Background: Methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) has been proven to be effective in treating opioid dependence. In Vietnam, MMT services are provided primarily by public clinics, with only one private MMT clinic established in recent years. Assessing the preferences of patients for different MMT models is important in evaluating the feasibility of these models. This study measured the preferences of drug users enrolling in public and private MMT clinics in Vietnam and examines the related factors of these preferences. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed on 395 participants at 3 methadone clinics in Nam Dinh. Data about the preferences for MMT models and sociodemographic characteristics of participants were collected. Exploratory factor analysis was employed to explore the construct validity of the questionnaire. The chi-square test and Mann-Whitney test were used for analyzing demographic characteristics and preferences of participants. Multivariate logistic regression identified factors associated with participants’ preferences. Results: Half the participants received MMT treatment in a private facility (49.4%). Two preference dimensions were defined as “Availability and convenience of service” and “Competencies of clinic and health professionals”. Self-employed patients were more likely to consider these two dimensions when choosing MMT models. Only 9.9% of participants chose “Privacy” as one of the evaluation criteria for an MMT facility. Compared to public clinics, a statistically higher percentage of patients in the private clinic chose the attitudes of health workers as the reason for using MMT service (34.7% and 7.6% respectively). Mean score of satisfaction towards MMT services was 8.6 (SD = 1.0), and this score was statistically higher in a public facility, compared to the private facility (8.7 and 8.4 respectively). Conclusions: The study highlighted patterns of patient preferences towards MMT clinics. Compared to the public MMT model, the private MMT model may need to enhance their services to improve patient satisfaction.

Depression in people living with HIV (PLWH) has become an urgent issue and has attracted the attention of both physicians and epidemiologists. Currently, 39% of HIV patients are reported to suffer from depression. This population is more likely to experience worsening disease states and, thus, poorer health outcomes. In this study, we analyzed research growth and current understandings of depression among HIV-infected individuals. The number of papers and their impacts have been considerably grown in recent years, and a total of 4872 publications published from 1990–2017 were retrieved from the Web of Science database. Research landscapes related to this research field include risk behaviors and attributable causes of depression in HIV population, effects of depression on health outcomes of PLWH, and interventions and health services for these particular subjects. We identified a lack of empirical studies in countries where PLWH face a high risk of depression, and a modest level of interest in biomedical research. By demonstrating these research patterns, highlighting the research gaps and putting forward implications, this study provides a basis for future studies and interventions in addressing the critical issue of HIV epidemics.

Background: Automatic processes, such as attentional biases or interpretative biases, have been purported to be responsible for several psychiatric disorders. Recent reviews have highlighted that cognitive biases may be modifiable. Advances in eHealth and mHealth have been harnessed for the delivery of cognitive bias modification. While several studies have evaluated mHealth-based bias modification intervention, no review, to our knowledge, has synthesized the evidence for it. In addition, no review has looked at commercial apps and their functionalities and methods of bias modification. A review is essential in determining whether scientifically validated apps are available commercially and the proportion of commercial apps that have been evaluated scientifically. Objective: The objective of this review was primarily to determine the proportion of attention or cognitive bias modification apps that have been evaluated scientifically and secondarily to determine whether the scientifically evaluated apps were commercially available. We also sought to identify commercially available bias modification apps and determine the functionalities of these apps, the methods used for attention or cognitive bias modification, and whether these apps had been evaluated scientifically. Methods: To identify apps in the published literature, we searched PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Scopus for studies published from 2000 to April 17, 2018. The search terms used were “attention bias” OR “cognitive bias” AND “smartphone” OR “smartphone application” OR “smartphone app” OR “mobile phones” OR “mobile application” OR mobile app” OR “personal digital assistant.” To identify commercial apps, we conducted a manual cross-sectional search between September 15 and 25, 2017 in the Apple iTunes and Google Play app stores. The search terms used to identify the apps were “attention bias” and “cognitive bias.” We also conducted a manual search on the apps with published evaluations. Results: The effectiveness of bias modification was reported in 7 of 8 trials that we identified in the published literature. Only 1 of the 8 previously evaluated apps was commercially available. The 17 commercial apps we identified tended to use either an attention visual search or gamified task. Only 1 commercial app had been evaluated in the published literature. Conclusions: This is perhaps the first review to synthesize the evidence for published mHealth attention bias apps. Our review demonstrated that evidence for mHealth attention bias apps is inconclusive, and quite a few commercial apps have not been validated scientifically.

