Most diagnoses adequately tested had good to very good reliability with these representative clinical populations assessed with usual clinical interview methods. Some diagnoses that were revised to encompass a broader spectrum of symptom expression or had a more dimensional approach tested in the good to very good range.

These results show promising test-retest reliability results for this group of assessments, many of which are newly developed or have not been previously tested in psychiatric populations

No abstract

Despite that randomization is the gold standard for estimating causal relationships, many questions in prevention science are left to be answered through non-experimental studies often because randomization is either infeasible or unethical. While methods such as propensity score matching can adjust for observed confounding, unobserved confounding is the Achilles heel of most non-experimental studies. This paper describes and illustrates seven sensitivity analysis techniques that assess the sensitivity of study results to an unobserved confounder. These methods were categorized into two groups to reflect differences in their conceptualization of sensitivity analysis, as well as their targets of interest. As a motivating example we examine the sensitivity of the association between maternal suicide and offspring’s risk for suicide attempt hospitalization. While inferences differed slightly depending on the type of sensitivity analysis conducted, overall the association between maternal suicide and offspring’s hospitalization for suicide attempt was found to be relatively robust to an unobserved confounder. The ease of implementation and the insight these analyses provide underscores sensitivity analysis techniques as an important tool for non-experimental studies. The implementation of sensitivity analysis can help increase confidence in results from non-experimental studies and better inform prevention researchers and policymakers regarding potential intervention targets.

Multisite field trials and training comparable to what would be available to any clinician after publication of DSM-5 provided “real-world” testing of DSM-5 proposed diagnoses.

Aims-To assess the effectiveness of a peer-based, personal risk network focused HIV prevention intervention to 1) train IDUs to reduce injection and sex risk behaviors, 2) conduct outreach to behaviorally risky individuals in their personal social networks (called Risk Network Members), and 3) reduce RNM HIV risk behaviors.Design-Randomized controlled trial with prospective data collection at 6, 12, and 18 months. Intervention condition consisted of 5 group-sessions, one individual session and one session with Index and the RNM. Participants-1) Index participants were aged ≥18 years and self-reported injection drug use in the prior 6 months and 2) their RNMs who were aged ≥18 years and drug users or sex partners of Index.Measurements-Outcomes included: 1) injection risk based on sharing needles, cookers and cotton for injection and drug splitting, 2) sex risk based on number of sex partners, condom use and exchanging sex and 3) Index HIV outreach behaviors.Findings-A total of n=227 Index participants recruited n=366 RNMs. Retention of Index at 18-month follow-up exceeded 85%. Findings suggest the experimental condition was efficacious at 18-months in reducing Index participant injection risk (OR=0.38; 95%CI=0.18-0.77), drug splitting risk (OR=0.46; 95%CI=0.25-0.88), and sex risk among Index (OR=0.53; 95%CI=0.34-0.86). Significant intervention effect on increased condom use among female RNM was observed (OR=0.34; 95%CI=0.18-0.62).

No abstract

Social network structure and norms are linked to HIV risk behavior. However little is known about the gradient of norm of HIV risk that exists among social networks. We examined the association between injection risk network structure and HIV risk norms among 818 injection drug users (IDUs). IDUs were categorized into four distinct groups based on their risk behaviors with their drug networks: no network members with whom they shared cookers or needles, only cooker-sharing member, one needle-sharing member, and multiple needle-sharing members. The riskiest group, networks of multiple needle sharers, was more likely to endorse both risky needle-sharing and sex norms. Networks of only cooker sharers were less likely to endorse high-risk norms, as compared to the networks with no sharing. There were also differences based on gender. Future HIV prevention interventions for IDUs should target both injection and sex risk norms, particularly among IDUs in the multiple needle-sharing networks.