Explore the vast range of titles available.

Studying prosociality in rodents can provide insight into brain mechanisms potentially related to neurodevelopmental disorders known to impact social behaviors (e.g., autism spectrum disorder). While many studies have been published suggesting promising models, current knowledge remains scattered, including potential factors mediating prosocial behaviors in rodents. Prosocial behavior is characterized by an action done to benefit another or promote their well-being. The goal of this scoping review is to characterize current findings regarding prosocial paradigms in rodents, highlight current gaps in reporting, and identify factors shown to be important in mediating prosocial responses in rodents. Five databases were consulted in search of relevant studies published between 2000 and 2020 (APA PsycInfo, Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science). An update using a semi-supervised machine learning approach (ASReview) was then conducted to collect studies from 2021–2023. In total, 80 articles were included. Findings were the following: (1) Three categories of prosocial paradigm were extracted: cooperation, helping, and sharing tasks, (2) Rodents showed the ability to perform prosocial actions in all three categories, (3) Significant gaps in reported methodologies (e.g., failure to report animals’ characteristics, housing conditions, and/or experimental protocol) and mediating factors (e.g., sex, strain, housing, food restriction) were found, and (4) Behaviors are determinant when investigating prosociality in rodents, however many studies omitted to include such analyses. Together these results inform future studies on the impact of mediating factors and the importance of behavioral analyses on the expression of prosocial behaviors in rodents.

This guide outlines general issues in searching for studies; describes the main sources of potential studies; and discusses how to plan the search process, design, and carry out search strategies, manage references found during the search process and document and report the search process.

Black communities have been disproportionately impacted by Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Canada, in terms of both number of infections and mortality rates. Yet, according to early studies, vaccine hesitancy appears to be higher in Black communities. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine the prevalence and factors associated with vaccine hesitancy in Black communities in Canada. Peer-reviewed studies published from 11 March 2020 to 26 July 2022, were searched through eleven databases: APA PsycInfo (Ovid), Cairn.info, Canadian Business & Current Affairs (ProQuest), CPI.Q (Gale OneFile), Cochrane CENTRAL (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Érudit, Global Health (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Web of Science (Clarivate). Eligible studies were published in French or English and had empirical data on the prevalence or factors associated with vaccine hesitancy in samples or subsamples of Black people. Only five studies contained empirical data on vaccine hesitancy in Black individuals and were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. Black individuals represented 1.18% (n = 247) of all included study samples (n = 20,919). Two of the five studies found that Black individuals were more hesitant to be vaccinated against COVID-19 compared to White individuals, whereas the other three found no significant differences. The studies failed to provide any evidence of factors associated with vaccine hesitancy in Black communities. Despite national concerns about vaccine hesitancy in Black communities, a color-blind approach is still predominant in Canadian health research. Of about 40 studies containing empirical data on vaccine hesitancy in Canada, only five contained data on Black communities. None analyzed factors associated with vaccine hesitancy in Black communities. Policies and strategies to strengthen health research in Black communities and eliminate the color-blind approach are discussed.

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: to appraise and synthesize the available quantitative evidence on GBI interventions in high‐income countries, for the purpose of comparing the relative effectiveness of specific forms of GBI for alleviating poverty.

Technology-mediated sexual interactions (TMSI) are interpersonal exchanges via technology of self-created sexual material, including photos, videos, and auditory or text messages. There is little research on the factors that predict both TMSI experiences and their sexual wellbeing outcomes. Social anxiety is anxiety experienced in response to social or performance situations. From a cognitive–behavioural perspective, people higher in social anxiety may avoid TMSI, preventing positive or negative consequences. They also may use TMSI to avoid the anxiety caused by in-person sexual interactions, benefiting from access to sexual interactions while perpetuating anxiety about them. The purpose of this scoping review was to explore the role of social anxiety in TMSI and its sexual wellbeing outcomes. We executed a comprehensive search strategy across eight academic databases and searched reference lists of included articles. We included 19 articles written in English or French that had a human sample and were published between 1991 and 2021 and evaluated connections between social anxiety constructs (e.g., shyness, anxiety) and TMSI-related experiences (e.g., sexting, internet sex addiction). The pattern of results suggested that social anxiety constructs may predict some but not all forms of TMSI. Future research from a cognitive–behavioural perspective will expand knowledge on social anxiety, TMSI, and its sexual wellbeing outcomes.

