Although psychological aggression has been identified as a risk factor for physical aggression, the prevalence of psychological aggression is much higher than that of physical aggression. To further understand the relationship between psychological and physical aggression, the level of psychological aggression at which physical aggression becomes more likely was evaluated. A representative sample of 268 men and 299 women responded anonymously to a self-report measure of aggression (revised Conflict Tactics Scale [CTS-2]) at baseline, and then 1 year later. Using both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses, this study evaluated the level of psychological aggression that is necessary before it is likely that one will be physically aggressive. When one was at the 80th percentile of psychological aggression, there was a 70% probability that a man would be physically aggressive and 85% probability that a woman would be physically aggressive. Longitudinally, when one was at the 80th percentile of psychological aggression at Time 1, there was a 40% probability that a man would be physically aggressive and 45% probability that a woman would be physically aggressive at Time 2. CTS-2 psychological decile scores are provided along with the probability of physical aggression to assist clinicians in interpreting client scores. Implications for research and couples therapy are discussed.

The extant literature indicates negative self-perceptions are a risk factor for disordered eating (DE) and DE is a risk factor for overweight and obesity. While childhood emotional abuse (EA) is often linked to DE and obesity, it is typically not included in comprehensive models of these health problems. Further investigation of interactions among EA, self-perception, and DE is needed to refine treatments for overweight, obesity, and DE. This study evaluated a model of DE and weight difficulties in which negative self-perception mediate the relationship between EA and DE, and DE predicts body mass index (BMI) in a population of emerging adults. Further, this study investigated the utility of history of EA for prediction of DE and classification of individuals with and without DE. Self-report questionnaires on childhood trauma, psychopathology, and eating behaviors were administered to 598 undergraduate students. Latent variable analysis confirmed the hypothesized model. Recursive partitioning determined that individuals reporting a high level of EA likely meet criteria for night eating syndrome (NES) or binge eating disorder (BED), and history of EA has a moderate to high level of specificity as a predictor of BED and NES. These findings confirm the necessity of evaluating EA and DE in emerging adults with weight difficulties, and the importance of assessing self-perception and DE in individuals with a history of EA. Future studies should investigate the utility of addressing EA and self-perception in interventions for DE and obesity and to determine whether these findings can be generalized to a clinical population.

No abstract

INTRODUCTION: Insurance coverage is an important determinant of treatment choice in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), often taking precedence over desired mechanisms of action or patient goals/values. We aimed to determine whether routine and algorithmic coverage restrictions are cost-effective from a commercial insurer perspective. METHODS: A multilevel microsimulation tracking costs and outcomes among 10 million hypothetical moderate-to-severe patients with IBS was developed to model all possible algorithms including common global IBS treatments (neuromodulators; low fermentable oligo-, di-, and mono-saccharides, and polyols; and cognitive behavioral therapy) and prescription drugs treating diarrhea-predominant IBS (IBS-D) or constipation-predominant IBS (IBS-C) over 1 year. RESULTS: Routinely using global IBS treatments (central neuromodulator; low fermentable oligo-, di-, and mono-saccharides, and polyols; and cognitive behavioral therapy) before US Food and Drug Administration-approved drug therapies resulted in per-patient cost savings of $9,034.59 for IBS-D and $2,972.83 for IBS-C over 1 year to insurers, compared with patients starting with on-label drug therapy. Health outcomes were similar, regardless of treatment sequence. Costs varied less than $200 per year, regardless of the global IBS treatment order. The most cost-saving and cost-effective IBS-D algorithm was rifaximin, then eluxadoline, followed by alosetron. The most cost-saving and cost-effective IBS-C algorithm was linaclotide, followed by either plecanatide or lubiprostone. In no scenario were prescription drugs routinely more cost-effective than global IBS treatments, despite a stronger level of evidence with prescription drugs. These findings were driven by higher prescription drug prices as compared to lower costs with global IBS treatments. DISCUSSION: From an insurer perspective, routine and algorithmic prescription drug coverage restrictions requiring failure of low-cost behavioral, dietary, and off-label treatments appear cost-effective. Efforts to address insurance coverage and drug pricing are needed so that healthcare providers can optimally care for patients with this common, heterogenous disorder.

Clinically significant pain reductions in response to both CBT-I and BD were optimally predicted by achieving approximately 6.5 hr sleep duration by mid-treatment. Thus, tailoring interventions to increase TST early in treatment may be an effective strategy to promote long-term pain reductions. More comprehensive research on components of behavioral sleep medicine treatments that contribute to pain response is warranted.

Introduction. Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is the most common gastroenterology referral and one of the most common gastrointestinal complaints in primary care. We performed a cost-utility analysis of the most common treatments available in general practice for IBS with constipation (IBS-C), the most expensive IBS subtype. Methods. We developed a decision analytic model evaluating guideline-recommended and Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs, supplements, and dietary/psychological interventions. Model inputs were derived from “global symptom improvement” outcomes in systematic reviews of clinical trials. Costs were derived from national datasets. Analysis was performed with a 1-year time horizon from patient and payer perspectives. We analyzed a prototypical managed-care health plan with no cost-sharing to the patient. Results. From a payer perspective, global IBS treatments (including low FODMAP, cognitive behavioral therapy [CBT], neuromodulators), which are not specific to the IBS-C bowel subtype were less expensive than on-label prescription drug treatments. From a patient perspective, on-label prescription drug treatment with linaclotide was the least expensive treatment strategy. Drug prices and costs to manage untreated IBS-C were most important determinants of payer treatment preferences. Effects of treatment on missed work-days and need for repeated appointments to complete treatment were the most important determinants of treatment preference to patients. Discussion. Due mostly to prescription drug prices, neuromodulators, low FODMAP, and CBT appear cost-effective compared to on-label drug treatments from a payer perspective in cost-utility analysis. These findings may explain common treatment barriers in clinical practice.

No abstract

No abstract