Expectations, experiences and attitudes of patients and primary care health professionals regarding online psychotherapeutic interventions for depression: protocol for a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND In the year 2020, depression will cause the second highest amount of disability worldwide. One quarter of the population will suffer from depression symptoms at some point in their lives. Mental health services in Western countries are overburdened. Therefore, cost-effective interventions that do not involve mental health services, such as online psychotherapy programs, have been proposed. These programs demonstrate satisfactory outcomes, but the completion rate for patients is low. Health professionals' attitudes towards this type of psychotherapy are more negative than the attitudes of depressed patients themselves. The aim of this study is to describe the profile of depressed patients who would benefit most from online psychotherapy and to identify expectations, experiences, and attitudes about online psychotherapy among both patients and health professionals that can facilitate or hinder its effects. METHODS A parallel qualitative design will be used in a randomised controlled trial on the efficiency of online psychotherapeutic treatment for depression. Through interviews and focus groups, the experiences of treated patients, their reasons for abandoning the program, the expectations of untreated patients, and the attitudes of health professionals will be examined. Questions will be asked about training in new technologies, opinions of online psychotherapy, adjustment to therapy within the daily routine, the virtual and anonymous relationship with the therapist, the process of online communication, information necessary to make progress in therapy, process of working with the program, motivations and attitudes about treatment, expected consequences, normalisation of this type of therapy in primary care, changes in the physician-patient relationship, and resources and risks. A thematic content analysis from the grounded theory for interviews and an analysis of the discursive positions of participants based on the sociological model for focus groups will be performed. DISCUSSION Knowledge of the expectations, experiences, and attitudes of both patients and medical personnel regarding online interventions for depression can facilitate the implementation of this new psychotherapeutic tool. This qualitative investigation will provide thorough knowledge of the perceptions, beliefs, and values of patients and clinicians, which will be very useful for understanding how to implement this intervention method for depression.

Oxidative stress is increased in critically ill patients according to antioxidant vitamins intake, independent of severity: a cohort study

Introduction. Critically ill patients suffer from oxidative stress caused by reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reactive nitrogen species (RNS). Although ROS/RNS are constantly produced under normal circumstances, critical illness can drastically increase their production. These patients have reduced plasma and intracellular levels of antioxidants and free electron scavengers or cofactors, and decreased activity of the enzymatic system involved in ROS detoxification. The pro-oxidant/antioxidant balance is of functional relevance during critical illness because it is involved in the pathogenesis of multiple organ failure. In this study the objective was to evaluate the relation between oxidative stress in critically ill patients and antioxidant vitamin intake and severity of illness. Methods. Spectrophotometry was used to measure in plasma the total antioxidant capacity and levels of lipid peroxide, carbonyl group, total protein, bilirubin and uric acid at two time points: at intensive care unit (ICU) admission and on day seven. Daily diet records were kept and compliance with recommended dietary allowance (RDA) of antioxidant vitamins (A, C and E) was assessed. Results. Between admission and day seven in the ICU, significant increases in lipid peroxide and carbonyl group were associated with decreased antioxidant capacity and greater deterioration in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. There was significantly greater worsening in oxidative stress parameters in patients who received antioxidant vitamins at below 66% of RDA than in those who received antioxidant vitamins at above 66% of RDA. An antioxidant vitamin intake from 66% to 100% of RDA reduced the risk for worsening oxidative stress by 94% (ods ratio 0.06, 95% confidence interval 0.010 to 0.39), regardless of change in severity of illness (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score). Conclusion. The critical condition of patients admitted to the ICU is associated with worsening oxidative stress. Intake of antioxidant vitamins below 66% of RDA and alteration in endogenous levels of substances with antioxidant capacity are related to redox imbalance in critical ill patients. Therefore, intake of antioxidant vitamins should be carefully monitored so that it is as close as possible to RDA.

Why Public Health Agencies Cannot Depend on Good Laboratory Practices as a Criterion for Selecting Data: The Case of Bisphenol A

In their safety evaluations of bisphenol A (BPA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a counterpart in Europe, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), have given special prominence to two industry-funded studies that adhered to standards defined by Good Laboratory Practices (GLP). These same agencies have given much less weight in risk assessments to a large number of independently replicated non-GLP studies conducted with government funding by the leading experts in various fields of science from around the world. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed differences between industry-funded GLP studies of BPA conducted by commercial laboratories for regulatory purposes and non-GLP studies conducted in academic and government laboratories to identify hazards and molecular mechanisms mediating adverse effects. We examined the methods and results in the GLP studies that were pivotal in the draft decision of the U.S. FDA declaring BPA safe in relation to findings from studies that were competitive for U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, peer-reviewed for publication in leading journals, subject to independent replication, but rejected by the U.S. FDA for regulatory purposes. DISCUSSION: Although the U.S. FDA and EFSA have deemed two industry-funded GLP studies of BPA to be superior to hundreds of studies funded by the U.S. NIH and NIH counterparts in other countries, the GLP studies on which the agencies based their decisions have serious conceptual and methodologic flaws. In addition, the U.S. FDA and EFSA have mistakenly assumed that GLP yields valid and reliable scientific findings (i.e., "good science"). Their rationale for favoring GLP studies over hundreds of publically funded studies ignores the central factor in determining the reliability and validity of scientific findings, namely, independent replication, and use of the most appropriate and sensitive state-of-the-art assays, neither of which is an expectation of industry-funded GLP research. CONCLUSIONS: Public health decisions should be based on studies using appropriate protocols with appropriate controls and the most sensitive assays, not GLP. Relevant NIH-funded research using state-of-the-art techniques should play a prominent role in safety evaluations of chemicals.