BackgroundOur thoughts impact our mental health and there is a distinction between thought content (what we think) and thought process (how we think). Habitual thinking has been proposed as one such process. Habits, which are cue-dependent automatic responses, have primarily been studied as behavioural responses.MethodsThe current scoping review investigated the extent to which the thinking patterns important for mental health have been conceptualized as habits. Using systematic search criteria and nine explicit inclusion criteria, this review identified 20 articles and 24 empirical studies examining various mental habits, such as negative self-thinking, self-criticism, and worry.ResultsAll of the included empirical studies examined maladaptive (negative) mental habits and no study investigated adaptive (positive) mental habits. We categorized the characteristics of each study along several dimensions including how mental habits were defined, measured, and which constructs were studied as habitual.ConclusionsAlthough mental habits appear to be relevant predictors of mental health, habitual thinking has not been well-integrated with psychological constructs related to mental health, such as automatic thoughts. We discuss the implications of mental habits for future research and clinical practice.

Purpose of Review This study aims to examine the current state of psychosocial oncology (PSO) research concerning Black Canadian communities, focusing on their experiences, psychological states, and non-biological aspects of their cancer journey. Recent Findings Although there has been increased attention to PSO in the past two decades, there remains a lack of studies specifically addressing the experiences of Black Canadians affected by cancer. This is especially concerning considering the disparities identified by PSO researchers among Black individuals in the United States and the acknowledged health inequities affecting Black individuals in Canada. Summary This scoping review identified a total of five studies that highlighted the significance of religion and spirituality in coping with cancer among Black individuals. While faith emerged as a crucial source of strength, there was notable hesitation to discuss religious beliefs in mainstream support settings. Additional barriers, including stigma surrounding cancer, transportation issues, and limited access to care, further complicated their healthcare experiences. This review reveals critical gaps in research regarding the PSO experiences of Black Canadians affected by cancer and underscores the urgent need for additional studies and the development of tailored support programs to address their unique psychosocial needs and barriers to care.