Background/Aims: The psychometric properties of Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) have never been substantively investigated in caregivers of persons with dementia (PwD). We evaluated the validity and reliability of CES-D for detecting caregiver depression in dementia, and assessed whether CES-D could provide added utility beyond Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI). Method: Family caregivers of community-dwelling PwD (n = 394) completed self-administered questionnaires containing CES-D. Factorial validity was evaluated with confirmatory factor analysis; convergent and discriminant validity with Pearson’s correlation coefficient; known-group validity by comparing across key variables; and internal consistency reliability with Cronbach’s α. Cohen’s κ was used to compare the agreement between those with depression (CES-D ≥16) and those with high caregiver burden (ZBI >60). Results: CES-D demonstrated convergent, discriminant and known-group validity, consistent with a priori hypotheses. The original four-factor model of CES-D produced the best model-fit indices. Internal consistency reliability was good for the CES-D total scale (α = 0.92), but lower for the Positive affect and Interpersonal problems subscales (α = 0.70–0.74). Forty-five percent of the caregivers had depression as identified by CES-D (95% CI 40–50%), but most of them were not identified by high ZBI scores (κ = 0.16). Conclusions: CES-D is a valid and reliable scale for detecting caregiver depression in dementia. It has added utility, beyond that of a caregiver burden scale, in identifying a subgroup of caregivers with depression but not burden. However, two subscales (Positive affect and Interpersonal problems) may require caution in interpretation among non-Caucasian caregivers.

Background: Automatic biases, such as attentional biases and avoidance and interpretative biases, have been purported to be responsible for several psychiatric disorders. Gamification has been considered for cognitive bias modification, mainly to address the core issues of diminishing motivation to train over time, as bias modification intervention tasks tend to be highly repetitive. While a prior review has suggested how gamification strategies could be applied to such tasks, there remains a lack of systematic evaluation of gamified cognitive bias modification interventions in the literature. Objective: The objective of this review is to understand the overall effectiveness of a gamified approach for cognitive bias modification and inform future research that seeks to integrate gamification technologies into existing conventional bias modification interventions. Methods: To identify the relevant articles for our review, the following search terminologies were used: (“cognitive bias” OR “attention bias” OR “interpret* bias” OR “approach bias” OR “avoidance bias”) AND (“training” OR “modification” OR “practice” OR “therapy”) AND (“gamification” OR “game elements” OR “game” OR “gaming” OR “game mechanics”). PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Scopus databases were searched systematically for articles published after 2000. Articles were included if they described a gamified cognitive bias modification task and included participants with underlying psychopathological symptoms. Data were systematically extracted from the identified articles, and a qualitative synthesis was performed. Results: Four studies evaluated gamified cognitive bias modification interventions. Two studies included participants with anxiety symptoms, one with affective symptoms, and one with alcohol problems. The conventional visual probe task paradigm was used in 3 studies, and the attentional visual search task paradigm was used in the last study. We found gaming elements incorporated to include that of animations, sounds, feedback, and a point-scoring system for response time and difficulty. Of the 4 identified studies, only 2 reported their gamified interventions to be effective. Conclusions: Our review is the first to systematically synthesize the evidence for gamified cognitive bias modification interventions. The results arising from our review should be considered in the future design and conceptualization of gamified cognitive bias modification interventions. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/10154

Treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) is often associated with severe burden of disease, poor quality of life and functional impairment. Clozapine is the gold standard for the treatment of TRS, although it is also known to cause significant side effects in some patients. In view of the burgeoning interest in the role of genetic factors in precision psychiatry, we conducted a scoping review to narratively summarize the current genetic factors associated with TRS, clozapine resistance and side effects to clozapine treatment. We searched PubMed from inception to December 2022 and included 104 relevant studies in this review. Extant evidence comprised associations between TRS and clozapine resistance with genetic factors related to mainly dopaminergic and serotoninergic neurotransmitter systems, specifically, TRS and rs4680, rs4818 within COMT, and rs1799978 within DRD2; clozapine resistance and DRD3 polymorphisms, CYP1A2 polymorphisms; weight gain with LEP and SNAP-25 genes; and agranulocytosis risk with HLA-related polymorphisms. Future studies, including replication in larger multi-site samples, are still needed to elucidate putative risk genes and the interactions between different genes and their correlations with relevant clinical factors such as psychopathology, psychosocial functioning, cognition and progressive changes with treatment over time in TRS and clozapine resistance.