5 results
Internet and mobile technologies: addressing the mental health of trauma survivors in less resourced communities
- J. I. Ruzek, C. M. Yeager
-
- Journal:
- Global Mental Health / Volume 4 / 2017
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 30 August 2017, e16
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Internet and mobile technologies offer potentially critical ways of delivering mental health support in low-resource settings. Much evidence indicates an enormous negative impact of mental health problems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and many of these problems are caused, or worsened, by exposure to wars, conflicts, natural and human-caused disasters, and other traumatic events. Though specific mental health treatments have been found to be efficacious and cost-effective for low-resource settings, most individuals living in these areas do not have access to them. Low-intensity task-sharing interventions will help, but there is a limit to the scalability and sustainability of human resources in these settings. To address the needs of trauma survivors, it will be important to develop and implement Internet and mobile technology resources to help reduce the scarcity, inequity, and inefficiency of current mental health services in LMICs. Mobile and Internet resources are experiencing a rapid growth in LMICs and can help address time, stigma, and cost barriers and connect those who have been socially isolated by traumatic events. This review discusses current research in technological interventions in low-resource settings and outlines key issues and future challenges and opportunities. Though formidable challenges exist for large-scale deployment of mobile and Internet mental health technologies, work to date indicates that these technologies are indeed feasible to develop, evaluate, and deliver to those in need of mental health services, and that they can be effective.
Diagnostic performance of the PTSD checklist and the Vietnam Era Twin Registry PTSD scale
- K. Magruder, D. Yeager, J. Goldberg, C. Forsberg, B. Litz, V. Vaccarino, M. Friedman, T. Gleason, G. Huang, N. Smith
-
- Journal:
- Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences / Volume 24 / Issue 5 / October 2015
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 06 June 2014, pp. 415-422
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Aims.
Self-report questionnaires are frequently used in clinical and epidemiologic studies to assess post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A number of studies have evaluated these scales relative to clinician administered structured interviews; however, there has been no formal evaluation of their performance relative to non-clinician administered epidemiologic assessments such as the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). We examined the diagnostic performance of two self-report PTSD scales, the PTSD checklist (PCL) and the Vietnam Era Twin Registry (VET-R) PTSD scale, compared to the CIDI.
Methods.Data were derived from a large epidemiologic follow-up study of PTSD in 5141 Vietnam Era Veterans. Measures included the PCL, VET-R PTSD scale and CIDI. For both the PCL and VET-R PTSD scale, ROC curves, areas under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, % correctly classified, likelihood ratios, predictive values and quality estimates were generated based on the CIDI PTSD diagnosis.
Results.For the PCL and VET-R PTSD scale the AUCs were 89.0 and 87.7%, respectively. Optimal PCL cutpoints varied from the 31–33 range (when considering sensitivity and specificity) to the 36–56 range (when considering quality estimates). Similar variations were found for the VET-R PTSD, ranging from 31 (when considering sensitivity and specificity) to the 37–42 range (when considering quality estimates).
Conclusions.The PCL and VET-R PTSD scale performed similarly using a CIDI PTSD diagnosis as the criterion. There was a range of acceptable cutpoints, depending on the metric used, but most metrics suggested a lower PCL cutpoint than in previous studies in Veteran populations.
Summary for Policy Makers
-
- By Thomas B. Johansson, Lund University, Nebojsa Nakicenovic, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and Vienna University of Technology, Anand Patwardhan, Indian Institute of Technology-Bombay), Luis Gomez-Echeverri, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Rangan Banerjee, Indian Institute of Technology, Sally M. Benson, Stanford University, Daniel H. Bouille, Bariloche Foundation, Abeeku Brew-Hammond, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Aleh Cherp, Central European University, Suani T. Coelho, National Reference Center on Biomass, University of São Paulo, Lisa Emberson, Stockholm Environment Institute, University of York, Maria Josefina Figueroa, Technical University, Arnulf Grubler, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria and Yale University, Kebin He, Tsinghua University, Mark Jaccard, Simon Fraser University, Suzana Kahn Ribeiro, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Stephen Karekezi, AFREPREN/FWD, Eric D. Larson, Princeton University and Climate Central, Zheng Li, Tsinghua University, Susan McDade, United Nations Development Programme), Lynn K. Mytelka, United Nations University-MERIT, Shonali Pachauri, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Keywan Riahi, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Johan Rockström, Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm University, Hans-Holger Rogner, International Atomic Energy Agency, Joyashree Roy, Jadavpur University, Robert N. Schock, World Energy Council, UK and Center for Global Security Research, Ralph Sims, Massey University, Kirk R. Smith, University of California, Wim C. Turkenburg, Utrecht University, Diana Ürge-Vorsatz, Central European University, Frank von Hippel, Princeton University, Kurt Yeager, Electric Power Research Institute and Galvin Electricity Initiative
- Global Energy Assessment Writing Team
-
- Book:
- Global Energy Assessment
- Published online:
- 05 September 2012
- Print publication:
- 27 August 2012, pp 3-30
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Energy is essential for human development and energy systems are a crucial entry point for addressing the most pressing global challenges of the 21st century, including sustainable economic and social development, poverty eradication, adequate food production and food security, health for all, climate protection, conservation of ecosystems, peace and security. Yet, more than a decade into the 21st century, current energy systems do not meet these challenges.
