Background In clinical practice, the bodily distribution of chronic pain is often used in conjunction with other signs and symptoms to support a diagnosis or treatment plan. For example, the diagnosis of fibromyalgia involves tallying the areas of pain that a patient reports using a drawn body map. It remains unclear whether patterns of pain distribution independently inform aspects of the pain experience and influence patient outcomes. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the clinical relevance of patterns of pain distribution using an algorithmic approach agnostic to diagnosis or patient-reported facets of the pain experience. Methods and findings A large cohort of patients (N = 21,658) completed pain body maps and a multi-dimensional pain assessment. Using hierarchical clustering of patients by body map selection alone, nine distinct subgroups emerged with different patterns of body region selection. Clinician review of cluster body maps recapitulated some clinically-relevant patterns of pain distribution, such as low back pain with radiation below the knee and widespread pain, as well as some unique patterns. Demographic and medical characteristics, pain intensity, pain impact, and neuropathic pain quality all varied significantly across cluster subgroups. Multivariate modeling demonstrated that cluster membership independently predicted pain intensity and neuropathic pain quality. In a subset of patients who completed 3-month follow-up questionnaires (N = 7,138), cluster membership independently predicted the likelihood of improvement in pain, physical function, and a positive overall impression of change related to multidisciplinary pain care. Conclusions This study reports a novel method of grouping patients by pain distribution using an algorithmic approach. Pain distribution subgroup was significantly associated with differences in pain intensity, impact, and clinically relevant outcomes. In the future, algorithmic clustering by pain distribution may be an important facet in chronic pain biosignatures developed for the personalization of pain management.

PurposeTo characterize a light damage paradigm and establish structural and immunocytochemical measures of acute and protracted light-induced retinal degeneration in the rhodopsin (RHO) T4R dog model of RHO–autosomal dominant retinitis pigmentosa (ADRP).MethodsRetinal light damage was induced in mutant dogs with a 1-minute exposure to various light intensities (0.1–1.0 mW/cm2) delivered with a Ganzfeld stimulator, or by fundus photography. Photoreceptor cell death was assessed by TUNEL assay, and alterations in retinal layers were examined by histology and immunohistochemistry 24 hours and 2 weeks after light exposure. Detailed topographic maps were made to document changes in the outer retinal layers of all four retinal quadrants 2 weeks post exposure.ResultsTwenty-four hours post light exposure, the severity of photoreceptor cell death was dose dependent. Immunohistochemical analysis revealed disruption of rod outer segments, focal loss of the RPE integrity, and an increase in expression of endothelin receptor B in Müller cells with the two highest doses of light and fundus photography. Two weeks after light exposure, persistence of photoreceptor death, thinning of the outer nuclear layer, and induction of Müller cell gliosis occurred with the highest doses of light.ConclusionsWe have characterized outcome measures of acute and continuing retinal degeneration in the RHO T4R dog following light exposure. These will be used to assess the molecular mechanisms of light-induced damage and rescue strategies in this large animal model of RHO-ADRP.

Objective To provide national norms and percentiles for both research and clinical scoring modalities of the Vanderbilt Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Diagnostic Parent Rating Scale (VADPRS) for a representative sample of children ages 5–12 in the United States. Method The five clinical subscales of the VADPRS were completed by 1,570 caregivers of children ages 5–12 in the United States, with children representative of the national population on key demographic variables including race, sex, ethnicity, family income, and family educational level. Descriptive statistics and measures of internal consistency of both dimensional and symptom count scoring were provided for each of the five clinical subscales of the inventory, as well as percentiles and group comparisons for select dimensional scoring subscales based on age and child sex. Results Measures of internal consistency for each subscale using both scoring modalities of the VADPRS ranged from high to acceptable. There were statistically significant differences among the different subscales for both age (ADHD hyperactivity, anxiety/depression) and sex [both presentations of ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder (ODD)] for the total sample. These differences, however, were modest in magnitude and unlikely to be clinically meaningful. Conclusions This study enhances the research and clinical utility of the VADPRS by providing national norms and percentiles for each of its subscales. Differences between age and sex across the sample were statistically significant for two of the subscales (Hyperactivity and Anxiety/Depression) with additional subscales significant for sex alone (Inattentive and ODD), but these differences were not substantial enough to indicate a need for separate cut-offs for screening purposes.

