trials are needed to test the validity of manipulating the gut microbiome to improve the treatment of this disorder. Copyright © 2020 Szeligowski, Yun, Lennox and Burnet.Aim of the study was to identify patient variables that predict specific patterns of symptom course during and after hospital treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD). In a sample of 518 patients, four pairs of clinically relevant patterns of symptom change were contrasted. The time points of measurement were admission, discharge, 3 and 12 month after discharge. CATREG was used to identify the best sets of predictors from 28 variables. A greater reduction in self-criticism during hospital treatment was the strongest predictor of rapid and sustained improvement. Traumatic childhood experiences and lower abilities for communication with others predicted a transient relapse after discharge, while a co-morbid personality disorder and higher level of anxiety differentiated between those with a persistent relapse and those with only a transient relapse in depressive symptoms following discharge. Overall, patients with less severe depression at admission, better abilities in self-perception, and less self-criticism (baseline and/or greater reduction during treatment) showed a better outcome after 1 year. There is limited generalizability to other countries and treatment settings. find more Data on personality functioning were not available for all patients and findings are correlational in nature. However, findings are in support of a psychotherapeutic focus on a reduction of self-criticism in MDD. Patient with traumatization, a co-morbid personality disorder and lower abilities to communicate their emotional needs should get specific attention and support after discharge from hospital treatment. Copyright © 2020 Zeeck, von Wietersheim, Weiss, Hermann, Endorf, Lau and Hartmann.Introduction Double-blind placebo-controlled studies investigating the effect of a few-foods diet (FFD) on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have provided consistent evidence that ADHD can be triggered by foods, indicating the existence of a food-induced ADHD subtype. In 2001 the "few-foods" approach was included in an ADHD treatment protocol. This approach consists of (a) determining, by means of an FFD, whether food is a trigger of ADHD; (b) reintroducing, in FFD responders, foods to assess which foods are incriminated; (c) finally composing a personalised diet eliminating the involved foods only. In the Netherlands the few-foods approach is applied in practice. We aimed to retrospectively assess its effectiveness on ADHD and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) in real life. Methods Data from all children who started the few-foods approach in three specialised healthcare facilities during three consecutive months were included. Behavior was assessed at start and end of the 5-week FFD, using the ADHD Rating Scale and a structured psychiatric interview.