Since its development in 1993, the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) has been used widely as a psychosocial stress paradigm to activate the sympathetic nervous system and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPAA) stress systems, stimulating physiological functions (e.g. heart rate) and cortisol secretion. Several methodological variations introduced over the years have led the scientific community to question replication between studies. In this systematic review, we used the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) to synthesize procedure-related data available about the TSST protocol to highlight commonalities and differences across studies. We noted significant discrepancies across studies in how researchers applied the TSST protocol. In particular, we highlight variations in testing procedures (e.g., number of judges, initial number in the arithmetic task, time of the collected saliva samples for cortisol) and discuss possible misinterpretation in comparing findings from studies failing to control for variables or using a modified version from the original protocol. Further, we recommend that researchers use a standardized background questionnaire when using the TSST to identify factors that may influence physiological measurements in tandem with a summary of this review as a protocol guide. More systematic implementation and detailed reporting of TSST methodology will promote study replication, optimize comparison of findings, and foster an informed understanding of factors affecting responses to social stressors in healthy people and those with pathological conditions.

Objective: This meta-analysis examined group-design studies investigating the effectiveness of Daily Behavior Report Cards (DBRC) as a school-based intervention to manage the classroom behavior of students with ADHD. Methods: A search of three article databases (PsycINFO, ERIC and Medline) identified seven group design evaluations of DBRC interventions. This meta-analysis included a total of 272 participants, with an average age of 7.9 years old. Three of the studies compared a control group to a treatment group with randomized group assignment, one study compared a control group to three treatment groups, two studies compared pre-and post-treatment scores in the same group, and one study compared pre-and post-treatment results of two intervention groups without random assignment. Dependent measures for these studies were teacher ratings (n = 5) and systematic direct observation of student academic and social behaviour (n = 2). Standardized mean differences ( Hedge’s g) were calculated to obtain a pooled effect size using fixed effects. Results: DBRCs were associated with reductions teacher-rated ADHD symptoms, with a Hedge’s g of 0.36 (95% CI: 0.12-0.60, z=2.93, p ≤ .005) with low heterogeneity (Q-value: 2.40, I² = 0.00). This result excluded two studies that used observational coding instead of standardized tests to evaluate the effects of the intervention. A moderator analysis indicated that the effect size for systematic direct observation was large ( Hedge’s G = 1.05[95% CI: 0.66-1.44, z=5.25, p ≤ .00]), with very high heterogeneity (Q-value: 46.34, I²: 93.53). A second moderator analysis found differences in the effects of DBRCs for comorbid externalizing symptoms with an overall effect size of 0.34 (95%CI: -0.04-0.72, z=1.76 p =0.08) with high heterogeneity (Q-value: 3.98, I²: 74.85). Conclusions: DBRCs effectively reduce the frequency and severity of ADHD symptoms in classroom settings. Additionally, they have a significant effect on co-occuring externalizing behaviors. It appears that systematic direct observation may be a more sensitive measure of treatment effects compared to teacher ratings of ADHD symptoms.

Black communities have been disproportionately impacted by Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Canada, in terms of both number of infections and mortality rates. Yet, according to early studies, vaccine hesitancy appears to be higher in Black communities. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine the prevalence and factors associated with vaccine hesitancy in Black communities in Canada. Peer-reviewed studies published from 11 March 2020 to 26 July 2022, were searched through eleven databases: APA PsycInfo (Ovid), Cairn.info, Canadian Business & Current Affairs (ProQuest), CPI.Q (Gale OneFile), Cochrane CENTRAL (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Érudit, Global Health (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Web of Science (Clarivate). Eligible studies were published in French or English and had empirical data on the prevalence or factors associated with vaccine hesitancy in samples or subsamples of Black people. Only five studies contained empirical data on vaccine hesitancy in Black individuals and were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. Black individuals represented 1.18% (n = 247) of all included study samples (n = 20,919). Two of the five studies found that Black individuals were more hesitant to be vaccinated against COVID-19 compared to White individuals, whereas the other three found no significant differences. The studies failed to provide any evidence of factors associated with vaccine hesitancy in Black communities. Despite national concerns about vaccine hesitancy in Black communities, a color-blind approach is still predominant in Canadian health research. Of about 40 studies containing empirical data on vaccine hesitancy in Canada, only five contained data on Black communities. None analyzed factors associated with vaccine hesitancy in Black communities. Policies and strategies to strengthen health research in Black communities and eliminate the color-blind approach are discussed.