We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Methamphetamine and cannabis are two widely used, and frequently co-used, substances with possibly opposing effects on the central nervous system. Evidence of neurocognitive deficits related to use is robust for methamphetamine and mixed for cannabis. Findings regarding their combined use are inconclusive. We aimed to compare neurocognitive performance in people with lifetime cannabis or methamphetamine use disorder diagnoses, or both, relative to people without substance use disorders.
Method:
423 (71.9% male, aged 44.6 ± 14.2 years) participants, stratified by presence or absence of lifetime methamphetamine (M−/M+) and/or cannabis (C−/C+) DSM-IV abuse/dependence, completed a comprehensive neuropsychological, substance use, and psychiatric assessment. Neurocognitive domain T-scores and impairment rates were examined using multiple linear and binomial regression, respectively, controlling for covariates that may impact cognition.
Results:
Globally, M+C+ performed worse than M−C− but better than M+C−. M+C+ outperformed M+C− on measures of verbal fluency, information processing speed, learning, memory, and working memory. M−C+ did not display lower performance than M−C− globally or on any domain measures, and M−C+ even performed better than M−C− on measures of learning, memory, and working memory.
Conclusions:
Our findings are consistent with prior work showing that methamphetamine use confers risk for worse neurocognitive outcomes, and that cannabis use does not appear to exacerbate and may even reduce this risk. People with a history of cannabis use disorders performed similarly to our nonsubstance using comparison group and outperformed them in some domains. These findings warrant further investigation as to whether cannabis use may ameliorate methamphetamine neurotoxicity.
To evaluate the impact of implementing clinical decision support (CDS) tools for outpatient antibiotic prescribing in the emergency department (ED) and clinic settings.
Design:
We performed a before-and-after, quasi-experimental study that employed an interrupted time-series analysis.
Setting:
The study institution was a quaternary, academic referral center in Northern California.
Participants:
We included prescriptions for patients in the ED and 21 primary-care clinics within the same health system.
Intervention:
We implemented a CDS tool for azithromycin on March 1, 2020, and a CDS tool for fluoroquinolones (FQs; ie, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, and moxifloxacin) on November 1, 2020. The CDS added friction to inappropriate ordering workflows while adding health information technology (HIT) features to easily perform recommended actions. The primary outcome was the number of monthly prescriptions for each antibiotic type, by implementation period (before vs after).
Results:
Immediately after azithromycin-CDS implementation, monthly rates of azithromycin prescribing decreased significantly in both the ED (−24%; 95% CI, −37% to −10%; P < .001) and outpatient clinics (−47%; 95% CI, −56% to −37%; P < .001). In the first month after FQ-CDS implementation in the clinics, there was no significant drop in ciprofloxacin prescriptions; however, there was a significant decrease in ciprofloxacin prescriptions over time (−5% per month; 95% CI, −6% to −3%; P < .001), suggesting a delayed effect of the CDS.
Conclusion:
Implementing CDS tools was associated with an immediate decrease in azithromycin prescriptions, in both the ED and clinics. CDS may serve as a valuable adjunct to existing antimicrobial stewardship programs.
Caregivers of patients with primary brain tumor (PBT) describe feeling preoccupied with the inevitability of their loved one's death. However, there are currently no validated instruments to assess death anxiety in caregivers. This study sought to examine (1) the psychometric properties of the Death and Dying Distress Scale (DADDS), adapted for caregivers (DADDS-CG), and (2) the prevalence and correlates of death anxiety in caregivers of patients with PBT.
Methods
Caregivers (N = 67) of patients with PBT completed the DADDS-CG, Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), Fear of Cancer Recurrence (FCR-7), and God Locus of Health Control (GLHC). Caregivers’ sociodemographic information and patients’ medical characteristics were also collected. Preliminary examination of the psychometric properties of the DADDS-CG was conducted using exploratory factor analysis, Cronbach's alpha, and correlations. The prevalence and risk factors of death anxiety were assessed using frequencies, pair-wise comparisons, and correlations.
