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.

To determine and compare the intraoperative durability of 4 major surgical glove brands.

This study is a randomized open-label clinical trial in which surgical gloves from 4 manufacturers are randomized to 5 surgical subspecialty study groups: (1) orthopedic surgery, (2) neurosurgery, (3) colorectal surgery, (4) trauma or acute general surgery, and (5) cardiac and plastic surgeries. The study was divided into 10 periods, with a cross-over design, and was conducted at a tertiary care academic medical center. Participants were licensed and certified physicians, physicians-in-training, scrub nurses, or technicians working within the sterile field.

Participants from each study group were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 surgical glove manufacturer types and subsequently rotated through the other 3 glove brands such that each participant acted as their own control in the sequential cross-over design.

The primary outcome was to determine and compare the intraoperative failure rate of Biogel® Sterile Surgical undergloves against sterile surgical undergloves from 3 other manufacturers, both as a combined competitor group and individually.

There were no differences between brands with respect to the primary outcome of underglove intraoperative failures. Brand 1 wearers were slightly more likely to detect glove failures when they occurred.

The durability of surgical gloves intraoperatively is similar across 4 major glove manufacturers. Detection of intraoperative failures is infrequent, though specific glove characteristics may promote enhanced detection. Recognition of glove perforations intraoperatively is important in the maintenance of a maximally sterile field.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03344354.

In the absence of treatments to halt or reverse symptoms of Alzheimer's disease, early detection may extend the window for meaningful treatment, advanced planning, and coping. Positron emission tomography (PET) scans for amyloid and tau are validated biomarkers of AD, yet results are rarely disclosed to participants due to concerns about negative impacts. While prior studies suggest limited anxiety, depression, or suicidality following biomarker disclosure, no study to date has examined broader psychological impacts of PET amyloid/tau disclosure to symptomatic individuals. Therefore, we explored post-disclosure changes in future time perspective (perceptions of limited time or possibilities left in the future), self-efficacy for managing symptoms, and perceived stigma as a function of result received.

Forty-three older adults (age = 72.0±6.2 years; education = 16.5±2.6; 88.4% White Non-Hispanic; 48.8% female) participated in the study, of whom 62.8% were diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and the remainder with Dementia of the Alzheimer's type. All participants underwent pre-disclosure biomarker education and decisional capacity assessment, followed by baseline measures. Participants demonstration decisional capacity completed an interactive disclosure session during which they received dichotomous results of their research positron emission tomography (PET) scans for amyloid and tau (elevated versus not elevated for each biomarker). Findings were discussed in relation to presence/absence of Alzheimer's disease, the etiology of their cognitive difficulties, and risk for conversion or further decline. At baseline, immediately following disclosure, and at 1-week follow-up, participants completed several questionnaires: the Future Time Perspective (FTP) scale, a measure of how much the participant sees time as limited, the Self Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease scale (SECD), and the Stigma Scale for Chronic Illness (SSCI-8), all of which were modified to apply to Alzheimer's disease and associated experiences.

The main effects of time (F=1.10, p=.334, A?p2=.026), biomarker status (F(1)=3.10, p=.086, Ajp2=.070), and the time by biomarker status interaction (F=0.39, p=.661, Ajp2=.009) on FTP score was not significant. Though neither time (F=0.07, p=.933, A?p2=.002) nor the time by biomarker status interaction (F=2.16, p=.122, Ajp2=.050) effect on SECD was significant, being biomarker positive (A+T-/A+T+) was associated with lower self-efficacy (F(1)=5.641, p=.022, Ajp2=.121). Neither main effect for time (F=0.15, p=.853, Ajp2=.004) or biomarker status (F(1)=0.35, p=.558, A?p2=.009) on SSCI-8 was significant. The time by biomarker status interaction was significant (f=4.27, p=.018, =.096), such that biomarker negative participants experience a transient increase in perceived stigma directly after disclosure that resolves one week later, and biomarker negative participants experience the opposite pattern.

Findings suggest that individuals who receive biomarker positive results may feel less competent to manage their symptoms compared to those who are biomarker negative, emphasizing the need for post-disclosure interventions targeting self-efficacy. The effect of disclosure on perceptions of time being limited and on perceived stigma were minimal, even when those results indicate evidence of Alzheimer's disease and risk for clinical progression. These results further support the safety of biomarker disclosure procedures. Future studies should provide longer-term assessment of psychological, behavioral, and clinical outcomes following Alzheimer's disease biomarker disclosure.

