Associations between childhood abuse and various psychotic illnesses in adulthood are commonly reported. We aim to examine associations between several reported childhood adverse events (sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse, neglect and interpersonal loss) among adults with diagnosed psychotic disorders and clinical and psychosocial outcomes.

Within a large epidemiological study, the 2010 Australian National Survey of Psychosis (Survey of High Impact Psychosis, SHIP), we used logistic regression to model childhood adverse events (any and specific types) on 18 clinical and psychosocial outcomes.

Eighty percent of SHIP participants (1466/1825) reported experiencing adverse events in childhood (sexual abuse, other types of abuse and interpersonal loss). Participants reporting any form of childhood adversity had higher odds for 12/18 outcomes we examined. Significant associations were observed with all psychosocial outcomes (social dysfunction, victimisation, offending and homelessness within the previous 12 months, and definite psychosocial stressor within 12 months of illness onset), with the strongest association for homelessness (odds ratio (OR) = 2.82). Common across all adverse event types was an association with lifetime depression, anxiety and a definite psychosocial stressor within 12 months of illness onset. When adverse event types were non-hierarchically coded, sexual abuse was associated with 11/18 outcomes, other types of abuse 13/18 and, interpersonal loss occurring in the absence of other forms of abuse was associated with fewer of the clinical and psychosocial outcomes, 4/18. When adverse events types were coded hierarchically (to isolate the effect of interpersonal loss in the absence of abuse), interpersonal loss was associated with lower odds of self-reproach (OR = 0.70), negative syndrome (OR = 0.75) and victimisation (OR = 0.82).

Adverse childhood experiences among people with psychosis are common, as are subsequent psychosocial stressors. Mental health professionals should routinely enquire about all types of adversities in this group and provide effective service responses. Childhood abuse, including sexual abuse, may contribute to subsequent adversity, poor psychosocial functioning and complex needs among people with psychosis. Longitudinal research to better understand these relationships is needed, as are studies which evaluate the effectiveness of preventative interventions in high-risk groups.

Implementing antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) can be challenging due to prescriber resistance. Although barriers to implementing new ASPs have been identified, little is known about how prescribers perceive established programs. This information is critical to promoting the sustainability of ASPs.

To identify how prescribers perceive an established pediatric inpatient ASP that primarily utilizes prior authorization.

We conducted a cross-sectional survey administered from February through June 2017 in a large children’s hospital. The survey contained closed- and open-ended questions. Descriptive statistics and thematic content analysis approaches were used to analyze responses.

Of 394 prescribers invited, 160 (41%) responded. Prescribers had an overall favorable impression of the ASP, believing that it improves the quality of care (92.4% agree) and takes their judgment seriously (73.8%). The most common criticism of the ASP was that it threatened efficiency (26.0% agreed). In addition, 68.7% of respondents reported occasionally engaging in workarounds. Analysis of 133 free-text responses revealed that prescribers perceived that interacting with the ASP involved too many phone calls, caused communication breakdowns with the dispensing pharmacy, and led to gaps between approval and dispensing of antibiotics. Reasons given for workarounds included not wanting to change therapy that appears to be working, consultant disagreement with ASP recommendations, and the desire to do everything possible for patients.

Prescribers had a generally favorable opinion of an established ASP but found aspects to be inefficient. They reported engaging in workarounds occasionally for social and emotional reasons. Established ASPs should elicit feedback from frontline prescribers to optimize program impact.

This study evaluated the effect of mail non-response on the validity of the results of nasal septal surgery.

Six months post-operatively, questionnaires with both prospective and retrospective ratings were mailed to patients. Patients who did not respond (non-responders) were contacted by telephone. This study compared two cohorts of patients using different interviewers (a nurse and a surgeon). Cohort one consisted of 182 patients (with 67 per cent mail response), and cohort two consisted of 454 patients (with 64.8 per cent mail response).

In both cohorts, the improvement in obstruction scores was significantly better among mail responders than among non-responders (telephone interviewees) using prospective ratings, but worse using retrospective ratings.

