SUMMARY Increasing numbers and longevity of cancer survivors has furthered our insight into the factors affecting their health outcomes, suggesting that multiple factors play a role (e.g., effects of cancer treatments and health behaviors). Emotional and physical symptoms may not always receive sufficient attention. In this short narrative review highlighting recent literature, we describe the most common physical and emotional symptoms of breast cancer survivors aged 50 years and older and outline a multidisciplinary symptom management approach, regardless of symptom etiology.

For more than 25 years, research misconduct (research fraud) is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP)—although other research misbehaviors have been also added in codes of conduct and legislations. A critical issue in deciding whether research misconduct should be subject to criminal law is its definition, because not all behaviors labeled as research misconduct qualifies as serious crime. But assuming that all FFP is fraud and all non-FFP not is far from obvious. In addition, new research misbehaviors have recently been described, such as prolific authorship, and fake peer review, or boosted such as duplication of images. The scientific community has been largely successful in keeping criminal law away from the cases of research misconduct. Alleged cases of research misconduct are usually looked into by committees of scientists usually from the same institution or university of the suspected offender in a process that often lacks transparency. Few countries have or plan to introduce independent bodies to address research misconduct; so for the coming years, most universities and research institutions will continue handling alleged research misconduct cases with their own procedures. A global operationalization of research misconduct with clear boundaries and clear criteria would be helpful. There is room for improvement in reaching global clarity on what research misconduct is, how allegations should be handled, and which sanctions are appropriate.

No abstract

Background There is a strong stigma attached to mental disorders preventing those affected from getting psychological help. The consequences of stigma are worse for racial and/or ethnic minorities who often experience other social adversities such as poverty and discrimination within policies and institutions. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis summarizing the evidence on the impact of differences in mental illness stigma between racial minorities and majorities.Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis included cross-sectional studies comparing mental illness stigma between racial minorities and majorities. Systematic searches were conducted in the bibliographic databases of PubMed, PsycINFO and EMBASE until 20th December 2018. Outcomes were extracted from published reports, meta-analyses and meta-regression analyses were conducted in CMA software.Results After screening 2,787 abstracts, 29 studies with 193,418 participants (N=35,836 in racial minorities) were eligible for analyses. Racial minorities showed more stigma than racial majorities (g=0.20 (95% CI: 0.12~0.27) for common mental disorders. Sensitivity analyses showed robustness of these results. Multivariate meta-regression analyses pointed to the possible moderating role of the number of studies with high risk of bias on the effect size. Racial minorities have more stigma for common mental disorders when compared with majorities. Limitations included moderate to high risk of bias, high heterogeneity, few studies in most comparisons, and the use of non-standardized outcome measures.Conclusions An important clinical implication of these findings would be to tailor anti-stigma strategies according to specific racial and/or ethnic backgrounds with the intention to improve mental health outreach. These limitations suggest a need for more high quality research on stigma.

BackgroundPsychotherapy is an evidence-based treatment for depression, but its average effect is modest. Thus, identifying subgroups that respond especially well to psychotherapy is an important goal. This would allow maximizing the efficacy of interventions. However, the extent of treatment effect heterogeneity (TEH) has not yet been systematically investigated. A reliable, evidence-based estimate of this heterogeneity would allow a more accurate assessment of the potential effects of enhancement by personalization.MethodsUsing a large database of randomized-controlled trials on psychotherapy for depression in adults (k = 306), we performed a Bayesian variance ratio meta-regression. Based on the results, we determined the theoretically maximum possible extent of variability of individual outcomes. Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted for different types of psychotherapy. We determined the extent of expected TEH given the evidence by employing an analytical approach.OutcomesWe found for the entire sample a 9% higher variance in the intervention groups compared to the control groups, indicating TEH in psychotherapy for depression. Depending on the depression scale used, this corresponds to a standard deviation of the individual treatment effect of 3-4 points. Subgroup analyses revealed that due to a large number of studies, the evidence for TEH is strongest in cognitive-behavioural therapy, while the largest TEH was observed in behavioural activation therapy.InterpretationOur results show that the treatment effect of psychotherapy for depression varies. This is a clear indication that patients benefit differently from different interventions. Clinical or statistical methods that select the optimal intervention for each patient are likely to increase the success of treatment.