Limited data exist on training of European paediatric and adult congenital cardiologists.

A structured and approved questionnaire was circulated to national delegates of Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology in 33 European countries.

Delegates from 30 countries (91%) responded. Paediatric cardiology was not recognised as a distinct speciality by the respective ministry of Health in seven countries (23%). Twenty countries (67%) have formally accredited paediatric cardiology training programmes, seven (23%) have substantial informal (not accredited or certified) training, and three (10%) have very limited or no programme. Twenty-two countries have a curriculum. Twelve countries have a national training director. There was one paediatric cardiology centre per 2.66 million population (range 0.87–9.64 million), one cardiac surgical centre per 4.73 million population (range 1.63–10.72 million), and one training centre per 4.29 million population (range 1.63–10.72 million population). The median number of paediatric cardiology fellows per training programme was 4 (range 1–17), and duration of training was 3 years (range 2–5 years). An exit examination in paediatric cardiology was conducted in 16 countries (53%) and certification provided by 20 countries (67%). Paediatric cardiologist number is affected by gross domestic product (R2 = 0.41).

Training varies markedly across European countries. Although formal fellowship programmes exist in many countries, several countries have informal training or no training. Only a minority of countries provide both exit examination and certification. Harmonisation of training and standardisation of exit examination and certification could reduce variation in training thereby promoting high-quality care by European congenital cardiologists.

Response to lithium in patients with bipolar disorder is associated with clinical and transdiagnostic genetic factors. The predictive combination of these variables might help clinicians better predict which patients will respond to lithium treatment.

To use a combination of transdiagnostic genetic and clinical factors to predict lithium response in patients with bipolar disorder.

This study utilised genetic and clinical data (n = 1034) collected as part of the International Consortium on Lithium Genetics (ConLi+Gen) project. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) were computed for schizophrenia and major depressive disorder, and then combined with clinical variables using a cross-validated machine-learning regression approach. Unimodal, multimodal and genetically stratified models were trained and validated using ridge, elastic net and random forest regression on 692 patients with bipolar disorder from ten study sites using leave-site-out cross-validation. All models were then tested on an independent test set of 342 patients. The best performing models were then tested in a classification framework.

The best performing linear model explained 5.1% (P = 0.0001) of variance in lithium response and was composed of clinical variables, PRS variables and interaction terms between them. The best performing non-linear model used only clinical variables and explained 8.1% (P = 0.0001) of variance in lithium response. A priori genomic stratification improved non-linear model performance to 13.7% (P = 0.0001) and improved the binary classification of lithium response. This model stratified patients based on their meta-polygenic loadings for major depressive disorder and schizophrenia and was then trained using clinical data.

Using PRS to first stratify patients genetically and then train machine-learning models with clinical predictors led to large improvements in lithium response prediction. When used with other PRS and biological markers in the future this approach may help inform which patients are most likely to respond to lithium treatment.

We previously demonstrated that three months into the COVID-19 pandemic, the impact on individuals with treatment-resistant psychotic disorders was modest. Here, we examined and compared the psychological and social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the same patient cohort 12 months after their initial study engagement.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 54 individuals (85.7% response rate) between June 12 and July 29, 2021, 12 months after their initial interviews. Participants’ subjective experience of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on anxiety symptoms, social and vocational functioning was measured utilising the same Likert scales at both time points. Anxiety symptoms were additionally measured using subjective (Beck Anxiety Inventory) and objective (Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS)) psychometric instruments. Paired t-tests or Wilcoxon ranked tests compared parametric or non-parametric data over time. Free-text responses pertaining to participants’ perspectives on the impact of COVID-19 were grouped into themes.

A minor increase in anxiety symptoms was demonstrated utilising the HARS (1.9 points, z = 3.017, p = 0.003), with a minimal increase in depressive symptoms noted using Likert ratings (0.8 points, z = 2.119, p = 0.034). Five themes were identified with the most prevalent being (i) positivity regarding vaccination, (ii) social isolation from family members and (iii) looking forward to post-COVID-19 ‘normality’. However, negative views pertaining to the psychosocial impact of COVID-19 and vaccination were additionally reported.

No significant overall clinical change in symptomatology or functioning over time was noted.The study demonstrated that positive views regarding vaccination and optimism for the future were evident for some participants.

Clozapine is the most effective medication for treatment-refractory schizophrenia but is associated with significant adverse drug reactions, including nocturnal enuresis and urinary incontinence. This side effect can be burdensome and lead to medication nonadherence and psychotic relapse. Evidence to guide treatment of clozapine-induced nocturnal enuresis and urinary incontinence is sparse. We therefore aimed to synthesize the evidence base to guide management for clinicians, patients, and their carers.

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Trial Registry databases from inception to May 2021 for publications on management of clozapine-induced nocturnal enuresis and urinary incontinence using a PROSPERO preregistered search strategy.

We identified 22 case reports and case series describing 74 patients. Interventions included clozapine dose reduction, nonpharmacological treatment, and pharmacological treatments. Among pharmacological treatments, desmopressin, oxybutynin, trihexyphenidyl, tolterodine, imipramine, amitriptyline, ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, aripiprazole, and verapamil were associated with complete resolution of nocturnal enuresis and urinary incontinence. Balancing evidence for effectiveness against risk of adverse effects, we developed a management framework for clozapine-induced nocturnal enuresis and urinary incontinence.

Following assessment of urological, psychiatric, pharmacological, and common comorbid medical issues, first-line treatments should be nonpharmacological, including bathroom alarms, voiding before bedtime, and nocturnal fluid restriction. If these interventions do not provide adequate relief, aripiprazole should be trialed. Desmopressin may be considered for severe refractory cases, but monitoring for hyponatremia is essential.

Although dissemination and implementation (D&I) science is a growing field, many health researchers with relevant D&I expertise do not self-identify as D&I researchers. The goal of this work was to analyze the distribution, clustering, and recognition of D&I expertise in an academic institution.

A snowball survey was administered to investigators at University of Rochester with experience and/or interest in D&I research. The respondents were asked to identify their level of D&I expertise and to nominate others who were experienced and/or active in D&I research. We used social network analysis to examine nomination networks.

Sixty-eight participants provided information about their D&I expertise. Thirty-eight percent of the survey respondents self-identified as D&I researchers, 24% as conducting D&I under different labels, and 38% were familiar with D&I concepts. D&I researchers were, on average, the most central actors in the network (nominated most by other survey participants) and had the highest within-group density, indicating wide recognition by colleagues and among themselves. Researchers who applied D&I under different labels had the highest within-group reciprocity (25%), and the highest between-group reciprocity (29%) with researchers familiar with D&I. Participants significantly tended to nominate peers within their departments and within their expertise categories.

Identifying and engaging unrecognized clusters of expertise related to D&I research may provide opportunities for mutual learning and dialog and will be critical to bridging across departmental and topic area silos and building capacity for D&I in academic settings.