Mail responders had better improvement in nasal obstruction after septoplasty than non-responders. Therefore, low response rates may cause an overestimation of the results. The retrospective ratings obtained through telephone interviews are less reliable because they are influenced by memory and the patients’ tendency to give socially acceptable answers.

Most people with bipolar disorder spend a significant percentage of their lifetime experiencing either subsyndromal depressive symptoms or major depressive episodes, which contribute greatly to the high levels of disability and mortality associated with the disorder. Despite the importance of bipolar depression, there are only a small number of recognised treatment options available. Consecutive treatment failures can quickly exhaust these options leading to treatment-resistant bipolar depression (TRBD). Remarkably few studies have evaluated TRBD and those available lack a comprehensive definition of multi-therapy-resistant bipolar depression (MTRBD).

To reach consensus regarding threshold definitions criteria for TRBD and MTRBD.

Based on the evidence of standard treatments available in the latest bipolar disorder treatment guidelines, TRBD and MTRBD criteria were agreed by a representative panel of bipolar disorder experts using a modified Delphi method.

TRBD criteria in bipolar depression was defined as failure to reach sustained symptomatic remission for 8 consecutive weeks after two different treatment trials, at adequate therapeutic doses, with at least two recommended monotherapy treatments or at least one monotherapy treatment and another combination treatment. MTRBD included the same initial definition as TRBD, with the addition of failure of at least one trial with an antidepressant, a psychological treatment and a course of electroconvulsive therapy.

The proposed TRBD and MTRBD criteria may provide an important signpost to help clinicians, researchers and stakeholders in judging how and when to consider new non-standard treatments. However, some challenging diagnostic and therapeutic issues were identified in the consensus process that need further evaluation and research.

In the past 3 years, M.B. has received grant/research support from the NIH, Cooperative Research Centre, Simons Autism Foundation, Cancer Council of Victoria, Stanley Medical Research Foundation, MBF, NHMRC, Beyond Blue, Rotary Health, Geelong Medical Research Foundation, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Glaxo SmithKline, Meat and Livestock Board, Organon, Novartis, Mayne Pharma, Servier, Woolworths, Avant and the Harry Windsor Foundation, has been a speaker for Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Glaxo SmithKline, Janssen Cilag, Lundbeck, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi Synthelabo, Servier, Solvay and Wyeth and served as a consultant to Allergan, Astra Zeneca, Bioadvantex, Bionomics, Collaborative Medicinal Development, Eli Lilly, Grunbiotics, Glaxo SmithKline, Janssen Cilag, LivaNova, Lundbeck, Merck, Mylan, Otsuka, Pfizer and Servier. A.J.C. has in the past 3 years received honoraria for speaking from Astra Zeneca and Lundbeck, honoraria for consulting from Allergan, Janssen, Lundbeck and LivaNova and research grant support from Lundbeck. G.M.G. holds shares in P1Vital and has served as consultant, advisor or CME speaker for Allergan, Angelini, Compass pathways, MSD, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Takeda, Medscape, Minervra, P1Vital, Pfizer, Servier, Shire and Sun Pharma. J.G. has received research funding from National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council, Stanley Medical Research Institute and Wellcome. H.G. received grants/research support, consulting fees or honoraria from Gedeon Richter, Genericon, Janssen Cilag, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Pfizer and Servier. R.H.M.-W. has received support for research, expenses to attend conferences and fees for lecturing and consultancy work (including attending advisory boards) from various pharmaceutical companies including Astra Zeneca, Cyberonics, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Liva Nova, Lundbeck, MyTomorrows, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, Servier, SPIMACO and Sunovion. R.M. has received research support from Big White Wall, Electromedical Products, Johnson and Johnson, Magstim and P1Vital. S.N. received honoraria from Lundbeck, Jensen and Otsuka. J.C.S. has received funds for research from Alkermes, Pfizer, Allergan, J&J, BMS and been a speaker or consultant for Astellas, Abbott, Sunovion, Sanofi. S.W has, within the past 3 years, attended advisory boards for Sunovion and LivaNova and has undertaken paid lectures for Lundbeck. D.J.S. has received honoraria from Lundbeck. T.S. has reported grants from Pathway Genomics, Stanley Medical Research Institute and Palo Alto Health Sciences; consulting fees from Sunovion Pharamaceuticals Inc.; honoraria from Medscape Education, Global Medical Education and CMEology; and royalties from Jones and Bartlett, UpToDate and Hogrefe Publishing. S.P. has served as a consultant or speaker for Janssen, and Sunovion. P.T. has received consultancy fees as an advisory board member from the following companies: Galen Limited, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Europe Ltd, myTomorrows and LivaNova. E.V. received grants/ research support, consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, AB-Biotics, Allergan, Angelini, Dainippon Sumitomo, Ferrer, Gedeon Richter, Janssen, Lundbeck, Otsuka and Sunovion. L.N.Y. has received grants/research support, consulting fees or honoraria from Allergan, Alkermes, Dainippon Sumitomo, Janssen, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Sanofi, Servier, Sunovion, Teva and Valeant. A.H.Y. has undertaken paid lectures and advisory boards for all major pharmaceutical companies with drugs used in affective and related disorders and LivaNova. He has also previously received funding for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck and Wyeth. P.R.A.S. has received research funding support from Corcept Therapeutics Inc. Corcept Therapeutics Inc fully funded attendance at their internal conference in California USA and all related expenses. He has received grant funding from the Medical Research Council UK for a collaborative study with Janssen Research and Development LLC. Janssen Research and Development LLC are providing non-financial contributions to support this study. P.R.A.S. has received a presentation fee from Indivior and an advisory board fee from LivaNova.