Results
Factor analysis of the DADDS-CG revealed a two-factor structure consistent with the original DADDS. The DADDS-CG demonstrated excellent internal consistency, convergent validity with the PHQ-9, GAD-7, and FCR-7, and discriminant validity with the GLHC. Over two-thirds of caregivers reported moderate-to-severe symptoms of death anxiety. Death anxiety was highest in women and caregivers of patients with high-grade PBT.
Significance of results
The DADDS-CG demonstrates sound psychometric properties in caregivers of patients with PBT, who report high levels of death anxiety. Further research is needed to support the measure's value in clinical care and research — both in this population and other caregivers — in order to address this unmet, psychosocial need.
Associating a social or political attitude with one’s subjective sense of moral right and wrong (i.e., imbuing the attitude with 'moral conviction') is related to a variety of positive and negative consequences. For example, holding an attitude with moral conviction predicts greater political engagement such as voting – a normatively positive outcome. However, it also predicts greater political intolerance – a normatively negative outcome. In this chapter, we review literature exploring moral conviction’s consequences and note that the majority of them are normatively negative. We propose two possible explanations for this 'negativity bias' in the past research. On the one hand, the asymmetry in favour of negative consequences could be due to moral conviction having more negative rather than positive outcomes. On the other hand, the asymmetry could result from researchers selecting particularly polarised issues that lead to negative outcomes rather than issues with moral consensus, which may have positive outcomes.
What causes people to see their political attitudes in a moral light? One answer is that attitude moralization results from associating one’s attitude stance with feelings of disgust. To test the possibility that disgust moralizes, the current study used a high-powered preregistered design looking at within-person change in moral conviction paired with an experimental manipulation of disgust or anger (versus control). Results from the preregistered analyses found that we successfully induced anger but not disgust; however, our manipulation had no effect on moral conviction. Additional exploratory analyses investigating whether emotion and harm predicted increases in moral conviction over time found that neither disgust, anger, nor sadness had an effect on moralization, whereas perceptions of harm did predict moralization. Our findings are discussed in terms of their implications for current theory and research into attitude moralization.
Social psychology is not a very politically diverse area of inquiry, something that could negatively affect the objectivity of social psychological theory and research, as Duarte et al. argue in the target article. This commentary offers a number of checks to help researchers uncover possible biases and identify when they are engaging in hypothesis confirmation and advocacy instead of hypothesis testing.
Hibbing et al. argue that the liberal–conservative continuum is (a) universal and (b) grounded in psychological differences in sensitivity to negative stimuli. Our commentary argues that both claims overlook the importance of context. We review evidence that the liberal–conservative continuum is far from universal and that ideological differences are contextually flexible rather than fixed.
History is replete with atrocities that were justified by invoking the highest principles and that were perpetrated upon victims who were equally convinced of their own moral principles. In the name of justice, of the common welfare, of universal ethics, and of God, millions of people have been killed and whole cultures destroyed. In recent history, concepts of universal rights, equality, freedom, and social equity have been used to justify every variety of murder including genocide.
(Mischel & Mischel, 1976, p. 107)
The word “morality” generally refers to conceptions of right and wrong, good and bad, and the principles that define propriety and vice. Moral behavior is therefore motivated by conceptions of right and wrong, and seems to be tied to promoting one's conception of the good, and preventing or punishing perceived moral transgressions. Nevertheless, behavior and actions that some perceive as the height of moral virtue or sacrifice, others might see as an apex of depravity and evil. For example, most Americans were horrified by the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. More than 78% of Americans surveyed shortly after the attacks believed the attackers were “evil to the core” (Skitka, Bauman, & Mullen, 2004). In contrast, a Gallup poll of nine Muslim countries (December 2001–January 2002) found that 67% percent of the respondents felt that the 9/11 attacks were morally justified (George, 2002). In short, morality can sometimes be a double-edged sword: depending on one's point of view, morally motivated behavior can be seen as the epitome of virtue or of evil.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.