"Thinking too much": A systematic review of a common idiom of distress.

Idioms of distress communicate suffering via reference to shared ethnopsychologies, and better understanding of idioms of distress can contribute to effective clinical and public health communication. This systematic review is a qualitative synthesis of "thinking too much" idioms globally, to determine their applicability and variability across cultures. We searched eight databases and retained publications if they included empirical quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods research regarding a "thinking too much" idiom and were in English. In total, 138 publications from 1979 to 2014 met inclusion criteria. We examined the descriptive epidemiology, phenomenology, etiology, and course of "thinking too much" idioms and compared them to psychiatric constructs. "Thinking too much" idioms typically reference ruminative, intrusive, and anxious thoughts and result in a range of perceived complications, physical and mental illnesses, or even death. These idioms appear to have variable overlap with common psychiatric constructs, including depression, anxiety, and PTSD. However, "thinking too much" idioms reflect aspects of experience, distress, and social positioning not captured by psychiatric diagnoses and often show wide within-cultural variation, in addition to between-cultural differences. Taken together, these findings suggest that "thinking too much" should not be interpreted as a gloss for psychiatric disorder nor assumed to be a unitary symptom or syndrome within a culture. We suggest five key ways in which engagement with "thinking too much" idioms can improve global mental health research and interventions: it (1) incorporates a key idiom of distress into measurement and screening to improve validity of efforts at identifying those in need of services and tracking treatment outcomes; (2) facilitates exploration of ethnopsychology in order to bolster cultural appropriateness of interventions; (3) strengthens public health communication to encourage engagement in treatment; (4) reduces stigma by enhancing understanding, promoting treatment-seeking, and avoiding unintentionally contributing to stigmatization; and (5) identifies a key locally salient treatment target.

Thinking Outside the Box: Treating Acute Heart Failure Outside the Hospital to Improve Care and Reduce Admissions.

The management of acute heart failure is shifting toward treatment approaches outside of a traditional hospital setting. Many heart failure providers are now treating patients in less familiar health care settings, such as acute care clinics, emergency departments, and skilled nursing facilities. In this review we describe the current pressures driving change in the delivery of acute heart failure and summarize the evidence regarding treatments for acute heart failure outside of the inpatient setting. We also provide considerations for the design of future treatment strategies to be implemented in alternative care settings.

Constructive thinking

Discusses the House of Lords ruling in Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd on whether the doctrine of constructive trust, as an alternative to proprietary estoppel, could be invoked by a property developer under the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 s.2(5) where an agreement for the acquisition of an interest in land failed to comply with s.2(1), but where the developer had incurred expenditure obtaining planning permission to develop the property. Reflects on whether there are circumstances in which the courts will find a constructive trust in order to avoid the effects of s.2(1).

Thinking inside the box: the World Bank position on the private and public sector

An analysis of how the World Bank has maintained a position supportive of mutlinational strategies for privatisation of water. (Brief version).

Thinking inside the box: why the World Bank is not learning

An analysis of how the World Bank has maintained a position supportive of multinational strategies for privatisation of water.

An experiment in group learning technology: evaluating critical thinking in face-to-face and computer-supported seminars

Can learning quality be maintained in the face of increasing class size by the use of Computer Supported Co-operative Learning (CSCL) technologies? In particular, can Computer-Mediated Communication promote critical thinking in addition to surface information transfer? We compared face-to-face seminars with asynchronous computer conferencing in the same Information Management class. From Garrison's theory of critical thinking and Henri's critical reasoning skills, we developed two ways of evaluating critical thinking: a student questionnaire and a content analysis technique. We found evidence for critical thinking in both situations, with some subtle differences in learning style. This paper provides an overview of this work.

A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning

This paper gives a detailed account of the content analysis method developed at Queen's University Belfast to measure critical thinking during group learning, as used in our controlled comparisons between learning in face-to-face and computer conference seminars. From Garrison's 5 stages of critical thinking, and Henri's cognitive skills needed in CMC, we have developed two research instruments: a student questionnaire and this content analysis method. The content analysis relies on identifying, within transcripts, examples of indicators of obviously critical and obviously uncritical thinking, from which several critical thinking ratios can be calculated.