Externalizing disorders are known to be partly heritable, but the biological pathways linking genetic risk to the manifestation of these costly behaviors remain under investigation. This study sought to identify neural phenotypes associated with genomic vulnerability for externalizing disorders.

One-hundred fifty-five White, non-Hispanic veterans were genotyped using a genome-wide array and underwent resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging. Genetic susceptibility was assessed using an independently developed polygenic score (PS) for externalizing, and functional neural networks were identified using graph theory based network analysis. Tasks of inhibitory control and psychiatric diagnosis (alcohol/substance use disorders) were used to measure externalizing phenotypes.

A polygenic externalizing disorder score (PS) predicted connectivity in a brain circuit (10 nodes, nine links) centered on left amygdala that included several cortical [bilateral inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) pars triangularis, left rostral anterior cingulate cortex (rACC)] and subcortical (bilateral amygdala, hippocampus, and striatum) regions. Directional analyses revealed that bilateral amygdala influenced left prefrontal cortex (IFG) in participants scoring higher on the externalizing PS, whereas the opposite direction of influence was observed for those scoring lower on the PS. Polygenic variation was also associated with higher Participation Coefficient for bilateral amygdala and left rACC, suggesting that genes related to externalizing modulated the extent to which these nodes functioned as communication hubs.

Findings suggest that externalizing polygenic risk is associated with disrupted connectivity in a neural network implicated in emotion regulation, impulse control, and reinforcement learning. Results provide evidence that this network represents a genetically associated neurobiological vulnerability for externalizing disorders.

Results from telephone interviews may be needed to supplement those from mailed questionnaires when response rates are inadequate. This study assessed the correlation between visual analogue scale ratings used in mailed questionnaires and numerical rating scale scores used in telephone interviews.

Patients scheduled for nasal septal surgery routinely respond to a visual analogue scale of obstruction during the day and at night. In this study, they were also asked to verbally rate their sense of obstruction using whole numbers.

There was no significant difference between visual analogue scale and numerical rating scale obstruction scores.

Ratings of nasal obstruction obtained with a numerical rating scale in telephone interviews are comparable to visual analogue scale scores in mailed questionnaires.