A major transformation is therefore required to address these challenges and to avoid potentially catastrophic future consequences for human and planetary systems. The Global Energy Assessment (GEA) demonstrates that energy system change is the key for addressing and resolving these challenges. The GEA identifies strategies that could help resolve the multiple challenges simultaneously and bring multiple benefits. Their successful implementation requires determined, sustained and immediate action.
Transformative change in the energy system may not be internally generated; due to institutional inertia, incumbency and lack of capacity and agility of existing organizations to respond effectively to changing conditions. In such situations clear and consistent external policy signals may be required to initiate and sustain the transformative change needed to meet the sustainability challenges of the 21st century.
The industrial revolution catapulted humanity onto an explosive development path, whereby, reliance on muscle power and traditional biomass was replaced mostly by fossil fuels. In 2005, some 78% of global energy was based on fossil energy sources that provided abundant and ever cheaper energy services to more than half the people in the world.
Technical Summary
-
- By Thomas B. Johansson, Lund University, Nebojsa Nakicenovic, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and Vienna University of Technology, Anand Patwardhan, Indian Institute of Technology, Luis Gomez-Echeverri, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Doug J. Arent, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Rangan Banerjee, Indian Institute of Technology, Sally M. Benson, Stanford University, Daniel H. Bouille, Bariloche Foundation, Abeeku Brew-Hammond, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Aleh Cherp, Central European University, Suani T. Coelho, National Reference Center on Biomass, University of São Paulo, Lisa Emberson, Stockholm Environment Institute, University of York, Maria Josefina Figueroa, Technical University, Arnulf Grubler, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria and Yale University, Kebin He, Tsinghua University, Mark Jaccard, Simon Fraser University, Suzana Kahn Ribeiro, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Stephen Karekezi, AFREPREN/FWD, Eric D. Larson, Princeton University and Climate Central, Zheng Li, Tsinghua University, Susan McDade, United Nations Development Programme, Lynn K. Mytelka, United Nations University-MERIT, Shonali Pachauri, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Keywan Riahi, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Johan Rockström, Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm University, Hans-Holger Rogner, International Atomic Energy Agency, Joyashree Roy, Jadavpur University, Robert N. Schock, World Energy Council, UK and Center for Global Security Research, Ralph Sims, Massey University, Kirk R. Smith, University of California, Wim C. Turkenburg, Utrecht University, Diana Ürge-Vorsatz, Central European University, Frank von Hippel, Princeton University, Kurt Yeager, Electric Power Research Institute and Galvin Electricity Initiative
- Global Energy Assessment Writing Team
-
- Book:
- Global Energy Assessment
- Published online:
- 05 September 2012
- Print publication:
- 27 August 2012, pp 31-94
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Energy is essential for human development and energy systems are a crucial entry point for addressing the most pressing global challenges of the 21st century, including sustainable economic, and social development, poverty eradication, adequate food production and food security, health for all, climate protection, conservation of ecosystems, peace, and security. Yet, more than a decade into the 21st century, current energy systems do not meet these challenges.
In this context, two considerations are important. The first is the capacity and agility of the players within the energy system to seize opportunities in response to these challenges. The second is the response capacity of the energy system itself, as the investments are long-term and tend to follow standard financial patterns, mainly avoiding risks and price instabilities. This traditional approach does not embrace the transformation needed to respond properly to the economic, environmental, and social sustainability challenges of the 21st century.
A major transformation is required to address these challenges and to avoid potentially catastrophic consequences for human and planetary systems. The GEA identifies strategies that could help resolve the multiple challenges simultaneously and bring multiple benefits. Their successful implementation requires determined, sustained, and immediate action.
The industrial revolution catapulted humanity onto an explosive development path, whereby reliance on muscle power and traditional biomass was replaced mostly by fossil fuels. In 2005, approximately 78% of global energy was based on fossil energy sources that provided abundant and ever cheaper energy services to more than half the world's population.
Adaptation of Leginon Software for Semi-Automated Recording of Electron Microscopic Images of Two-Dimensional Crystals
- A. Cheng, J. Pulokas, C. Suloway, Y. Zhu, M. Yeager, C.S. Potter, B. Carragher
-
- Journal:
- Microscopy and Microanalysis / Volume 9 / Issue S02 / August 2003
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 August 2003, pp. 1518-1519
- Print publication:
- August 2003
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation