Atypical depression and alcohol misuse are related to the cardiovascular risk in the general population

OBJECTIVE: The aims of the present study were to assess the associations between mood, anxiety and substance use disorders, including their subtypes, and the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs). METHOD: Thorough physical investigations, biological measures and standardized interview techniques were used to assess 3716 subjects of an urban area, aged 35-66 years. RESULTS: Atypical depression was associated with increased prevalence of overweight, diabetes and the metabolic syndrome (OR = 1.5, 95% C.I. 1.1-2.0; OR = 2.0, 95% C.I. 1.1-3.5, OR = 1.6, 95% C.I. 1.0-2.4 respectively), whereas decreased prevalence of overweight was found in melancholic (OR = 0.7, 95% C.I. 0.6-0.9) and unspecified depression (OR = 0.8, 95% C.I. 0.7-1.0). Alcohol abuse was associated with diabetes (OR = 1.8, 95% C.I. 1.1-2.9) and dyslipidemia (OR = 1.3, 95% C.I. 1.0-1.8), alcohol dependence with dyslipidemia only (OR = 1.4, 95% C.I. 1.0-2.0). Almost all mental disorders were associated with a lifetime history of regular cigarette smoking, and atypical depression, alcohol misuse and drug dependence were associated with inactivity. CONCLUSION: To conclude results emphasize the need to subtype depression and to pay particular attention to the atypical subtype. Comorbid alcohol misuse may further increase the cardiovascular risk. Efforts to diminish smoking in subjects with mental disorders could be crucial measures to reduce their high incidence of cardiovascular disease.

Silence That Can Be Dangerous: A Vignette Study to Assess Healthcare Professionals' Likelihood of Speaking up about Safety Concerns

PURPOSE To investigate the likelihood of speaking up about patient safety in oncology and to clarify the effect of clinical and situational context factors on the likelihood of voicing concerns. PATIENTS AND METHODS 1013 nurses and doctors in oncology rated four clinical vignettes describing coworkers' errors and rule violations in a self-administered factorial survey (65% response rate). Multiple regression analysis was used to model the likelihood of speaking up as outcome of vignette attributes, responder's evaluations of the situation and personal characteristics. RESULTS Respondents reported a high likelihood of speaking up about patient safety but the variation between and within types of errors and rule violations was substantial. Staff without managerial function provided significantly higher levels of decision difficulty and discomfort to speak up. Based on the information presented in the vignettes, 74%-96% would speak up towards a supervisor failing to check a prescription, 45%-81% would point a coworker to a missed hand disinfection, 82%-94% would speak up towards nurses who violate a safety rule in medication preparation, and 59%-92% would question a doctor violating a safety rule in lumbar puncture. Several vignette attributes predicted the likelihood of speaking up. Perceived potential harm, anticipated discomfort, and decision difficulty were significant predictors of the likelihood of speaking up. CONCLUSIONS Clinicians' willingness to speak up about patient safety is considerably affected by contextual factors. Physicians and nurses without managerial function report substantial discomfort with speaking up. Oncology departments should provide staff with clear guidance and trainings on when and how to voice safety concerns.

Psychological responses to the proximity of climate change

A frequent suggestion to increase individuals' willingness to take action on climate change and to support relevant policies is to highlight its proximal consequences, that is, those that are close in space and time. But previous studies that have tested this proximizing approach have not revealed the expected positive effects on individual action and support for addressing climate change. We present three lines of psychological reasoning that provide compelling arguments as to why highlighting proximal impacts of climate change might not be as effective a way to increase individual mitigation and adaptation efforts as is often assumed. Our contextualization of the proximizing approach within established psychological research suggests that, depending on the particular theoretical perspective one takes on this issue, and on specific individual characteristics suggested by these perspectives, proximizing can bring about the intended positive effects, can have no (visible) effect or can even backfire. Thus, the effects of proximizing are much more complex than is commonly assumed. Revealing this complexity contributes to a refined theoretical understanding of the role that psychological distance plays in the context of climate change and opens up further avenues for future research and for interventions.