Abstract. Identifying the associations between health and personality has been a focus for psychophysiological research. Type D personality is associated with predisposition to physical and psychological ill-health. This statistician-blind parallel-group controlled trial (intervention group vs. waiting list control group) examined the impact of Havening Techniques on the Type D constituents of negative affect (NA) and social inhibition (SI). One hundred twenty-five adult (18+ years) participants in the United Kingdom (72 females, 53 males) completed the Type D Scale-14 (DS14) measure of Type D personality at baseline (T1), 24-hours (T2), and at 1-month (T3). Forty participants in the treatment group received additional stress biomarker assessment of heart rate, blood pressure, and salivary cortisol. Type D caseness remained stable in the waiting list participants ( n = 57). In the treatment group ( n = 68); NA, SI, and total scores decreased from T1 to T2 ( p < .001, p < .001, and p < .001, respectively), and from T2 to T3 ( p = .004, p < .001, and p < .001, respectively), significantly transmuting to non-caseness ( p < .001 for T1 to T2; p = .025 for T2 to T3). Between T1 and T2, decreases in cortisol ( p < .001), diastolic blood pressure ( p < .001), and systolic blood pressure ( p < .001) were demonstrated. Heart rate fell nonsignificantly between T1 and T2 ( p = .063), but significantly from T1 to T3 ( p = .048). The findings of this study indicate the potential mutability of the psychophysiological illness-prone characteristics of Type D personality.

No abstract

Conceptually, resilience is broadly defined as the ability to adapt positively to trauma. Havening Techniques (HT) use psychosensory input to alter responses to stress, potentially offering an innovative treatment intervention for posttraumatic dysregulation. The objective of this study was to implement a capacity-building approach to examine the efficacy of HT intervention in augmenting resilience post-trauma. This statistician-blind, parallel-group controlled trial of treatment versus waiting list groups examined the efficacy of the intervention in 125 trauma-exposed participants. Resilience was assessed psychometrically using the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD–RISC) completed by participants prior to the intervention (Timepoint 1), 24 hours post-intervention (Timepoint 2) and one month later (Timepoint 3). CD-RISC scores were comparable at T1 in both groups. Scores remained stable between timepoints in the waiting list group. However, they significantly increased in the treatment group: 36.7 (SD 20.0) vs 70.3 (SD 10.9) vs 73.9 (SD 10.9), (p &lt; .001 for the difference between treatment and waiting list groups at both T2 and T3; effect sizes 2.60 and 2.79 respectively), indicating that HT was efficacious at augmenting resilience acutely and this was maintained at one month. This study acknowledges the benefits of resilience-focused approaches to evaluate interventions targeted at traumatic stress.

Contemporary approaches to the treatment of chronic illness in mainstream healthcare services require long-term specialist support that attend to specific health complaints rather than the multi-faceted individual case presentation. However, treatment outcomes are often poor, treatment engagement is deficient, and longitudinal efficacy is typically variable. The Läklabbet Healing Lab utilized a single-arm non-randomised pilot study design comprising multiple integrative interventions targeted at improving general wellbeing and health markers for a demographic of people with diffuse diagnoses, that had been unable to work for a period of over one-year despite conventional primary care treatment. A total of N = 6 participants were recruited to the Healing Lab, presenting with varied, multiple and complex health complaints, all of whom were female. All participants completed the intervention programme (Timepoint 2), and no participants were lost to follow up. Symptom tracking subjective rating scores at each timepoint demonstrated overall global improvement across all domains in all participants. Cognitive improvement was also observed in continuous performance testing (QIK Test CPT) outcomes. The collaborative multidisciplinary working practices augmented the therapeutic climate for change through interdisciplinary communication and continuity of care; methodology that promoted the value of collaborative inquiry and case formulation is discussed in this paper.

BackgroundCompetence is assessed throughout a doctor’s career. Failure to identify and manage impaired competence can have critical consequences. Consistent conceptualisation and accurate measurement of this construct is imperative. Therefore, the objective of this review was to identify and evaluate measures used to assess competence in doctors and medical students.MethodsA systematic search of the published literature was undertaken between December 2019 and February 2020 for articles reporting on the measurement of competence in doctors and/or medical students. Searches were conducted in the PsychSOURCE, US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, MEDLINE (PubMed), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science electronic databases. Citation screening and forward citation tracking of included studies were carried out to identify any further relevant papers for inclusion. One thousand one hundred and thirty-six potentially relevant articles were screened. An analytic synthesis approach was implemented to the identification, organisation and interpretation of homogenous study and measure characteristics.ResultsTwelve competence domains were identified from the 153 identified measures. Knowledge and procedural competence domains were the dominant focus of publications reporting current medical practice, but less so in research-based studies which more frequently assessed interpersonal, psychological, physiological and ethical competencies. In the 105 included articles, the reporting of measurement instrument quality was varied, with comprehensive reporting only present in 53.6% of measures; validation for some of the measures was particularly limited.DiscussionWhile this review included a considerable number of publications reporting the measurement of competence in doctors and medical students, the heterogeneity of the measures and variation of findings limit the ability to evaluate their validity and generalisability. However, this review presents a resource for researchers and medical educators which may inform operational practice and future research.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020162156.