Evidence-Based Considerations and Recommendations for Athletic Trainers Caring for Patients With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

CONTEXT: Patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) can be noncompliant, impulsive, and disruptive in an athletic training or physical rehabilitation facility. Athletic trainers (ATs) are valuable and essential health care providers for active patients with ADHD. However, for a patient with ADHD to have a successful outcome in a busy athletic training environment, the AT or health care provider must tailor the treatment setting to the patient's needs. OBJECTIVE: To educate and raise awareness among ATs about patients with ADHD and to provide ATs with strategies and tools that will allow them to treat patients with ADHD more effectively. DATA SOURCES: We retrieved and reviewed articles from PubMed, PsychINFO, and Ovid without date restrictions. Search words were attention deficit hyperactivity disorder plus 1 of the following topics or search words: athletic training, athletics, coaching, sport, or sport psychology. STUDY SELECTION: Any ADHD articles that were not applicable or translatable in good faith to athletic training, physical rehabilitation, or sport and exercise were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Nonpharmacologic interventions were reviewed and amassed into categories from which the recommendations were created. No statistical analyses were conducted for this review. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 1241 articles, and 86 met the inclusion criteria. Five groups of evidence were observed: (1) goal setting and coaching, (2) reinforcements and outcomes, (3) routines and treatment timing, (4) simplified feedback and instructions, and (5) environmental control. Reliable evidence suggests that these techniques can be translated and applied within an athletic training and physical rehabilitation setting. CONCLUSIONS: Athletic trainers are a vital component in providing health care for patients with ADHD. Using goal contagion creates a structured environment and positive reinforcements that accommodate patients with ADHD. Furthermore, ATs may use the evidence-based recommendations in this review to create a treatment and physical rehabilitation program and space that are tailored to the needs of the ADHD patient to increase the chance of a successful outcome.

Hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth.

BACKGROUND: This review is one in a series of Cochrane reviews investigating pain management for childbirth. These reviews all contribute to an overview of systematic reviews of pain management for women in labour, and share a generic protocol. This review updates an earlier version of the review of the same title. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness and safety of hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2015) and the reference lists of primary studies and review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTS comparing preparation for labour using hypnosis and/or use of hypnosis during labour, with or without concurrent use of pharmacological or non-pharmacological pain relief methods versus placebo, no treatment or any analgesic drug or technique. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Where possible we contacted study authors seeking additional information about data and methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine trials randomising a total of 2954 women. The risk of bias in trials was variable, there were several well-designed large trials and some trials where little was reported about trial design. Although eight of the nine trials assessed antenatal hypnotherapy, there were considerable differences between these trials in timing and technique. One trial provided hypnotherapy during labour. In this updated review we compared hypnosis interventions with all control groups (main comparison) and also with specific control conditions: standard care (nine RCTs), supportive counselling (two RCTs) and relaxation training (two RCTs).In the main comparison, women in the hypnosis group were less likely to use pharmacological pain relief or analgesia than those in the control groups, (average risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.94, eight studies, 2916 women; very low-quality evidence; random-effects model). There were no clear differences between women in the hypnosis group and those in the control groups for most of the other primary outcomes. There were no clear differences for sense of coping with labour (MD 0.22, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.58, one study, 420 women; low-quality evidence) or spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.32, six studies, 2361 women; low-quality evidence; random-effects model). There were no clear differences for satisfaction with pain relief (measured on a seven-point scale two weeks postnatally) for women in the hypnosis group who also received pethidine (MD 0.41, 95% CI -0.45 to 1.27; one study, 72 women), Entonox (MD 0.19, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.57; one study, 357 women), self-hypnosis (MD 0.28, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.88; one study, 160 women), or epidural (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.34; one study, 127 women), but a slight benefit in favour of hypnosis was seen for women who received water immersion (MD 0.52, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.00; one study, 174 women (all low-quality evidence). There were no clear differences for satisfaction with pain relief when it was measured as the number of women who reported they had adequate pain relief (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.20, one study, 264 women; low-quality evidence). It should be noted that for pharmacological pain relief and spontaneous vaginal birth, there was evidence of considerable statistical heterogeneity, which could not be fully explained by subgroup analysis.For this review's secondary outcomes, no clear differences were found between women in the hypnosis group and women in the control groups for most outcomes where data were available. There was mixed evidence regarding benefits for women in the hypnosis group compared with all control groups for pain intensity, satisfaction with childbirth experience and postnatal depression. For each of these outcomes, data from more than one trial were available for analysis but could not be combined due to differences in measurement methods. There was evidence that fewer women in the hypnosis group stayed in hospital for more than two days after the birth but this finding was based on one small study (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.83). No clear differences between women in the hypnosis group and the control groups were found for the other secondary outcomes where data were available.In the comparisons of hypnosis with specific types of control conditions: standard care, supportive counselling and relaxation training, there were no clear differences found between women in the hypnosis group and those in the standard care control groups or the relaxation control groups for the primary outcomes. Compared with the women in the supportive counselling control group, women in the hypnosis group were less likely to use pharmacological analgesia (average RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.73, two studies, 562 women). They were also more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 2.42, 95% CI 1.43 to 4.07), although this finding was based on the results of one small study. Overall these new comparisons displayed much less statistical heterogeneity than the comparison including all control groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are still only a relatively small number of studies assessing the use of hypnosis for labour and childbirth. Hypnosis may reduce the overall use of analgesia during labour, but not epidural use. No clear differences were found between women in the hypnosis group and those in the control groups for satisfaction with pain relief, sense of coping with labour or spontaneous vaginal birth. Not enough evidence currently exists regarding satisfaction with pain relief or sense of coping with labour and we would encourage any future research to prioritise the measurement of these outcomes. The evidence for the main comparison was assessed using GRADE as being of low quality for all the primary outcomes with downgrading decisions due to concerns regarding inconsistency of the evidence, limitations in design and imprecision. Further research is needed in the form of large, well-designed randomised controlled trials to assess whether hypnosis is of value for pain management during labour and childbirth.

