Factors influencing the quality of the consultation process

Sport psychology services have become to be an important brick stone when building athletic success. The strive for better performance is not only a characteristic of athletes, but of the whole support system in top level sport including sport psychology. Sport psychology consultants are permanently challenged to deliver highest quality services to their clients if they do not want to lose their contracts. Sport psychologists are continuously improving their consulting skills, learn new intervention techniques, read scientific papers and, last but not least, gain experience by accumulating hours of deliberate practice (Ericsson) in sport psychology. Even with increasing experience, the consultant has a certain number of degrees of freedom and has to make a series of decisions about how he or she wants to work. Quality, however, depends on a number of issues, and not all of them are under direct control of the consultant. It is argued that, in order for these choices being good, the following factors - among others - must be considered: Who is seeking assistance? What are the "issues and problems" (Gardner & Moore, 2006) the athlete is confronted with? What kind of approaches do fit with the client's need? Who is the 'client' the sport psychologist is supposed to work with? If it is a team, is the sport psychologist supposed to work with a number of individuals, with the coach, or with the whole system? Where are the boundaries of the system? What is the role of the sport psychologist in the sport system? All these issues directly affect the process and outcome quality of the sport psychology consultant. A sound theoretical basis, in connection with a distinct philosophy of the intervention, is an important cornerstone for the quality of sport psychology consultation.

PET of somatostatin receptor-positive tumors using 64Cu- and 68Ga-somatostatin antagonists: the chelate makes the difference

Somatostatin-based radiolabeled peptides have been successfully introduced into the clinic for targeted imaging and radionuclide therapy of somatostatin receptor (sst)-positive tumors, especially of subtype 2 (sst2). The clinically used peptides are exclusively agonists. Recently, we showed that radiolabeled antagonists may be preferable to agonists because they showed better pharmacokinetics, including higher tumor uptake. Factors determining the performance of radioantagonists have only scarcely been studied. Here, we report on the development and evaluation of four (64)Cu or (68)Ga radioantagonists for PET of sst2-positive tumors.

What makes the difference between the natural course of a remaining type B dissection after type A repair and a primary type B aortic dissection?

To analyse the outcome and need for intervention [surgery or thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR)] in patients after surgery for remaining type B dissection after type A repair and primary type B aortic dissection.