The objective of this study is to determine the physical evaluations and assessment tools used by a group of Canadian healthcare professionals treating adults with spasticity.

A cross-sectional web-based 19-question survey was developed to determine the types of physical evaluations, tone-related impairment measurements, and assessment tools used in the management of adults with spasticity. The survey was distributed to healthcare professionals from the Canadian Advances in Neuro-Orthopedics for Spasticity Congress database.

Eighty study participants (61 physiatrists and 19 other healthcare professionals) completed the survey and were included. Nearly half (46.3%, 37/80) of the participants reported having an inter- or trans-disciplinary team managing individuals with spasticity. Visual observation of movement, available range of motion determination, tone during velocity-dependent passive range of motion looking for a spastic catch, spasticity, and clonus, and evaluation of gait were the most frequently used physical evaluations. The most frequently used spasticity tools were the Modified Ashworth Scale, goniometer, and Goal Attainment Scale. Results were similar in brain- and spinal cord-predominant etiologies. To evaluate goals, qualitative description was used most (37.5%).

Our findings provide a better understanding of the spasticity management landscape in Canada with respect to staffing, physical evaluations, and outcome measurements used in clinical practice. For all etiologies of spasticity, visual observation of patient movement, Modified Ashworth Scale, and qualitative goal outcomes descriptions were most commonly used to guide treatment and optimize outcomes. Understanding the current practice of spasticity assessment will help provide guidance for clinical evaluation and management of spasticity.

There is a lack of evidence related to the prevalence of mental health symptoms as well as their heterogeneities during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Latin America, a large area spanning the equator. The current study aims to provide meta-analytical evidence on mental health symptoms during COVID-19 among frontline healthcare workers, general healthcare workers, the general population and university students in Latin America.

Bibliographical databases, such as PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO and medRxiv, were systematically searched to identify pertinent studies up to August 13, 2021. Two coders performed the screening using predefined eligibility criteria. Studies were assigned quality scores using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The double data extraction method was used to minimise data entry errors.

A total of 62 studies with 196 950 participants in Latin America were identified. The pooled prevalence of anxiety, depression, distress and insomnia was 35%, 35%, 32% and 35%, respectively. There was a higher prevalence of mental health symptoms in South America compared to Central America (36% v. 28%, p < 0.001), in countries speaking Portuguese (40%) v. Spanish (30%). The pooled prevalence of mental health symptoms in the general population, general healthcare workers, frontline healthcare workers and students in Latin America was 37%, 34%, 33% and 45%, respectively.

The high yet heterogenous level of prevalence of mental health symptoms emphasises the need for appropriate identification of psychological interventions in Latin America.

Little data exist on provider perspectives about counselling and shared decision-making for complex CHD, ways to support and improve the process, and barriers to effective communication. The goal of this qualitative study was to determine providers’ perspectives regarding factors that are integral to shared decision-making with parents faced with complex CHD in their fetus or newborn; and barriers and facilitators to engaging in effective shared decision-making.

We conducted semi-structured interviews with providers from different areas of practice who care for fetuses and/or children with CHD. Providers were recruited from four geographically diverse centres. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed for key themes using an open coding process with a grounded theory approach.

Interviews were conducted with 31 providers; paediatric cardiologists (n = 7) were the largest group represented, followed by nurses (n = 6) and palliative care providers (n = 5). Key barriers to communication with parents that providers identified included variability among providers themselves, factors that influenced parental comprehension or understanding, discrepant expectations, circumstantial barriers, and trust/relationship with providers. When discussing informational needs of parents, providers focused on comprehensive short- and long-term outcomes, quality of life, and breadth and depth that aligned with parental goals and needs. In discussing resources to support shared decision-making, providers emphasised the need for comprehensive, up-to-date information that was accessible to parents of varying situations and backgrounds.

Provider perspectives on decision-making with families with CHD highlighted key communication issues, informational priorities, and components of decision support that can enhance shared decision-making.

