Yusufmorse5050

Introduction Chronic conditions, particularly diabetes, and related health conditions continue to be a major concern in the United States, especially in Hispanic populations. This study evaluated the effect of an integrated behavioral health care model, including promotoras(es), on a primarily Hispanic population living with diabetes. Method Seven hundred fifty-six participants were enrolled in an intervention (n = 329) or comparison group (n = 427) and followed up for 12 months. We used a quasiexperimental design to compare participants who received coordinated integrated behavioral health care with those who received usual care from a federally qualified health center. The outcomes were HbA1c, blood pressure, body mass index, depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), and quality of life (QoL). These outcomes were analyzed as continuous variables using linear regression with backward model selection. Longitudinal analyses were conducted using a likelihood-based approach to general linear mixed models. Results A total 563 intervention (n = 239) and comparison (n = 324) participants completed an end point assessment. After adjusting for important covariates, the intervention had a QoL score 5.36 points higher than the comparison participants on average after 12 months. The trajectories of QoL and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores differed over time, with intervention participants experiencing greater improvements. There were no statistically significant differences detected for other outcomes. Discussion Enabling access to services and providers to enhance participants' ability to manage their chronic disease led to positive impacts on mental health. The connection between QoL and diabetes has been of great interest to researchers, including the effects of relationships with promotoras(es). selleck kinase inhibitor The impact of integrating care on QoL in this vulnerable population is discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).Entrepreneurs in integrated care face some of the same challenges in empirically demonstrating impact, regardless of the model of care they espouse. In this editorial, 2 leading model developers reflect on the state of the science in primary care integration, including research gaps and promising research underway. We asked these leaders to discuss conceptual areas of shared concern, and we present those with reference to the metaphor of the translational research bridge. Their insights resonate with one another and suggest a role for collaboration to advance empirical support for the implementation of integrated care. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).We describe a neurobiologically informed computational model of phasic dopamine signaling to account for a wide range of findings, including many considered inconsistent with the simple reward prediction error (RPE) formalism. The central feature of this PVLV framework is a distinction between a primary value (PV) system for anticipating primary rewards (Unconditioned Stimuli [USs]), and a learned value (LV) system for learning about stimuli associated with such rewards (CSs). The LV system represents the amygdala, which drives phasic bursting in midbrain dopamine areas, while the PV system represents the ventral striatum, which drives shunting inhibition of dopamine for expected USs (via direct inhibitory projections) and phasic pausing for expected USs (via the lateral habenula). Our model accounts for data supporting the separability of these systems, including individual differences in CS-based (sign-tracking) versus US-based learning (goal-tracking). Both systems use competing opponent-processing pathways representing evidence for and against specific USs, which can explain data dissociating the processes involved in acquisition versus extinction conditioning. Further, opponent processing proved critical in accounting for the full range of conditioned inhibition phenomena, and the closely related paradigm of second-order conditioning. Finally, we show how additional separable pathways representing aversive USs, largely mirroring those for appetitive USs, also have important differences from the positive valence case, allowing the model to account for several important phenomena in aversive conditioning. Overall, accounting for all of these phenomena strongly constrains the model, thus providing a well-validated framework for understanding phasic dopamine signaling. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).The Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (PiCD) was recently developed to assess the ICD-11 model of personality disorders. The purpose of this study was to examine the construct validity of the PiCD using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) and the Computerized Adaptive Test of Personality Disorders Static Form (CAT-PD-SF). We administered these tests to 328 college students (150 males, 178 females). We found that the PiCD had adequate internal consistency reliability. Correlations between scores from the PiCD scales and the criterion measures generally indicated adequate discriminant validity. Along the same lines, convergent validity was adequate for the PiCD Negative Affective, Disinhibition, and Dissocial scales. However, the evidence was more mixed for the PiCD Detachment and Anankastic domains, which may be due to limitations with the content domains for these scales. Consistent with other research and theoretical expectations, a conjoint exploratory factor analysis utilizing the PiCD and MMPI-2-RF PSY-5 scales also indicated that anankastic and disinhibition may be more appropriately conceptualized as measuring opposite poles of one construct. Implications of these findings for the PiCD and the ICD-11 model are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).The dot-probe task is a widely used experimental paradigm that evaluates attention biases within anxiety disorders. Considerable research has focused on improving the reliability of dot-probe scores because the task's original attention bias index has shown very low test-retest reliability. The current study serves as a replication and extension of Price et al. (2015), who systematically examined the effects of methodological choices on reliability of dot-probe task results. Fifty-six adults diagnosed with social anxiety disorder were asked to complete a facial dot-probe task twice, approximately 1 week apart. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency were examined for 10 dot-probe attention bias indices across 55 sets of outlier cutoffs. Both Pearson's r and intraclass correlation coefficients were used. Trial-level bias score indices of mean bias toward threat and attention bias variability, which measure attention bias dynamically using individual pairs of trials, demonstrated the highest reliability and were less sensitive to changes in outlier cutoffs as compared with the dot probe's classic attention bias index and others.