BackgroundThe clinical relevance of resilience has received considerable attention in recent years. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Resilience Scale (RS) and short version of the RS (RS-14).FindingsThe original English version of RS was translated to Japanese and the Japanese version was confirmed by back-translation. Participants were 430 nursing and university psychology students. The RS, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES), Social Support Questionnaire (SSQ), Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) were administered. Internal consistency, convergent validity and factor loadings were assessed at initial assessment. Test-retest reliability was assessed using data collected from 107 students at 3 months after baseline. Mean score on the RS was 111.19. Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the RS and RS-14 were 0.90 and 0.88, respectively. The test-retest correlation coefficients for the RS and RS-14 were 0.83 and 0.84, respectively. Both the RS and RS-14 were negatively correlated with the CES-D and SDS, and positively correlated with the RSES, SSQ and PSS (all p < 0.05), although the correlation between the RS and CES-D was somewhat lower than that in previous studies. Factor analyses indicated a one-factor solution for RS-14, but as for RS, the result was not consistent with previous studies.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that the Japanese version of RS has psychometric properties with high degrees of internal consistency, high test-retest reliability, and relatively low concurrent validity. RS-14 was equivalent to the RS in internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and concurrent validity. Low scores on the RS, a positive correlation between the RS and perceived stress, and a relatively low correlation between the RS and depressive symptoms in this study suggest that validity of the Japanese version of the RS might be relatively low compared with the original English version.
A timely determination of the risk of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a prerequisite for efficient service delivery and prevention. We provide a risk estimate tool allowing a calculation of individuals' PTSD likelihood from early predictors. Members of the International Consortium to Predict PTSD (ICPP) shared individual participants' item-level data from ten longitudinal studies of civilian trauma survivors admitted to acute care centers in six countries. Eligible participants (N=2,473) completed an initial clinical assessment within 60 days of trauma exposure, and at least one follow-up assessment 4-15 months later. The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-IV (CAPS) evaluated PTSD symptom severity and diagnostic status at each assessment. Participants' education, prior lifetime trauma exposure, marital status and socio-economic status were assessed and harmonized across studies. The study's main outcome was the likelihood of a follow-up PTSD given early predictors. The prevalence of follow-up PTSD was 11.8% (9.2% for male participants and 16.4% for females). A logistic model using early PTSD symptom severity (initial CAPS total score) as a predictor produced remarkably accurate estimates of . Adding respondents' female gender, lower education, and exposure to prior interpersonal trauma to the model yielded higher PTSD likelihood estimates, with similar model accuracy (predicted vs. raw probabilities: r=0.941). The current model could be adjusted for other traumatic circumstances and accommodate risk factors not captured by the ICPP (e.g., biological, social). In line with their use in general medicine, risk estimate models can inform clinical choices in psychiatry. It is hoped that quantifying individuals' PTSD risk will be a first step towards systematic prevention of the disorder.
Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a complex mental illness with unmet therapeutic needs. The antidepressant effects of ω–3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n–3 PUFAs) have been widely reported. The subcommittee of the International Society for Nutritional Psychiatry Research organized an expert panel and conducted a literature review and a Delphi process to develop a consensus-based practice guideline for clinical use of n–3 PUFAs in MDD. The guideline focuses on 5 thematic areas: general concepts, acute treatment strategy, depression recurrence monitoring and prevention, use in special populations, and potential safety issues. The key practice guidelines contend that: (1) clinicians and other practitioners are advised to conduct a clinical interview to validate clinical diagnoses, physical conditions, and measurement-based psychopathological assessments in the therapeutic settings when recommending n–3 PUFAs in depression treatment; (2) with respect to formulation and dosage, both pure eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) or an EPA/docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) combination of a ratio higher than 2 (EPA/DHA >2) are considered effective, and the recommended dosages should be 1–2 g of net EPA daily, from either pure EPA or an EPA/DHA (>2:1) formula; (3) the quality of n–3 PUFAs may affect therapeutic activity; and (4) potential adverse effects, such as gastrointestinal and dermatological conditions, should be monitored, as well as obtaining comprehensive metabolic panels. The expert consensus panel has agreed on using n–3 PUFAs in MDD treatment for pregnant women, children, and the elderly, and prevention in high-risk populations. Personalizing the clinical application of n-3 PUFAs in subgroups of MDD with a low Omega-3 Index or high levels of inflammatory markers might be regarded as areas that deserve future research.
IMPORTANCE Although several pharmacological interventions for delirium have been investigated, their overall benefit and safety remain unclear. OBJECTIVE To evaluate evidence regarding pharmacological interventions for delirium treatment and prevention.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.