Message Framing, Perceived Susceptibility, and Intentions to Vaccinate Children Against HPV Among African American Parents.

This research examines the interaction effect of message framing (gain vs. loss) and perceived susceptibility (i.e., perceived likelihood that one's child is at risk of contracting HPV) on African American parents' intentions to vaccinate their children against HPV. Results of an experiment (N = 193) in which parents were exposed to either a gain-framed or loss-framed message about HPV vaccination revealed a significant interaction between message framing and perceived susceptibility when parents were required to pay for the vaccine. The specific pattern of interaction suggested that parents who perceived their children to be at high risk of contracting HPV were more persuaded by the gain-framed message, whereas those who believed their children to be at low risk of contracting HPV were more persuaded by the loss-framed message. Implications of the findings for HPV vaccination messaging are discussed.

Pain relief for childbirth: the preferences of pregnant women, midwives and obstetricians.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the personal preferences of pregnant women, midwives and obstetricians regarding a range of physical, psychosocial and pharmacological methods of pain relief for childbirth. METHOD: Self-completed questionnaires were posted to a consecutive sample of 400 pregnant women booked-in to a large tertiary referral centre for maternity care in South Australia. A similar questionnaire was distributed to a national sample of 500 obstetricians as well as 425 midwives at: (1) the same hospital as the pregnant women, (2) an outer-metropolitan teaching hospital and (3) a district hospital. Eligible response rates were: pregnant women 31% (n=123), obstetricians 50% (n=242) and midwives 49% (n=210). FINDINGS: Overall, midwives had a greater personal preference for most of the physical pain relief methods and obstetricians a greater personal preference for pharmacological methods than the other groups. Pregnant women's preferences were generally located between the two care provider groups, though somewhat closer to the midwives. All groups had the greatest preference for having a support person for labour with more than 90% of all participants wanting such support. The least preferred method for pregnant women was pethidine/morphine (14%). CONCLUSION: There are differences in the personal preferences of pregnant women, midwives and obstetricians regarding pain relief for childbirth. It is important that the pain relief methods available in maternity care settings reflect the informed preferences of pregnant women.

Hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth.

BACKGROUND: This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pain management for childbirth. These reviews all contribute to an overview of systematic reviews of pain management for women in labour, and share a generic protocol. We examined the current evidence regarding the use of hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth. This review updates the findings regarding hypnosis from an earlier review of complementary and alternative therapies for pain management in labour into a stand-alone review. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness and safety of hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (11 January 2012) and the reference lists of primary studies and review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing preparation for labour using hypnosis and/or use of hypnosis during labour, with or without concurrent use of pharmacological or non-pharmacological pain relief methods versus placebo, no treatment or any analgesic drug or technique. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two assessors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Where possible we contacted study authors seeking additional information about data and methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials randomising a total of 1213 women. All but one of the trials were at moderate to high risk of bias. Although six of the seven trials assessed antenatal hypnotherapy, there were considerable differences between these trials in timing and technique. One trial provided hypnotherapy during labour. No significant differences between women in the hypnosis group and those in the control group were found for the primary outcomes: use of pharmacological pain relief (average risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 1.01, six studies, 1032 women), spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.96, four studies, 472 women) or satisfaction with pain relief (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.20, one study, 264 women). There was significant statistical heterogeneity in the data for use of pharmacological pain relief and spontaneous vaginal birth. The primary outcome of sense of coping with labour was reported in two studies as showing no beneficial effect (no usable data available for this review).  For secondary outcomes, no significant differences were identified between women in the hypnosis group and women in the control group for most outcomes where data were available. For example, there was no significant difference for satisfaction with the childbirth experience (average RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.59, two studies, 370 women), admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit (average RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.89, two studies, 347 women) or breastfeeding at discharge from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.03, one study, 304 women). There was some evidence of benefits for women in the hypnosis group compared with the control group for pain intensity, length of labour and maternal hospital stay, although these findings were based on single studies with small numbers of women. Pain intensity was found to be lower for women in the hypnosis group than those in the control group in one trial of 60 women (mean difference (MD) -0.70, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.37). The same study found that the average length of labour from 5 cm dilation to birth (minutes) was significantly shorter for women in the hypnosis group (mean difference -165.20, 95% CI -223.53 to -106.87, one study, 60 women). Another study found that a smaller proportion of women in the hypnosis group stayed in hospital for more than two days after the birth compared with women in the control group (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.83, one study, 42 women). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are still only a small number of studies assessing the use of hypnosis for labour and childbirth. Although the intervention shows some promise, further research is needed before recommendations can be made regarding its clinical usefulness for pain management in maternity care.