Cognitive difficulties are amongst the most frequently reported sequelae following COVID-19 infection, even in those experiencing mild to moderate illness (Matos et al., 2021). Recent research has identified patterns of diminished cognitive performance on tests of memory and executive functioning in COVID-19 cases; however, the etiology of neurocognitive difficulties remains unclear (Delgado-Alonso et al., 2022). Emerging evidence has identified moderate associations between decreased performance on neuropsychological tests of memory and elevated anxiety and depression symptom reporting in COVID-19 patients. Similar associations are well-established in the literature in persons with anxiety and depression disorders, warranting further investigation as to whether mental health variables such as internalizing symptom severity may moderate the association between COVID-19 illness and cognitive difficulties. This study examined how internalizing symptoms as indexed by depression and anxiety symptom scales may differentially influence performance on neuropsychological tests of memory between persons who have and have not had COVID-19.

In this cross-sectional study, 104 adults aged 19-80, were recruited in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada; 84 adults met inclusion criteria and participated in neuropsychological testing. There were 40 participants who tested positive for COVID-19 infection (N=44 with no suspected exposures or confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19). Participants had no history of dementia, mild cognitive impairment, or other known neurological disorder. Anxiety and depression symptoms were measured using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) and Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) via self-report on Qualtrics. Memory encoding and delayed recognition performance were assessed using the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test Revised (HVLT-R) and the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery Shape Learning subtest (NAB-SL). To test for potential moderating effects of anxiety and depression symptoms on the association between COVID-19 infection status and memory performance, a series of multiple linear regressions were conducted. Age and sex were included as covariates in all analyses.

Moderation analyses revealed that the interaction between COVID-19 infection and anxiety symptoms accounted for a significant portion of variance in both HVLT-R recognition (B= -0.78, SE= 0.34, p<0.05) and NAB-SL delayed recognition scores (B= -0.83, SE= 0.35, p<0.05). Simple slopes analyses revealed that among participants who tested positive for COVID-19 infection, higher GAD-7 scores were associated with lower verbal and visual recognition scores. A similar interaction was observed between COVID-19 and depressive symptoms in accounting for variance in NAB-SL delayed recognition scores, however, for that model the threshold of p=0.05 was not met in our small sample (p=0.07).

Findings demonstrate that anxiety symptom severity had a moderating effect on the impact of COVID-19 on delayed retrieval of verbal and visual information from memory. Future work in a larger sample is needed to further elucidate the potential moderating role of depression on memory in COVID-19 positive persons, as the current work suggests that depression symptoms could have a similar impact as anxiety. Further identifying the relationships between key modifiable psychological factors such as anxiety and memory following COVID-19 infection will provide insight into potential interventions to minimize the negative effects of internalizing symptoms on long-term cognitive outcomes.

There are many potential benefits of early identification of those with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), including more opportunity for early intervention to slow AD progression (e.g., treatment, lifestyle changes, etc.) and to plan for the future. Positron emission tomography (PET) scans for abnormal amyloid and tau are commonly conducted in research settings. Despite strong interest in learning AD biomarker results, participants rarely receive their research data, in part due to concern about the possibility of undue distress based on results. We aimed to explore both positive and negative emotional reactions following PET biomarker disclosure as a function of result received.

Forty-three older adults (age = 72.0±6.21 years, education = 16.5±2.62 years, 49% Female, 88% White Non-Hispanic) completed PET amyloid and tau testing and disclosure. Sixty-three percent were diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) while the remainder of participants were diagnosed with Dementia Alzheimer’s type (DAT). Participants completed pre-disclosure biomarker education and a decisional capacity assessment followed by baseline measures. Participants then completed a disclosure session where they received personal PET amyloid and tau results on an elevated vs. not elevated scale for each ligand. Results were discussed in relation to presence/absence of Alzheimer’s disease, how the result relates to their cognitive difficulties, and risk of developing Dementia-Alzheimer’s Type. At baseline (pre-disclosure), immediately post-disclosure, and 1-week post-disclosure, participants completed the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), The Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 Item (GDS-15), Impact of Neuroimaging in AD (INI-AD) Scale, and the Positive and Negative Affective Scale - Short Form (PANAS-SF). All questionnaires were modified to apply to Alzheimer’s disease and related experiences.

