Is ultra-rapid opioid detoxification a viable option in the treatment of opioid dependence?

Ultra-rapid opioid detoxification (UROD) involves the acceleration of opioid withdrawal hv administering thp opioid receptor antagonist naltrexone under general anaesthesia. There is evidence from uncontrolled and a few controlled studies that UROD accelerates opioid withdrawal and that it achieves high rates of completion of acute opioid withdrawal. However, there is clear evidence that the use of a general anaesthetic is not required to accelerate withdrawal or to achieve high rates of completion of acute opioid withdrawal. These goals can be achieved by using naltrexone or naloxone to accelerate withdrawal under light sedation, a procedure known as rapid opioid detoxification under sedation (ROD). There is also evidence that use of an opioid antagonist is not required to achieve a high rate of completion of acute opioid withdrawal. The mixed agonist-antagonist buprenorphine has achieved comparable rates of completion in similarly selected patients with fewer withdrawal symptoms. There is no evidence from controlled trials that either UROD or ROD increases the rate of abstinence from opioids 6 or 12 months after withdrawal. UROD and ROD may increase the number of patients who are inducted onto naltrexone maintenance (NM) therapy but extensive experience with NM therapy suggests that it only has a limited role in selected patients. Given the lack of evidence of substantially increased rates of abstinence, and the need for anaesthetists and high dependency beds, UROD has at best a very minor role in the treatment of a handful of opioid dependent patients who are unable to complete withdraw in any other way. ROD may have more of a role as one option for opioid withdrawal in well motivated patients who want to be rapidly inducted onto NM therapy or who want to enter other types of abstinence-oriented treatment.

The current status of psychological debriefing - It may do more harm than good

Despite the widespread use of psychological debriefing, serious concerns have been raised about its effectiveness and potential to do harm. 1 2 Psychological debriefing is broadly defined as a set of procedures including counselling and the giving of information aimed at preventing psychological morbidity and aiding recovery after a traumatic event. In 1995 Raphael and colleagues emphasised that there was an urgent need for reliable evidence from randomised controlled trials on the impact and worth of debriefing.3 Unfortunately, the news has not been good for debriefing. Debriefing is generally applied within the first few days after a traumatic event, lasts one to three hours, and usually includes procedures that encourage and normalise emotional expression. Debriefing can also be more narrowly defined in terms of the procedures used, the information provided and the target population. One example of this type of debriefing is known as critical incident stress debriefing.4

Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures

The authors argue that complementary hostile and benevolent components of sexism exist across cultures. Male dominance creates hostile sexism IHS), but men's dependence on women fosters benevolent sexism (BS)-subjectively positive attitudes that put women on a pedestal but reinforce their subordination. Research with 15,000 men and women in 19 nations showed that (a) HS and BS are coherent constructs that correlate positively across nations, but (b) HS predicts the ascription of negative and BS the ascription of positive traits to women, (c) relative to men, women are more likely to reject HS than BS, especially when overall levels of sexism in a culture are high, and (d) national averages on BS and HS predict gender inequality across nations. These results challenge prevailing notions of prejudice as an antipathy in that BS tan affectionate, patronizing ideology) reflects inequality and is a cross-culturally pervasive complement to HS.

Investigation of threat-related attentional bias in anxious children using the startle eyeblink modification paradigm

We used the startle eyeblink modification paradigm to investigate whether clinically anxious children, like high trait-anxious adults, display a bias in favour of threat words compared to neutral words. The present study included 16 clinically anxious children whose diagnostic status was determined using the parent version of a semistructured diagnostic interview as part of a larger childhood anxiety study. The children were presented with threat and neutral words fur 6 s each. A startle-eliciting auditory stimulus - a 100 dBA burst of white noise of 50 ms duration - was presented during the words at lead intervals of 60, 120, 240, or 3500 ms and during intertrial intervals. The overall pattern of startle eyeblink modification indicated inhibition at the 120 and 240 ms lead intervals and facilitation at the 3500 ms lead interval. startle-latency shortening during threat words at the :60 ms lead interval was larger than at other intervals, whereas there was no difference during neutral words. This result reflects an anxiety-related bias in favour of threat words occurring at a very early - and possibly preattentive stage - of information processing.