Parents who receive a diagnosis of a severe, life-threatening CHD for their foetus or neonate face a complex and stressful decision between termination, palliative care, or surgery. Understanding how parents make this initial treatment decision is critical for developing interventions to improve counselling for these families.

We conducted focus groups in four academic medical centres across the United States of America with a purposive sample of parents who chose termination, palliative care, or surgery for their foetus or neonate diagnosed with severe CHD.

Ten focus groups were conducted with 56 parents (Mage = 34 years; 80% female; 89% White). Results were constructed around three domains: decision-making approaches; values and beliefs; and decision-making challenges. Parents discussed varying approaches to making the decision, ranging from relying on their “gut feeling” to desiring statistics and probabilities. Religious and spiritual beliefs often guided the decision to not terminate the pregnancy. Quality of life was an important consideration, including how each option would impact the child (e.g., pain or discomfort, cognitive and physical abilities) and their family (e.g., care for other children, marriage, and career). Parents reported inconsistent communication of options by clinicians and challenges related to time constraints for making a decision and difficulty in processing information when distressed.

This study offers important insights that can be used to design interventions to improve decision support and family-centred care in clinical practice.

Hypersomnolence has been considered a prominent feature of seasonal affective disorder (SAD) despite mixed research findings. In the largest multi-season study conducted to date, we aimed to clarify the nature and extent of hypersomnolence in SAD using multiple measurements during winter depressive episodes and summer remission.

Sleep measurements assessed in individuals with SAD and nonseasonal, never-depressed controls included actigraphy, daily sleep diaries, retrospective self-report questionnaires, and self-reported hypersomnia assessed via clinical interviews. To characterize hypersomnolence in SAD we (1) compared sleep between diagnostic groups and seasons, (2) examined correlates of self-reported hypersomnia in SAD, and (3) assessed agreement between commonly used measurement modalities.

In winter compared to summer, individuals with SAD (n = 64) reported sleeping 72 min longer based on clinical interviews (p < 0.001) and 23 min longer based on actigraphy (p = 0.011). Controls (n = 80) did not differ across seasons. There were no seasonal or group differences on total sleep time when assessed by sleep diaries or retrospective self-reports (p's > 0.05). Endorsement of winter hypersomnia in SAD participants was predicted by greater fatigue, total sleep time, time in bed, naps, and later sleep midpoints (p's < 0.05).

Despite a winter increase in total sleep time and year-round elevated daytime sleepiness, the average total sleep time (7 h) suggest hypersomnolence is a poor characterization of SAD. Importantly, self-reported hypersomnia captures multiple sleep disruptions, not solely lengthened sleep duration. We recommend using a multimodal assessment of hypersomnolence in mood disorders prior to sleep intervention.

Although no drugs are licensed for the treatment of personality disorder, pharmacological treatment in clinical practice remains common.

This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of psychotropic drug use and associations with psychological service use among people with personality disorder.

Using data from a large, anonymised mental healthcare database, we identified all adult patients with a diagnosis of personality disorder and ascertained psychotropic medication use between 1 August 2015 and 1 February 2016. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed, adjusting for sociodemographic, clinical and service use factors, to examine the association between psychological services use and psychotropic medication prescribing.

Of 3366 identified patients, 2029 (60.3%) were prescribed some form of psychotropic medication. Patients using psychological services were significantly less likely to be prescribed psychotropic medication (adjusted odds ratio 0.48, 95% CI 0.39–0.59, P<0.001) such as antipsychotics, benzodiazepines and antidepressants. This effect was maintained following several sensitivity analyses. We found no difference in the risk for mood stabiliser (adjusted odds ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.57–1.10, P = 0.169) and multi-class psychotropic use (adjusted odds ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.60–1.07, P = 0.133) between patients who did and did not use psychological services.

Psychotropic medication prescribing is common in patients with personality disorder, but significantly less likely in those who have used psychological services. This does not appear to be explained by differences in demographic, clinical and service use characteristics. There is a need to develop clear prescribing guidelines and conduct research in clinical settings to examine medication effectiveness for this population.