IMPORTANCEMany people meditate to reduce psychological stress and stress-related health problems. To counsel people appropriately, clinicians need to know what the evidence says about the health benefits of meditation.OBJECTIVE To determine the efficacy of meditation programs in improving stress-related outcomes (anxiety, depression, stress/distress, positive mood, mental health-related quality of life, attention, substance use, eating habits, sleep, pain, and weight) in diverse adult clinical populations.EVIDENCE REVIEW We identified randomized clinical trials with active controls for placebo effects through November 2012 from MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, PsycArticles, Scopus, CINAHL, AMED, the Cochrane Library, and hand searches. Two independent reviewers screened citations and extracted data. We graded the strength of evidence using 4 domains (risk of bias, precision, directness, and consistency) and determined the magnitude and direction of effect by calculating the relative difference between groups in change from baseline. When possible, we conducted meta-analyses using standardized mean differences to obtain aggregate estimates of effect size with 95% confidence intervals.FINDINGS After reviewing 18 753 citations, we included 47 trials with 3515 participants. Mindfulness meditation programs had moderate evidence of improved anxiety (effect size, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.12-0.64] at 8 weeks and 0.22 [0.02-0.43] at 3-6 months), depression (0.30 [0.00-0.59] at 8 weeks and 0.23 [0.05-0.42] at 3-6 months), and pain (0.33 [0.03-0.62]) and low evidence of improved stress/distress and mental health-related quality of life. We found low evidence of no effect or insufficient evidence of any effect of meditation programs on positive mood, attention, substance use, eating habits, sleep, and weight. We found no evidence that meditation programs were better than any active treatment (ie, drugs, exercise, and other behavioral therapies). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEClinicians should be aware that meditation programs can result in small to moderate reductions of multiple negative dimensions of psychological stress. Thus, clinicians should be prepared to talk with their patients about the role that a meditation program could have in addressing psychological stress. Stronger study designs are needed to determine the effects of meditation programs in improving the positive dimensions of mental health and stress-related behavior.

Longitudinal Data in Two Groups Longitudinal Data in Two Groups with interaction of covariate by group 42 Adapting the CAT12 workflow for unusual populations Customized Tissue Probability Maps 46 Customized DARTEL-template Other variants of computational morphometry Deformation-based morphometry (DBM) Surface-based morphometry (SBM) Region of interest (ROI) analysis Additional information on native, normalized and modulated volumes Naming convention of output files Calling CAT from the UNIX command line Technical information CAT12 Citation References 1 Note to filter sizes for Gaussian smoothing Due to the high accuracy of the spatial registration approaches used in CAT12, you can also try to use smaller filter sizes. However, for very small filter sizes or even no filtering, you have to apply a non-parametric permutation test such as the TFCE-statistics. Please also note that for the analysis of cortical folding measures such as gyrification or cortical complexity the filter sizes have to be larger (i.e. in the range of 15-25mm). This is due to the underlying nature of this measure that reflects contributions from both sulci as well as gyri. Therefore, the filter size should exceed the distance between a gyral crown and a sulcal fundus.

Depressed patients performed worse than healthy subjects on a novel spatial memory task. Virtual reality navigation may provide a consistent, sensitive measure of cognitive deficits in patients with affective disorders, representing a mechanism to study a putative endophenotype for hippocampal function.

No abstract

Purpose of Review To determine the efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) on clinical and patient-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Recent Findings We identified randomized clinical trials from inception through April 2018 from MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and hand searches. After screening 338 references, we included five trials with one post-hoc analysis that evaluated MBIs and collectively included 399 participants. Outcome instruments were heterogeneous across studies. Three studies evaluated RA clinical outcomes by a rheumatologist; one study found improvements in disease activity. A limited meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference in the levels of DAS28-CRP in the two studies that evaluated this metric (− 0.44 (− 0.99, 0.12); I2 0%). Four studies evaluated heterogeneous psychological outcomes, and all found improvements including depressive symptoms, psychological distress, and self-efficacy. A meta-analysis of pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS) levels post intervention from three included studies was not significantly different between MBI participants and control group (− 0.58 (− 1.26, 0.10); I2 0%) although other studies not included in meta-analysis found improvement. Summary There are few trials evaluating the effect of MBIs on outcomes in patients with RA. Preliminary findings suggest that MBIs may be a useful strategy to improve psychological distress in those with RA.

Burn injuries involve significant physiological, psychological, and social challenges with which individuals must cope. Although the brief COPE (BCOPE) is frequently used, knowledge of its factor structure and construct validity is limited, thus limiting confidence with interpreting results. This study assessed psychometric properties of the BCOPE in hospitalized patients with burn injury. Participants had a major burn injury (n = 362). Measures assessed coping behavior and physical, psychological, and social functioning. Exploratory factorial analysis was conducted to evaluate patterns of coping strategies. To assess construct validity, the BCOPE scale scores were correlated with the distress measures across time points. Exploratory factorial analysis revealed seven factors accounting for 51% of total variance. The pattern matrix indicated four items loaded onto factor 1 (active coping = 0.47-0.80) and four onto factor 2 (avoidant coping = 0.59-0.73). The remaining factors were consistent with original scale assignments reported by Carver (Int J Behav Med 1997;4:92-100). Construct validity of BCOPE scales (active and avoidant) was demonstrated by their association with the Davidson trauma scale, short form-12, and satisfaction with appearance scale. The results indicate that the BCOPE is valid, reliable, and can be meaningfully interpreted. Research using these factors may improve knowledge about interrelationships among stress, coping, and outcome, thus building the evidence base for managing distress in this population.

Modern technological advances have decreased the incidence and severity of burn injuries, and medical care improvements of burn injuries have significantly increased survival rates, particularly in developed countries. Still, fire-related burn injuries are responsible for 300,000 deaths and 10 million disability-adjusted life years lost annually worldwide. The extent to which psychiatric and behavioural factors contribute to the incidence and outcomes of these tragedies has not been systematically documented, and the available data is often insufficient to reach definitive conclusions. Accordingly, this article reviews the evidence of psychiatric and behavioural risk factors and prevention opportunities for burn injuries worldwide. Psychiatric prevalence rates and risk factors for burn injuries, prevalence and risks associated with 'intentional' burn injuries (self-immolation, assault, and child maltreatment), and prevention activities targeting the general population and those with known psychiatric and behavioural risk factors are discussed. These issues are substantially interwoven with many co-occurring risk factors. While success in teasing apart the roles and contributions of these factors rests upon improving the methodology employed in future research, the nature of this entanglement increases the likelihood that successful interventions in one problem area will reap benefits in others.

No abstract