Background Screening Wizard (SW) is a technology-based decision support tool aimed at guiding primary care providers (PCPs) to respond to depression and suicidality screens in adolescents. Separate screens assess adolescents’ and parents’ reports on mental health symptoms, treatment preferences, and potential treatment barriers. A detailed summary is provided to PCPs, also identifying adolescent-parent discrepancies. The goal of SW is to enhance decision-making to increase the utilization of evidence-based treatments. Objective This qualitative study aims to describe multi-stakeholder perspectives of adolescents, parents, and providers to understand the potential barriers to the implementation of SW. Methods We interviewed 11 parents and 11 adolescents and conducted two focus groups with 18 health care providers (PCPs, nurses, therapists, and staff) across 2 pediatric practices. Participants described previous experiences with screening for depression and were shown a mock-up of SW and asked for feedback. Interviews and focus groups were transcribed verbatim, and codebooks were inductively developed based on content. Transcripts were double coded, and disagreements were adjudicated to full agreement. Completed coding was used to produce thematic analyses of the interviews and focus groups. Results We identified five main themes across the interviews and focus groups: parents, adolescents, and pediatric PCPs agree that depression screening should occur in pediatric primary care; there is concern that accurate self-disclosure does not always occur during depression screening; SW is viewed as a tool that could facilitate depression screening and that might encourage more honesty in screening responses; parents, adolescents, and providers do not want SW to replace mental health discussions with providers; and providers want to maintain autonomy in treatment decisions. Conclusions We identified that providers, parents, and adolescents are all concerned with current screening practices, mainly regarding inaccurate self-disclosure. They recognized value in SW as a computerized tool that may elicit more honest responses and identify adolescent-parent discrepancies. Surprisingly, providers did not want the SW report to include treatment recommendations, and all groups did not want the SW report to replace conversations with the PCP about depression. Although SW was originally developed as a treatment decision algorithm, this qualitative study has led us to remove this component, and instead, SW focuses on aspects identified as most useful by all groups. We hope that this initial qualitative work will improve the future implementation of SW.

BACKGROUND Screening Wizard (SW) is a technology-based decision support tool aimed at guiding primary care providers (PCPs) to respond to depression and suicidality screens in adolescents. Separate screens assess adolescents’ and parents’ reports on mental health symptoms, treatment preferences, and potential treatment barriers. A detailed summary is provided to PCPs, also identifying adolescent-parent discrepancies. The goal of SW is to enhance decision making to increase utilization of evidence-based treatments. OBJECTIVE We describe a multi-stakeholder qualitative study with adolescents, parents, and providers to understand potential barriers to implementation of SW. METHODS We interviewed 11 parents and 11 adolescents, and conducted 2 focus groups with 17 healthcare providers (PCPs, nurses, therapists, staff) across 2 pediatric practices. Participants described previous experiences with screening for depression and were shown a mock-up of SW and asked for feedback. Interviews and focus groups were transcribed verbatim, and codebooks inductively developed based on content. Transcripts were double-coded, and disagreements adjudicated to full agreement. Completed coding was used to produce thematic analyses of interviews and focus groups. RESULTS We identified five main themes across the interviews and focus groups: (1) parents, adolescents, and pediatric PCPs agree that depression screening should occur in pediatric primary care; (2) there is concern that accurate self-disclosure does not always occur during depression screening; (3) Screening Wizard is viewed as a tool that could facilitate depression screening, and which might encourage more honesty in screening responses; (4) parents, adolescents and providers do not want Screening Wizard to replace mental health discussions with providers; and (5) providers want to maintain autonomy in treatment decisions. CONCLUSIONS We identified that providers, parents, and adolescents all have concerns with current screening practices, mainly regarding inaccurate self-disclosure. They recognized value in SW as a computerized tool that may elicit more honest responses and identify adolescent-parent discrepancies. Surprisingly, providers did not want the SW report to include treatment recommendations, and all groups did not want the SW report to replace conversations with the PCP about depression. While SW was originally developed as a treatment decision algorithm, this qualitative study has led us to remove this component, and instead focus on aspects identified as most useful by all groups. We hope that this initial qualitative work will improve future implementation of SW.