HPV vaccine information in the blogosphere: how positive and negative blogs influence vaccine-related risk perceptions, attitudes, and behavioral intentions.

This research examines the impact of exposure to online blogs about the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine on vaccine-related risk perceptions, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. In a controlled experiment (N = 341), college students were exposed to either a negative blog post about the HPV vaccine or a positive one. Compared to the control group, participants who had viewed the negative blog perceived the vaccine as less safe, held more negative attitudes toward the vaccine, and had reduced intentions to receive the vaccine. In contrast, exposure to the positive blog did not alter any vaccine-related risk perceptions, attitudes, or intentions. Implications of the findings for online vaccine risk communication are discussed.

When vaccines go viral: an analysis of HPV vaccine coverage on YouTube.

This article reports a content analysis of YouTube videos related to the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. In total, 172 YouTube videos were examined with respect to video sources, tones, and viewer responses. Additionally, coverage of specific content was analyzed through the lens of the Health Belief Model (Rosenstock, 1974) and in terms of two content themes (i.e., conspiracy theory and civil liberties). The relations among these aspects of the videos were assessed as well. We found that most of these videos were news clips or consumer-generated content. The majority of the videos were negative in tone, disapproving of the HPV vaccine. In addition, negative videos were liked more by the viewers than positive or ambiguous ones. Accusations of conspiracy theory and infringement of civil liberties were manifested in these videos. The videos also presented mixed information related to the key determinants of health behavior as stipulated in the Health Belief Model. Implications for the findings are discussed.

Acceptability of the H1N1 vaccine among older adults: the interplay of message framing and perceived vaccine safety and efficacy.

This study examines the relative effectiveness of using gain- versus loss-framed messages to promote H1N1 vaccination among older adults, focusing on the moderating roles of perceived vaccine safety and efficacy. An experiment was conducted with older adults recruited from senior centers in the state of Maryland. Results show that older adults who perceived low vaccine efficacy developed greater intentions to receive the vaccine when presented with a loss-framed message (versus a gain-framed message). For those who perceived high vaccine efficacy, message framing did not make a difference in postexposure intentions. Evidence regarding the interaction between message framing and perceived vaccine safety is limited. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

Sorting through search results: a content analysis of HPV vaccine information online.

INTRODUCTION: Surveys have shown that many people now turn to the Internet for health information when making health-related decisions. This study systematically analyzed the HPV vaccine information returned by online search engines. HPV is the most common sexually transmitted disease and is the leading cause of cervical cancers. METHODS: We conducted a content analysis of 89 top search results from Google, Yahoo, Bing, and Ask.com. The websites were analyzed with respect to source, tone, information related to specific content analyzed through the lens of the Health Belief Model, and in terms of two content themes (i.e., conspiracy theories and civil liberties). The relations among these aspects of the websites were also explored. RESULTS: Most websites were published by nonprofit or academic sources (34.8%) and governmental agencies (27.4%) and were neutral in tone (57.3%), neither promoting nor opposing the HPV vaccine. Overall, the websites presented suboptimal or inaccurate information related to the five behavioral predictors stipulated in the Health Belief Model. Questions related to civil liberties were present on some websites. CONCLUSION: Health professionals designing online communication with the intent of increasing HPV vaccine uptake should take care to include information about the risks of HPV, including susceptibility and severity. Additionally, websites should include information about the benefits of the vaccine (i.e., effective against HPV), low side effects as a barrier that can be overcome, and ways in which to receive the vaccine to raise individual self-efficacy.