Explore the vast range of titles available.

The current lack of pharmacological treatments for cannabis use disorder (CUD) warrants novel approaches and further investigation of promising pharmacotherapy. We previously showed that nabiximols (27 mg/ml Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)/ 25 mg/ml cannabidiol (CBD), Sativex®) can decrease cannabis withdrawal symptoms. Here, we assessed in a pilot study the tolerability and safety of self-titrated nabiximols vs. placebo among 40 treatment-seeking cannabis-dependent participants. Subjects participated in a double blind randomized clinical trial, with as-needed nabiximols up to 113.4 mg THC/105 mg CBD or placebo daily for 12 weeks, concurrently with Motivational Enhancement Therapy and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (MET/CBT). Primary outcome measures were tolerability and abstinence, secondary outcome measures were days and amount of cannabis use, withdrawal, and craving scores. Participants received up to CDN$ 855 in compensation for their time. Medication was well tolerated and no serious adverse events (SAEs) were observed. Rates of adverse events did not differ between treatment arms (F1,39 = 0.205, NS). There was no significant change in abstinence rates at trial end. Participants were not able to differentiate between subjective effects associated with nabiximols or placebo treatments (F1,40 = 0.585, NS). Cannabis use was reduced in the nabiximols (70.5%) and placebo groups (42.6%). Nabiximols reduced cannabis craving but no significant differences between the nabiximols and placebo groups were observed on withdrawal scores. Nabiximols in combination with MET/CBT was well tolerated and allowed for reduction of cannabis use. Future clinical trials should explore the potential of high doses of nabiximols for cannabis dependence.

Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy is a barrier to achieving herd immunity, and thus, a prominent public health concern. This study aimed to identify the determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy based on the World Health Organization's '3Cs' model (i.e., confidence, complacency, and convenience) in the United States (U.S.) and Canada. Data from 7678 adults ages 18 or older were collected from the four most populous U.S. States, specifically New York, California, Florida, and Texas, and from English-speaking Canada at three timepoints, in May and July 2020, and March 2021 using a web-based survey (www.covid19-database.com). Sociodemographic information was collected, and comprehensive psychological assessments were administered. Univariate analyses were performed to identify the individual determinants of vaccine hesitancy, which were categorized as: 1) vaccine confidence, 2) vaccine complacency, 3) sociodemographic, and 4) other psychological factors. A series of models were computed using these categorizations. Mistrust of vaccine benefit (β(SE) = 0.67(0.01), p<0.001, partial η2 = 0.26) and lower perceived seriousness of COVID-19 (β(SE) = 0.68(0.02), p<0.001, partial η2 = 0.12) were the principal determinants of vaccine hesitancy. Right-wing political affiliation (β(SE) = 0.32(0.02), p<0.001, partial η2 = 0.03), higher risk propensity (β(SE) = 0.24(0.02), p<0.001, partial η2 = 0.03), and less negative mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic (β(SE) = 0.20(0.01), p<0.001, partial η2 = 0.03) were the main sociodemographic and psychological determinants. Other sociodemographic determinants included younger age, women, race, and employment status. Lack of vaccine confidence and complacency explained 38% and 21% of the variance in vaccine hesitancy, respectively; whereas, sociodemographic and psychological determinants explained 13% and 11% of the variance in vaccine hesitancy, respectively. Targeted and tailored public health interventions that enhance the public's confidence in vaccines and emphasize the risk and seriousness of COVID-19 may address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Efforts directed toward specific marginalized and underserved groups may be required to promote vaccine confidence.

Brief interventions have been increasingly investigated to promote early intervention in gambling problems; an accurate estimate of the impact of these interventions is required to justify their widespread implementation. The goal of the current investigation was to evaluate the efficacy of in-person brief interventions for reducing gambling behaviour and/or problems, by quantifying the aggregate effect size associated with these interventions in the published literature to date. Randomized controlled trials including the following design features were identified via systematic review: an adult sample experiencing problems associated with gambling; an in-person individual psychosocial intervention of brief duration (≤3 sessions); a control/comparison group; and an outcome related to gambling behaviour and/or problems. Five records compared brief interventions to assessment only control; using a random effect model, brief interventions were associated with a small but statistically significant reduction in gambling behaviour across short-term follow-up periods versus assessment only control (g = -.19, 95% CI [-.37, -.01]). Aggregate effect sizes for gambling problems and long-term follow-up periods were not statistically significant. Five records compared brief interventions to longer active interventions; there was no significant difference between brief interventions and longer active interventions. Results supported the efficacy of brief interventions for problem gambling compared to inactive control in the reduction of gambling behaviour; no differences were found across brief versus longer interventions for both gambling behaviour and problems. While these findings must be interpreted in the context of the limited number of studies and small magnitude of the combined effect sizes, the current meta-analysis supports the further investigation of the public health impact of these cost-effective interventions.

