Predicting the onset of psychosis in patients at clinical high risk: practical guide to probabilistic prognostic reasoning

Prediction of psychosis in patients at clinical high risk (CHR) has become a mainstream focus of clinical and research interest worldwide. When using CHR instruments for clinical purposes, the predicted outcome is but only a probability; and, consequently, any therapeutic action following the assessment is based on probabilistic prognostic reasoning. Yet, probabilistic reasoning makes considerable demands on the clinicians. We provide here a scholarly practical guide summarising the key concepts to support clinicians with probabilistic prognostic reasoning in the CHR state. We review risk or cumulative incidence of psychosis in, person-time rate of psychosis, Kaplan-Meier estimates of psychosis risk, measures of prognostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity in receiver operator characteristic curves, positive and negative predictive values, Bayes’ theorem, likelihood ratios, potentials and limits of real-life applications of prognostic probabilistic reasoning in the CHR state. Understanding basic measures used for prognostic probabilistic reasoning is a prerequisite for successfully implementing the early detection and prevention of psychosis in clinical practice. Future refinement of these measures for CHR patients may actually influence risk management, especially as regards initiating or withholding treatment.

Impact of a communication strategy on family satisfaction in the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND Family satisfaction of critically ill patients has gained increased interest as important indicator to evaluate the quality of care in the intensive care unit (ICU). The family satisfaction in the ICU questionnaire (FS-ICU 24) is a well-established tool to assess satisfaction in such settings. We tested the hypothesis that an intervention, aiming at improved communication between health professionals and patients' next of kin in the ICU improves family satisfaction, as assessed by FS-ICU 24. METHODS Using a multicenter before-and-after study design, we evaluated medium-term effectiveness of VALUE, a recently proposed strategy aiming at improved communication. Satisfaction was assessed using the FS-ICU 24 questionnaire. Performance-importance plots were generated in order to identify items highly correlated with overall satisfaction but with low individual score. RESULTS A total of 163 completed family questionnaires in the pre-intervention and 118 in the post-intervention period were analyzed. Following the intervention, we observed: (1) a non-significant increase in family satisfaction summary score and sub-scores; (2) no decline in any individual family satisfaction item, and (3) improvement in items with high overall impact on satisfaction but quoted with low degree of satisfaction. CONCLUSION No significant improvement in family satisfaction of critically ill adult patients could be found after implementing the VALUE strategy. Whether these results are due to insufficient training of the new strategy or a missing effect of the strategy in our socio-economic environment remains to be shown.

New Sites, New Challenges? Ethical and Methodological Questions in the Context of Research on Migration Exclusion

The challenges of research ethics and methodologies have been reflected on extensively, but – aside from the context of feminist methodologies – less so in relation to research on particular migration sites such as in transit, detention centres, at the borders or within migration administration. First attempts in this direction have been made (Düvell et al. 2010, Fresia et al. 2005, Riedner 2014, van Liempt/Bilger2009), however, more reflection and theorization is needed, considering the contested nature of these temporal and volatile sites. In this workshop, we thus aim at examining methodological as well as ethical questions that arise during field work: We attempt to reflect the power relations involved in the research process, the ethics of research design, the dissemination of research results, the question of gaining access to and – whenever necessary – staying in contact with our research subjects. How can we negotiate informed consent with subjects whose life is currently marked by transit and insecurity concerning their own future, and who are in an uncertain situation in which substantial information (legal, social, cultural etc.) is likely to be missing? How do we deal with the dilemma of possibly contributing to knowledge production that might facilitate removals and deportations in the future, considering that the reception of the results is not in the hands of the researchers? How do we deal with the anticipated as well as unexpected impacts of our research on social and political practice? Regarding fieldwork in state institutions, how do we negotiate the multiple loyalties we often find ourselves faced with as social researchers, both with the excluded migrants and with the authorities implementing the exclusions – two groupings considered to be opposite to each other (Lavanchy 2013)? Which different roles do researchers need to take on? The aim of our workshop is first and foremost to exchange experiences on fieldwork with others doing qualitative research on related topics and to consider its possible implications – including affective dimensions – for all participants involved in the research process: the migrants, the security staff of detention centres, its social workers, border police and bureaucrats and, last but not least, the researchers themselves. Furthermore, we generally wish to reflect upon the question of how best to conduct research in this contested field, applying an interdisciplinary perspective.