Assessing and Reporting the Adverse Effects of Antipsychotic Medication: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies, and Prospective, Retrospective, and Cross-Sectional Research

Objective: Adverse effects (AEs) of antipsychotic medication have important implications for patients and prescribers in terms of wellbeing, treatment adherence and quality of life. This review summarises strategies for collecting and reporting AE data across a representative literature sample to ascertain their rigour and comprehensiveness. Methods: A PsycINFO search, following PRISMA Statement guidelines, was conducted in English-language journals (1980–July 2014) using the following search string: (antipsychotic* OR neuroleptic*) AND (subjective effect OR subjective experience OR subjective response OR subjective mental alterations OR subjective tolerability OR subjective wellbeing OR patient perspective OR self-rated effects OR adverse effects OR side-effects). Of 7,825 articles, 384 were retained that reported quantified results for AEs of typical or atypical antipsychotics amongst transdiagnostic adult, adolescent, and child populations. Information extracted included: types of AEs reported; how AEs were assessed; assessment duration; assessment of the global impact of antipsychotic consumption on wellbeing; and conflict of interest due to industry sponsorship. Results: Neurological, metabolic, and sedation-related cognitive effects were reported most systematically relative to affective, anticholinergic, autonomic, cutaneous, hormonal, miscellaneous, and non-sedative cognitive effects. The impact of AEs on patient wellbeing was poorly assessed. Cross-sectional and prospective research designs yielded more comprehensive data about AE severity and prevalence than clinical or observational retrospective studies. 3 Conclusions: AE detection and classification can be improved through the use of standardised assessment instruments and consideration of subjective patient impact. Observational research can supplement information from clinical trials to improve the ecological validity of AE data.

Situated Intersectionality and Social Inequality

In this article1 I introduce and discuss some of the ways situated intersectional analysis can help to describe – and even explain – different kinds of social, economic, political and personal inequalities. As I have been working on intersectionality for many years – both before and after the issues discussed under this term were to be so labelled, I shall focus primarily on my own version rather than conduct a review of the literature. The paper starts by discussing the ways sociological studies traditionally describe inequality focusing on issues of class. It then introduces intersectionality as a theoretical framework that can encompass different kinds of inequalities, simultaneously (ontologically), but enmeshed (concretely). The latter part of the article examines the ways different kinds of systemic domains provide multiple grounds for the production and reproduction of these inequalities. (1An earlier version of this paper was presented at an ISA plenary in Yokohama, Summer 2014.)

The Well London program - a cluster randomized trial of community engagement for improving health behaviors and mental wellbeing: baseline survey results

Background The Well London programme used community engagement, complemented by changes to the physical and social neighbourhood environment, to improve physical activity levels, healthy eating and mental wellbeing in the most deprived communities in London. The effectiveness of Well London is being evaluated in a pair-matched cluster randomised trial (CRT). The baseline survey data are reported here. Methods The CRT involved 20 matched pairs of intervention and control communities (defined as UK census lower super output areas; ranked in the 11% most deprived LSOAs in London by Index of Multiple Deprivation) across 20 London boroughs. The primary trial outcomes, sociodemographic information and environmental neighbourhood characteristics were assessed in three quantitative components within the Well London CRT at baseline: a cross-sectional, interviewer-administered adult household survey; a self-completed, school-based adolescent questionnaire; a fieldworker completed neighbourhood environmental audit. Baseline data collection occurred in 2008. Physical activity, healthy eating and mental wellbeing were assessed using standardised, validated questionnaire tools. Multiple imputation was used to account for missing data in the outcomes and other variables in the adult and adolescent surveys. Results There were 4107 adults and 1214 adolescent respondents in the baseline surveys. The intervention and control areas were broadly comparable with respect to the primary outcomes and key sociodemographic characteristics. The environmental characteristics of the intervention and control neighbourhoods were broadly similar. There was greater between cluster variation in the primary outcomes in the adult population compared to the adolescent population. Levels of healthy eating, smoking and self-reported anxiety/depression were similar in the Well London population and the national Health Survey for England. Levels of physical activity were higher in the Well London population but this is likely to be due to the different measurement tools used in the two surveys. Conclusions Randomisation of social interventions such as Well London is acceptable and feasible and in this study the intervention and control arms are well balanced with respect to the primary outcomes and key sociodemographic characteristics. The matched design has improved the statistical efficiency of the study amongst adults but less so amongst adolescents. Follow-up data collection will be completed 2012.

Second Wave Positive Psychology: Exploring the Positive–Negative Dialectics of Wellbeing

Positive psychology has tended to be defined in terms of a concern with ‘positive’ psychological qualities and states. However, critics of the field have highlighted various problems inherent in classifying phenomena as either ‘positive’ or ‘negative.’ For instance, ostensibly positive qualities (e.g., optimism) can sometimes be detrimental to wellbeing, whereas apparently negative processes (like anxiety) may at times be conducive to it. As such, over recent years, a more nuanced ‘second wave’ of positive psychology has been germinating, which explores the philosophical and conceptual complexities of the very idea of the ‘positive.’ The current paper introduces this emergent second wave by examining the ways in which the field is developing a more subtle understanding of the ‘dialectical’ nature of flourishing (i.e., involving a complex and dynamic interplay of positive and negative experiences). The paper does so by problematizing the notions of positive and negative through seven case studies, including five salient dichotomies (such as optimism versus pessimism) and two complex processes (posttraumatic growth and love). These case studies serve to highlight the type of critical, dialectical thinking that characterises this second wave, thereby outlining the contours of the evolving field.