Background Global health crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, confront healthcare workers (HCW) with increased exposure to potentially morally distressing events. The pandemic has provided an opportunity to explore the links between moral distress, moral resilience, and emergence of mental health symptoms in HCWs. Methods A total of 962 Canadian healthcare workers (88.4% female, 44.6 + 12.8 years old) completed an online survey during the first COVID-19 wave in Canada (between April 3rd and September 3rd, 2020). Respondents completed a series of validated scales assessing moral distress, perceived stress, anxiety, and depression symptoms, and moral resilience. Respondents were grouped based on exposure to patients who tested positive for COVID-19. In addition to descriptive statistics and analyses of covariance, multiple linear regression was used to evaluate if moral resilience moderates the association between exposure to morally distressing events and moral distress. Factors associated with moral resilience were also assessed. Findings Respondents working with patients with COVID-19 showed significantly more severe moral distress, anxiety, and depression symptoms (F  >  5.5, p   <  .020), and a higher proportion screened positive for mental disorders (Chi-squared > 9.1, p  = .002), compared to healthcare workers who were not. Moral resilience moderated the relationship between exposure to potentially morally distressing events and moral distress ( p  < .001); compared to those with higher moral resilience, the subgroup with the lowest moral resilience had a steeper cross-sectional worsening in moral distress as the frequency of potentially morally distressing events increased. Moral resilience also correlated with lower stress, anxiety, and depression symptoms ( r   >  .27, p  < .001). Factors independently associated with stronger moral resilience included: being male, older age, no mental disorder diagnosis, sleeping more, and higher support from employers and colleagues (B [0.02, |-0.26|]. Interpretation Elevated moral distress and mental health symptoms in healthcare workers facing a global crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic call for the development of interventions promoting moral resilience as a protective measure against moral adversities.

Purpose This study aims to understand the association between emotional intelligence, perceived social support, and psychological distress (i.e., anxiety, depression, stress) in women with cancer at different stages. Specifically, the aims of this study were to investigate: i) the links between emotional intelligence and psychological distress (i.e., symptoms of anxiety, stress and depression); ii) the mediating role of perceived social support provided by family members, friends, and significant others in the relationship between emotional intelligence and psychological distress; iii) the impact of cancer type and cancer stage (I-II vs III-IV) in moderating these relationships, among Italian women. Methods The research sample consisted of 206 Italian women ( mean age  = 49.30 ± 10.98 years; 55% breast cancer patients) who were administered a questionnaire to assess emotional intelligence, perceived social support, and psychological distress. Structural equation model (SEM) analysis was carried out to confirm the hypothetical-theoretical model. Results Emotional intelligence had a positive association with perceived social support, which in turn prevented psychological distress only in women with early-stages cancers. The type of cancer has no effect on these relationships. Conclusions The findings of this study indicate a pressing need to screen and recognize women with lower emotional intelligence and perceived social support, as they may be more prone to experiencing psychological distress. For such individuals, our results recommend the implementation of psychological interventions aimed at enhancing emotional intelligence and fortifying their social support networks, with consideration for the stage of cancer they are facing.

Background: The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) has revised its 2009 guidelines for the management of major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults by updating the evidence and recommendations. The target audiences for these 2016 guidelines are psychiatrists and other mental health professionals. Methods: Using the question-answer format, we conducted a systematic literature search focusing on systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Evidence was graded using CANMAT-defined criteria for level of evidence. Recommendations for lines of treatment were based on the quality of evidence and clinical expert consensus. “Psychological Treatments” is the second of six sections of the 2016 guidelines. Results: Evidence-informed responses were developed for 25 questions under 5 broad categories: 1) patient characteristics relevant to using psychological interventions; 2) therapist and health system characteristics associated with optimizing outcomes; 3) descriptions of major psychotherapies and their efficacy; 4) additional psychological interventions, such as peer interventions and computer- and technology-delivered interventions; and 5) combining and/or sequencing psychological and pharmacological interventions. Conclusions: First-line psychological treatment recommendations for acute MDD include cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), interpersonal therapy (IPT), and behavioural activation (BA). Second-line recommendations include computer-based and telephone-delivered psychotherapy. Where feasible, combining psychological treatment (CBT or IPT) with antidepressant treatment is recommended because combined treatment is superior to either treatment alone. First-line psychological treatments for maintenance include CBT and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT). Patient preference, in combination with evidence-based treatments and clinician/system capacity, will yield the optimal treatment strategies for improving individual outcomes in MDD.

