The New Jersey Kids Study (NJKS) is a transdisciplinary statewide initiative to understand influences on child health, development, and disease. We conducted a mixed-methods study of project planning teams to investigate team effectiveness and relationships between team dynamics and quality of deliverables.

Ten theme-based working groups (WGs) (e.g., Neurodevelopment, Nutrition) informed protocol development and submitted final reports. WG members (n = 79, 75%) completed questionnaires including de-identified demographic and professional information and a modified TeamSTEPPS Team Assessment Questionnaire (TAQ). Reviewers independently evaluated final reports using a standardized tool. We analyzed questionnaire results and final report assessments using linear regression and performed constant comparative qualitative analysis to identify central themes.

WG-level factors associated with greater team effectiveness included proportion of full professors (β = 31.24, 95% CI 27.65–34.82), team size (β = 0.81, 95% CI 0.70–0.92), and percent dedicated research effort (β = 0.11, 95% CI 0.09–0.13); age distribution (β = −2.67, 95% CI –3.00 to –2.38) and diversity of school affiliations (β = –33.32, 95% CI –36.84 to –29.80) were inversely associated with team effectiveness. No factors were associated with final report assessments. Perceptions of overall initiative leadership were associated with expressed enthusiasm for future NJKS participation. Qualitative analyses of final reports yielded four themes related to team science practices: organization and process, collaboration, task delegation, and decision-making patterns.

We identified several correlates of team effectiveness in a team science initiative's early planning phase. Extra effort may be needed to bridge differences in team members' backgrounds to enhance the effectiveness of diverse teams. This work also highlights leadership as an important component in future investigator engagement.

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the continuity of cognitive rehabilitation (CR) worldwide. However, the use of teleneuropsychology (TNP) to provide CR has contributed significantly to the continuity of treatment. The objective of this study was to measure the effects of CR via the TNP on cognition, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and memory strategies in a cohort of patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI).

A sample of 60 patients (60% female; age: 72.4±6.96) with MCI according to Petersen criteria was randomly divided into two groups: 30 cases (treatment group) and 30 controls (waiting list group). Subjects were matched for age, sex, and MMSE or MoCA.

The treatment group received ten weekly CR sessions of 45 minutes weekly. Pre-treatment (week 0) and post-treatment (week 10) measures were assessed for both groups. Different Linear Mixed Models were estimated to test treatment effect (CR vs. Controls) on each outcome of interest over Time (Pre/Post), controlling for Diagnosis, Age, Sex, and MMSE/MoCA performance.

A significant Group (Control/Treatment) x Time (pre/post) interaction revealed that the treatment group at 10 weeks had better scores in cognitive variables: memory (RAVLT learning trials p=0.030; RAVLT delayed recall p=0.029), phonological fluency(p=0.001), activities of daily living (FAQ p=0.001), satisfaction with memory performance (MMQ Satisfaction p=0.004) and use of memory strategies (MMQ Strategy p=0.00), and a significant reduction of affective symptomatology: depression (GDS p=0.00), neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPIQ p=0.045), Forgetfulness (EDO-10 p=0.00), Stress (DAS Stress p=0.00).

This is the first study to test CR using teleNP in South America. Our results suggest that CR through teleNP is an effective intervention to improve performance on cognitive variables and reduce neuropsychiatric symptomatology compared to patients with MCI. These results have great significance in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in South America, where teleNP is proving to be a valuable tool.

Many individuals with COVID-19 develop mild to moderate physical symptoms that can last days to months. In addition to physical symptoms, individuals with COVID-19 have reported depressive symptoms and cognitive decline, posing a long-term threat to mental health and functional outcomes. Few studies have examined the presence of co-occurring depression and subjective cognitive decline in individuals who tested positive for COVID-19. The current study examined whether having COVID-19 is subsequently associated with greater depressive symptoms and subjective cognitive decline when compared to healthy individuals. Our study also examined differential associations between symptoms of depression and subjective cognitive decline between individuals who have and have never had COVID-19.

Adults (N = 104; mean age = 37 years, 69% female) were recruited online from Ontario and British Columbia, Canada. Participants were categorized into two groups: (1) persons who tested positive for COVID-19 at least three months prior, had been symptomatic, and had not been ventilated (N = 50); and (2) persons who have never been suspected of having COVID-19 (N = 54). The Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) and the Subjective Cognitive Decline Questionnaire (SCD-Q) were administered to both groups as part of a larger clinical neuropsychological evaluation. Two separate linear regression analyses were conducted to examine the association of COVID-19 with depressive symptoms and subjective cognitive decline. A moderation analysis was performed to examine whether depressive symptoms were associated with subjective cognitive decline and the extent to which this differed by group (COVID-19 and controls). Participants’ age, self-reported sex, and history of depression were included as covariates.

The first regression model explained 17.2% of the variance in CES-D scores. It was found that the COVID-19 group had significantly higher CES-D scores (ß = .20, p = .03). The second regression model explained 35.9% of the variance in SCD-Q scores. Similar to the previous model, it was found that the COVID-19 group had significantly higher SCD-Q scores compared to healthy controls (ß = .22 p = .01). Lastly, the moderation model indicated that higher CES-D scores were associated with higher SCD-Q scores (ß = .43, p < .01), but there was no statistically significant group X CES-D score interaction.

These findings suggest that individuals who previously experienced a mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 infection report greater depressive symptom severity as well as greater subjective cognitive decline. Additionally, while more severe depressive symptoms predicted greater subjective cognitive decline in our sample, the magnitude of this association did not vary between those with and without a previous COVID-19 infection. While the underlying neurobiological and social mechanisms of cognitive difficulties and depressive symptoms in persons who have had COVID-19 have yet to be fully elucidated, our findings highlight treatment for depression and cognitive rehabilitation as potentially useful intervention targets for the post COVID-19 condition.

University and college students are vulnerable to developing depressive symptoms. People in low-income countries are disproportionately impacted by mental health problems, yet few studies examine routes to accessing clinical services. Examining motivation and barriers toward seeking clinical mental health services in university students in Bangladesh is important.

Using a cross-sectional survey (n = 350), we assess the relationship between the constructs of autonomy, relatedness, and competency toward using clinical mental health practices (i.e. using professional resources, taking medication) with (1) positive views, (2) perceived need, and (3) use of clinical mental health services among Bangladeshi university students.

Results showed that the perceived need for mental health support was the predictor of the largest magnitude (aOR = 4.99, p = 0.005) for using clinical services. Having a positive view of clinical services was predictive of clinical service use (aOR = 2.87, p = 0.033); however, that association became insignificant (p = 0.054) when adjusting for the perceived need for mental health care. Of the SDT constructs, social influences were predictive of perceiving a need for mental health support, and mental health knowledge was predictive (aOR = 1.10, p = 0.001) of having a positive view of clinical mental health care.

Our findings show that knowledge of mental health is associated with positive views of mental health services, and that higher levels of stress and the presence of people with mental health problems are associated with the perception of a need for mental health care, which is ultimately responsible for using the services.