Of the 43 participants who participated in disclosure, 74% received biomarker positive results (either A+T- or A+T+); all others were biomarker negative. We conducted a series of mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests to determine the effect of disclosure and biomarker status for each of the outcomes of interest. Neither the effect of time nor the time by biomarker status interaction was significant for any of the outcomes (all p>.05). The main effect of biomarker status was significant for BAI (F(1)=5.12, p=.031, n,p2=.146) and INI-AD Distress (F(1)=12.70, p=.001, np2=.241) and Positive (F(1)=34.57, p<.001, np2=.464) subscale scores with A+T-/A+T+ participants reporting higher negative affect than those who were A-/T-; however, even among biomarker positive individuals, scores did not exceed clinical thresholds. GDS-15, PANAS-Negative and Positive Subscale scores did not differ significantly by biomarker status (all p>.05) and no significant adverse events occurred following disclosure. Additionally, no participants cited regret about receiving their results.

While disclosure of biomarker positivity may result in mild increases in acute anxiety or distress, or fewer positive emotions, it does not result in clinically significant emotional reactions and was not associated with regret. Overall, findings are consistent with literature indicating safety of biomarker disclosure procedures for symptomatic individuals. Future research should follow participants over longer periods to evaluate the impacts of biomarker disclosure.

Neurocognitive deficits commonly occur following pediatric stroke and can impact many neuropsychological domains. Despite awareness of these deleterious effects, neurocognitive outcome after pediatric stroke, especially hemorrhagic stroke, is understudied. This clinical study aimed to elucidate the impact of eight factors identified in the scientific literature as possible predictors of neurocognitive outcome following pediatric stroke: age at stroke, stroke type (i.e., ischemic vs. hemorrhagic), lesion size, lesion location (i.e., brain region, structures impacted, and laterality), time since stroke, neurologic severity, seizures post-stroke, and socioeconomic status.

Ninety-two patients, ages six to 25 and with a history of pediatric stroke, chose to participate in the study and were administered standardized neuropsychological tests assessing verbal reasoning, abstract reasoning, working memory, processing speed, attention, learning ability, long-term memory, and visuomotor integration. A standardized parent questionnaire provided an estimate of executive functioning. Statistical analyses included spline regressions to examine the impact of age at stroke and lesion size, further divided by stroke type; a series of one-way analysis of variance to examine differences in variables with three levels; Welch’s t-tests to examine dichotomous variables; and simple linear regressions for continuous variables.

Lesion size, stroke type, age at stroke, and socioeconomic status were identified as predictors of neurocognitive outcome in our sample. Large lesions were associated with worse neurocognitive outcomes compared to small to medium lesions across neurocognitive domains. Exploratory spline regressions suggested that ischemic stroke was associated with worse neurocognitive outcomes than hemorrhagic stroke. Based on patterns shown in graphs, age at stroke appeared to have an impact on outcome depending on the neurocognitive domain and stroke type, with U-shaped trends suggesting worse outcome across most domains when stroke occurred at approximately 5 to 10 years of age. Socioeconomic status positively predicted outcomes across most neurocognitive domains. Participants with seizures had more severe executive functioning impairments than youth without seizures. Youth with combined cortical-subcortical lesions scored lower on abstract reasoning than youth with cortical and youth with subcortical lesions, and lower on attention than youth with cortical lesions. Neurologic severity predicted scores on abstract reasoning, attention, processing speed, and visuomotor integration, depending on stroke type. There was no evidence of differences on outcome measures based on time since stroke, lesion laterality, or lesion region defined as supra-versus infratentorial.

The current study contributed to the scientific literature by identifying lesion size, stroke type, age at stroke, and socioeconomic status as predictors of neurocognitive outcome following pediatric stroke. Future research should examine other possible predictors of neurocognitive outcome that remain unexplored. Multisite collaborations would provide larger sample sizes and allow teams to build models with better statistical power and more predictors. Enhancing understanding of neurocognitive outcomes following pediatric stroke is a first step towards improving appraisals of prognosis.

Findings are clinically applicable as they provide professionals with information that can help assess individual expected patterns of recovery and thus refer patients to appropriate support services.

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.