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is often recommended as a first-line treatment in depression. However, access to CBT remains limited, and up to 50% of patients do not benefit from this therapy. Identifying biomarkers that can predict which patients will respond to CBT may assist in designing optimal treatment allocation strategies. In a Canadian Biomarker Integration Network for Depression (CAN-BIND) study, forty-one adults with depression were recruited to undergo a 16-week course of CBT with thirty having resting-state electroencephalography (EEG) recorded at baseline and week 2 of therapy. Successful clinical response to CBT was defined as a 50% or greater reduction in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score from baseline to post-treatment completion. EEG relative power spectral measures were analyzed at baseline, week 2, and as early changes from baseline to week 2. At baseline, lower relative delta (0.5–4 Hz) power was observed in responders. This difference was predictive of successful clinical response to CBT. Furthermore, responders exhibited an early increase in relative delta power and a decrease in relative alpha (8–12 Hz) power compared to non-responders. These changes were also found to be good predictors of response to the therapy. These findings showed the potential utility of resting-state EEG in predicting CBT outcomes. They also further reinforce the promise of an EEG-based clinical decision-making tool to support treatment decisions for each patient.

Difficulties in applying emotional regulation (ER) skills are associated with depression and anxiety symptoms, and are common targets of treatment. This meta-analysis examined whether improvements in ER skills were associated with psychological treatment outcomes for depression and/or anxiety in youth. A multivariate, random-effects meta-analysis was run using metafor in R. Inclusion criteria included studies that were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of a psychological intervention for depression and/or anxiety in patients aged 14–24, were peer reviewed, were written in English, measured depression and/or anxiety symptoms as an outcome and measured ER as an outcome. Medline, Embase, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library were searched up to 26 June 2020. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. The meta-analysis includes 385 effect sizes from 90 RCTs with total N  = 11,652. Psychological treatments significantly reduced depression, anxiety, emotion dysregulation ( k  = 13, Hedges’ g  = 0.54, P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.30–0.78) and disengagement ER ( k  = 83, g  = 0.24, 95% CI = 0.15–0.32, P  < 0.001); engagement ER also increased ( k  = 82, g  = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.15–0.32, P  < 0.001). Improvements in depression and anxiety were positively associated with improved engagement ER skills, reduced emotion dysregulation and reduced disengagement ER skills. Sensitivity considered study selection and publication bias. Longer treatments, group formats and cognitive-behavioural orientations produced larger positive associations between improved ER skills and reduced symptoms. ER skill improvement is linked to depression and anxiety across a broad range of interventions for youth. Limitations of the current study include reliance on self-report measures, content overlap between variables and inability to test the directionality of associations. In this meta-analysis of 90 randomized controlled trials of youth psychological treatment, Daros et al. show that a reduction in depression and anxiety symptoms is associated with improvements in emotional regulation skills.

Alcohol is one of the most widely used substances. Alcohol use accounts for 5.1% of the global disease burden, contributes substantially to societal and economic costs, and leads to approximately 3 million global deaths yearly. Alcohol use disorder (AUD) includes various drinking behavior patterns that lead to short-term or long-lasting effects on health. Ethanol, the main psychoactive molecule acting in alcoholic beverages, directly impacts the GABAergic system, contributing to GABAergic dysregulations that vary depending on the intensity and duration of alcohol consumption. A small number of interventions have been developed that target the GABAergic system, but there are promising future therapeutic avenues to explore. This review provides an overview of the impact of alcohol on the GABAergic system, the current interventions available for AUD that target the GABAergic system, and the novel interventions being explored that in the future could be included among first-line therapies for the treatment of AUD.

IntroductionThe negative impacts of COVID-19 have rippled through every facet of society. Understanding the multidimensional impacts of this pandemic is crucial to identify the most critical needs and to inform targeted interventions. This population survey study aimed to investigate the acute phase of the COVID-19 outbreak in terms of perceived threats and concerns, occupational and financial impacts, social impacts and stress between 3 April and 15 May 2020.Methods6040 participants are included in this report. A multivariate linear regression model was used to identify factors associated with stress changes (as measured by the Cohen’s Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)) relative to pre-outbreak retrospective estimates.ResultsOn average, PSS scores increased from low stress levels before the outbreak to moderate stress levels during the outbreak (p<0.001). The independent factors associated with stress worsening were: having a mental disorder, female sex, having underage children, heavier alcohol consumption, working with the general public, shorter sleep duration, younger age, less time elapsed since the start of the outbreak, lower stress before the outbreak, worse symptoms that could be linked to COVID-19, lower coping skills, worse obsessive–compulsive symptoms related to germs and contamination, personalities loading on extraversion, conscientiousness and neuroticism, left wing political views, worse family relationships and spending less time exercising and doing artistic activities.ConclusionCross-sectional analyses showed a significant increase from low to moderate stress during the COVID-19 outbreak. Identified modifiable factors associated with increased stress may be informative for intervention development.Trial registration numberNCT04369690; Results.