ental health disorders, including major depressive disorder, are classified in research using validated diagnostic interviews. 1,2 However, administering diagnostic interviews to large population samples to estimate prevalence is expensive because of the time and trained personnel that are required. This is likely why researchers increasingly use selfreport screening questionnaires, which require fewer resources, to estimate prevalence. We searched PubMed from Jan. 1, 2017, to Mar. 14, 2017, for primary studies with titles that indicated that prevalence of depression or depressive disorders had been assessed. Prevalence was based on screening questionnaires in 17 of 19 studies (89%; Appendix 1, available at www.cmaj.ca/ lookup/suppl/

IntroductionPsychosocial and rehabilitation interventions are increasingly used to attenuate disability and improve health-related quality of life (HRQL) in chronic diseases, but are typically not available for patients with rare diseases. Conducting rigorous, adequately powered trials of these interventions for patients with rare diseases is difficult. The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) is an international collaboration of patient organisations, clinicians and researchers. The aim of SPIN is to develop a research infrastructure to test accessible, low-cost self-guided online interventions to reduce disability and improve HRQL for people living with the rare disease systemic sclerosis (SSc or scleroderma). Once tested, effective interventions will be made accessible through patient organisations partnering with SPIN.Methods and analysisSPIN will employ the cohort multiple randomised controlled trial (cmRCT) design, in which patients consent to participate in a cohort for ongoing data collection. The aim is to recruit 1500–2000 patients from centres across the world within a period of 5 years (2013–2018). Eligible participants are persons ≥18 years of age with a diagnosis of SSc. In addition to baseline medical data, participants will complete patient-reported outcome measures every 3 months. Upon enrolment in the cohort, patients will consent to be contacted in the future to participate in intervention research and to allow their data to be used for comparison purposes for interventions tested with other cohort participants. Once interventions are developed, patients from the cohort will be randomly selected and offered interventions as part of pragmatic RCTs. Outcomes from patients offered interventions will be compared with outcomes from trial-eligible patients who are not offered the interventions.Ethics and disseminationThe use of the cmRCT design, the development of self-guided online interventions and partnerships with patient organisations will allow SPIN to develop, rigourously test and effectively disseminate psychosocial and rehabilitation interventions for people with SSc.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundA large proportion of mindfulness-based therapy trials report statistically significant results, even in the context of very low statistical power. The objective of the present study was to characterize the reporting of “positive” results in randomized controlled trials of mindfulness-based therapy. We also assessed mindfulness-based therapy trial registrations for indications of possible reporting bias and reviewed recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses to determine whether reporting biases were identified.MethodsCINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, ISI, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and SCOPUS databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of mindfulness-based therapy. The number of positive trials was described and compared to the number that might be expected if mindfulness-based therapy were similarly effective compared to individual therapy for depression. Trial registries were searched for mindfulness-based therapy registrations. CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, ISI, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and SCOPUS were also searched for mindfulness-based therapy systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Results108 (87%) of 124 published trials reported ≥1 positive outcome in the abstract, and 109 (88%) concluded that mindfulness-based therapy was effective, 1.6 times greater than the expected number of positive trials based on effect size d = 0.55 (expected number positive trials = 65.7). Of 21 trial registrations, 13 (62%) remained unpublished 30 months post-trial completion. No trial registrations adequately specified a single primary outcome measure with time of assessment. None of 36 systematic reviews and meta-analyses concluded that effect estimates were overestimated due to reporting biases.ConclusionsThe proportion of mindfulness-based therapy trials with statistically significant results may overstate what would occur in practice.

The present results provide researchers and clinicians with a brief valid and reliable measure of FCR which is suitable for measuring FCR in cancer patients and survivors.

Objective. To systematically and comprehensively document the effectiveness of nonpharmacologic interventions on physical functioning and psychological well-being in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc). Methods. Multiple electronic databases were searched for studies on the effectiveness of nonpharmacologic interventions in SSc. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), and observational designs (ODs) with ‡10 participants were included. Two reviewers independently assessed methodologic quality using the Downs and Black checklist. Results. Twenty-three studies (9 RCTs, 4 CCTs, and 10 ODs) were included. Studies assessing comparable interventions were grouped, resulting in data for 16 different interventions. The total number of patients included per study ranged from 10 to 53. Seventeen different outcome domains were assessed, with hand function, limitations in activities, and quality of life being assessed most frequently. Three studies, all RCTs, were rated as high quality. These RCTs reported that 1) a multifaceted oral health intervention improves mouth hygiene, and additional orofacial exercises did not improve mouth opening, 2) a multidisciplinary team-care program improves limitations in activities, mouth opening, and hand grip strength, and 3) manual lymph drainage improves hand function, limitations in activities, and quality of life. Conclusion. The body of knowledge regarding nonpharmacologic care in SSc is very limited due to the wide variety in studied interventions and outcomes in the relatively uncommon but highly disabling disease. To structure and focus future research, an international consensus should be established to prioritize primary targets for nonpharmacologic treatment and the content of interventions and to agree on a core set of outcome measures.

BackgroundPublished validation studies have reported different factor structures for the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS). The objective of this study was to assess the factor structure of the SCS in a large general population sample representative of the German population.MethodsA German population sample completed the SCS and other self-report measures. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in MPlus was used to test six models previously found in factor analytic studies (unifactorial model, two-factor model, three-factor model, six-factor model, a hierarchical (second order) model with six first-order factors and two second-order factors, and a model with arbitrarily assigned items to six factors). In addition, three bifactor models were also tested: bifactor model #1 with two group factors (SCS positive items, called SCS positive) and SCS negative items, called SCS negative) and one general factor (overall SCS); bifactor model #2, which is a two-tier model with six group factors, three (SCS positive subscales) corresponding to one general dimension (SCS positive) and three (SCS negative subscales) corresponding to the second general dimension (SCS negative); bifactor model #3 with six group factors (six SCS subscales) and one general factor (overall SCS).ResultsThe two-factor model, the six-factor model, and the hierarchical model showed less than ideal, but acceptable fit. The model fit indices for these models were comparable, with no apparent advantage of the six-factor model over the two-factor model. The one-factor model, the three-factor model, and bifactor model #3 showed poor fit. The other two bifactor models showed strong support for two factors: SCS positive and SCS negative.ConclusionThe main results of this study are that, among the German general population, six SCS factors and two SCS factors fit the data reasonably well. While six factors can be modelled, the three negative factors and the three positive factors, respectively, did not reflect reliable or meaningful variance beyond the two summative positive and negative item factors. As such, we recommend the use of two subscale scores to capture a positive factor and a negative factor when administering the German SCS to general population samples and we strongly advise against the use of a total score across all SCS items.