University of Leeds

About: University of Leeds is a education organization based out in Leeds, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Context (language use). The organization has 43481 authors who have published 101856 publications receiving 3672065 citations. The organization is also known as: Leeds University.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of cognitive behaviour therapy and behaviour therapy for chronic pain in adults, excluding headache

Abstract: A computer and a hand search of the literature recovered 33 papers from which 25 trials suitable for meta-analysis were identified. We compared the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural treatments with the waiting list control and alternative treatment control conditions. There was a great diversity of measurements which we grouped into domains representing major facets of pain. Effect sizes, corrected for measurement unreliability, were estimated for each domain. When compared with the waiting list control conditions cognitive-behavioural treatments were associated with significant effect sizes on all domains of measurement (median effect size across domains=0.5). Comparison with alternative active treatments revealed that cognitive-behavioural treatments produced significantly greater changes for the domains of pain experience, cognitive coping and appraisal (positive coping measures), and reduced behavioural expression of pain. Differences on the following domains were not significant; mood/affect (depression and other, non-depression, measures), cognitive coping and appraisal (negative, e.g. catastrophization), and social role functioning. We conclude that active psychological treatments based on the principle of cognitive behavioural therapy are effective. We discuss the results with reference to the complexity and quality of the trials.

A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems

Abstract: Implementing new practices requires changes in the behaviour of relevant actors, and this is facilitated by understanding of the determinants of current and desired behaviours. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was developed by a collaboration of behavioural scientists and implementation researchers who identified theories relevant to implementation and grouped constructs from these theories into domains. The collaboration aimed to provide a comprehensive, theory-informed approach to identify determinants of behaviour. The first version was published in 2005, and a subsequent version following a validation exercise was published in 2012. This guide offers practical guidance for those who wish to apply the TDF to assess implementation problems and support intervention design. It presents a brief rationale for using a theoretical approach to investigate and address implementation problems, summarises the TDF and its development, and describes how to apply the TDF to achieve implementation objectives. Examples from the implementation research literature are presented to illustrate relevant methods and practical considerations. Researchers from Canada, the UK and Australia attended a 3-day meeting in December 2012 to build an international collaboration among researchers and decision-makers interested in the advancing use of the TDF. The participants were experienced in using the TDF to assess implementation problems, design interventions, and/or understand change processes. This guide is an output of the meeting and also draws on the authors’ collective experience. Examples from the implementation research literature judged by authors to be representative of specific applications of the TDF are included in this guide. We explain and illustrate methods, with a focus on qualitative approaches, for selecting and specifying target behaviours key to implementation, selecting the study design, deciding the sampling strategy, developing study materials, collecting and analysing data, and reporting findings of TDF-based studies. Areas for development include methods for triangulating data, e.g. from interviews, questionnaires and observation and methods for designing interventions based on TDF-based problem analysis. We offer this guide to the implementation community to assist in the application of the TDF to achieve implementation objectives. Benefits of using the TDF include the provision of a theoretical basis for implementation studies, good coverage of potential reasons for slow diffusion of evidence into practice and a method for progressing from theory-based investigation to intervention.

Large-scale association analysis identifies new risk loci for coronary artery disease

Abstract: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the commonest cause of death. Here, we report an association analysis in 63,746 CAD cases and 130,681 controls identifying 15 loci reaching genome-wide significance, taking the number of susceptibility loci for CAD to 46, and a further 104 independent variants (r(2) < 0.2) strongly associated with CAD at a 5% false discovery rate (FDR). Together, these variants explain approximately 10.6% of CAD heritability. Of the 46 genome-wide significant lead SNPs, 12 show a significant association with a lipid trait, and 5 show a significant association with blood pressure, but none is significantly associated with diabetes. Network analysis with 233 candidate genes (loci at 10% FDR) generated 5 interaction networks comprising 85% of these putative genes involved in CAD. The four most significant pathways mapping to these networks are linked to lipid metabolism and inflammation, underscoring the causal role of these activities in the genetic etiology of CAD. Our study provides insights into the genetic basis of CAD and identifies key biological pathways.

The hospital anxiety and depression scale.

Abstract: There is a need to assess the contribution of mood disorder, especially anxiety and depression, in order to understand the experience of suffering in the setting of medical practice. Most physicians are aware of this aspect of the illness of their patients but many feel incompetent to provide the patient with reliable information. The Hospital Anxiety And Depression Scale, or HADS, was designed to provide a simple yet reliable tool for use in medical practice. The term 'hospital' in its title suggests that it is only valid in such a setting but many studies conducted throughout the world have confirmed that it is valid when used in community settings and primary care medical practice. It should be emphasised that self-assessment scales are only valid for screening purposes; definitive diagnosis must rest on the process of clinical examination.