Background High‐income countries offer social assistance (welfare) programs to help alleviate poverty for people with little or no income. These programs have become increasingly conditional and stringent in recent decades based on the premise that transitioning people from government support to paid work will improve their circumstances. However, many people end up with low‐paying and precarious jobs that may cause more poverty because they lose benefits such as housing subsidies and health and dental insurance, while incurring job‐related expenses. Conditional assistance programs are also expensive to administer and cause stigma. A guaranteed basic income (GBI) has been proposed as a more effective approach for alleviating poverty, and several experiments have been conducted in high‐income countries to investigate whether GBI leads to improved outcomes compared to existing social programs. Objectives The aim of this review was to conduct a synthesis of quantitative evidence on GBI interventions in high‐income countries, to compare the effectiveness of various types of GBI versus “usual care” (including existing social assistance programs) in improving poverty‐related outcomes. Search Methods Searches of 16 academic databases were conducted in May 2022, using both keywords and database‐specific controlled vocabulary, without limits or restrictions on language or date. Sources of gray literature (conference, governmental, and institutional websites) were searched in September 2022. We also searched reference lists of review articles, citations of included articles, and tables of contents of relevant journals in September 2022. Hand searching for recent publications was conducted until December 2022. Selection Criteria We included all quantitative study designs except cross‐sectional (at one timepoint), with or without control groups. We included studies in high income countries with any population and with interventions meeting our criteria for GBI: unconditional, with regular payments in cash (not in‐kind) that were fixed or predictable in amount. Although two primary outcomes of interest were selected a priori (food insecurity, and poverty level assessed using official, national, or international measures), we did not screen studies on the basis of reported outcomes because it was not possible to define all potentially relevant poverty‐related outcomes in advance. Data Collection and Analysis We followed the Campbell Collaboration conduct and reporting guidelines to ensure a rigorous methodology. The risk of bias was assessed across seven domains: confounding, selection, attrition, motivation, implementation, measurement, and analysis/reporting. We conducted meta‐analyses where results could be combined; otherwise, we presented the results in tables. We reported effect estimates as standard mean differences (SMDs) if the included studies reported them or provided sufficient data for us to calculate them. To compare the effects of different types of interventions, we developed a GBI typology based on the characteristics of experimental interventions as well as theoretical conceptualizations of GBI. Eligible poverty‐related outcomes were classified into categories and sub‐categories, to facilitate the synthesis of the individual findings. Because most of the included studies analyzed experiments conducted by other researchers, it was necessary to divide our analysis according to the “experiment” stage (i.e., design, recruitment, intervention, data collection) and the “study” stage (data analysis and reporting of results). Main Results Our searches yielded 24,476 records from databases and 80 from other sources. After screening by title and , the full texts of 294 potentially eligible articles were retrieved and screened, resulting in 27 included studies on 10 experiments. Eight of the experiments were RCTs, one included both an RCT site and a “saturation” site, and one used a repeated cross‐sectional design. The duration ranged from one to 5 years. The control groups in all 10 experiments received “usual care” (i.e., no GBI intervention). The total number of participants was unknown because some of the studies did not report exact sample sizes. Of the studies that did, the smallest had 138 participants and the largest had 8019. The risk of bias assessments found “some concerns” for at least one domain in all 27 studies and “high risk” for at least one domain in 25 studies. The risk of bias was assessed as high in 21 studies due to attrition and in 22 studies due to analysis and reporting bias. To compare the interventions, we developed a classification framework of five GBI types, four of which were implemented in the experiments, and one that is used in new experiments now underway. The included studies reported 176 poverty‐related outcomes, including one pre‐defined primary outcome: food insecurity. The second primary outcome (poverty level assessed using official, national, or international measures) was not reported in any of the included studies. We classified the reported outcomes into seven categories: food insecurity (as a category), economic/material, physical health, psychological/mental health, social, educational, and individual choice/agency. Food insecurity was reported in two studies, both showing improvements (SMD = −0.57, 95% CI: −0.65 to −0.49, and SMD = −0.41, 95% CI: −0.57 to −0.26) which were not pooled because of different study designs. We conducted meta‐analyses on four secondary outcomes that were reported in more than one study: subjective financial well‐being, self‐rated overall physical health, self‐rated life satisfaction, and self‐rated mental distress. Improvements were reported, except for overall physical health or if the intervention was similar to existing social assistance. The results for the remaining 170 outcomes, each reported in only one study, were summarized in tables by category and subcategory. Adverse effects were reported in some studies, but only for specific subgroups of participants, and not consistently, so these results may have been due to chance. Authors' Conclusions The results of the included studies were difficult to synthesize because of the heterogeneity in the reported outcomes. This was due in part to poverty being multidimensional, so outcomes covered various aspects of life (economic, social, psychological, educational, agency, mental and physical health). Evidence from future studies would be easier to assess if outcomes were measured using more common, validated instruments. Based on our analysis of the included studies, a supplemental type of GBI (provided along with existing programs) may be effective in alleviating poverty‐related outcomes. This approach may also be safer than a wholesale reform of existing social assistance approaches, which could have unintended consequences.

Studying prosociality in rodents can provide insight into brain mechanisms potentially related to neurodevelopmental disorders known to impact social behaviors (e.g., autism spectrum disorder). While many studies have been published suggesting promising models, current knowledge remains scattered, including potential factors mediating prosocial behaviors in rodents. Prosocial behavior is characterized by an action done to benefit another or promote their well-being. The goal of this scoping review is to characterize current findings regarding prosocial paradigms in rodents, highlight current gaps in reporting, and identify factors shown to be important in mediating prosocial responses in rodents. Five databases were consulted in search of relevant studies published between 2000 and 2020 (APA PsycInfo, Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science). An update using a semi-supervised machine learning approach (ASReview) was then conducted to collect studies from 2021-2023. In total, 80 articles were included. Findings were the following: (1) Three categories of prosocial paradigm were extracted: cooperation, helping, and sharing tasks, (2) Rodents showed the ability to perform prosocial actions in all three categories, (3) Significant gaps in reported methodologies (e.g., failure to report animals' characteristics, housing conditions, and/or experimental protocol) and mediating factors (e.g., sex, strain, housing, food restriction) were found, and (4) Behaviors are determinant when investigating prosociality in rodents, however many studies omitted to include such analyses. Together these results inform future studies on the impact of mediating factors and the importance of behavioral analyses on the expression of prosocial behaviors in rodents.