Tackle your Tics, a brief intensive group-based exposure treatment for young people with tics: results of a randomised controlled trial.

Tics can have a serious impact on the quality of life of children and their families. Behavioural therapy is an evidence-based first line treatment for tic disorders. This randomised controlled trial studied the efficacy of a brief, condensed group-based programme for children with tics (Dutch Trial Registry NL8052, 27 September 2019). Tackle your Tics is a four-day group treatment, including exposure and response prevention and supporting components, delivered by therapists and 'experts by experience'. We collected outcome measures at baseline (T1), directly post-treatment (T2), and at three- and 6-months follow-up (T3, T4) including tic severity (primary outcome measure), tic-related impairment, quality of life, tic-related cognitions, emotional/behavioural functioning, family functioning, treatment satisfaction and adherence. Outcomes directly post-treatment improved in both the treatment group (n = 52) and waiting list (n = 54), but showed no statistically significant differences between the conditions (differential change over time T1-T2) on tic severity (Yale Global Tic Severity Scale), quality of life (Gilles de la Tourette Syndrome Quality of Life Scale), tic-related cognitions and family functioning. At longer term (T3), again no between-group difference was found on tic severity, but tic-related impairment, quality of life and emotional/behavioural functioning significantly improved in the treatment group compared to the waiting list. Mean treatment satisfaction scores were favourable for both children and parents. Directly posttreatment, Tackle your Tics showed no superior effect compared to waiting list. However, on longer term this brief four-day group treatment was effective in improving tic-related impairment, quality of life and emotional/behavioural functioning.

Blood donor show behaviour after an invitation to donate: The influence of collection site factors.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Show behaviour after invitation to donate varies considerably across donors. More insight into this variation is important for blood banks in achieving stable stocks. This study examined individual factors determining intended show behaviour. Most importantly, however, this study is the first study to account for variation in donor behaviour across different collection sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We applied a multilevel approach to data from Donor InSight, including 11 889 donors from 257 fixed and mobile collection sites in the Netherlands. The aim of the multilevel models was to account for variance at two levels, that is donors and collection sites. We estimated the likelihood of showing after invitation based on individual predictors, including demographics, donation history and attitude. At the collection site level, we included satisfaction with the blood bank aggregated from individual responses by donors who donate at this site, opening hours and collection site type, that is fixed/mobile. RESULTS: Most importantly, show behaviour varied considerably across collection sites and depended on characteristics of these sites. Moreover, women, older and more experienced donors had higher odds of showing after invitation than men, younger and less experienced donors. Donors higher on warm glow, self-efficacy and donor identity more likely showed after an invitation. Higher aggregate satisfaction and donating at fixed collection sites increased the odds of show. CONCLUSION: In addition to individual factors, collection site characteristics are important in explaining variation in donor show behaviour, thus presenting clues for blood bank policies and interventions to improve donor show.

Perceived blood transfusion safety: a cross-European comparison.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: During the past decades, blood transfusions have become an ever safer clinical procedure in developed countries. Extensive donor screening together with improved infectious disease testing has led to a minimization of risks for transfusion recipients. Still, the general public perceives the process of blood transfusion as risky. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study tested variation in perceived transfusion safety across countries and explained it with individual and country factors. We examined whether individual demographic and macro-level factors (i.e. Human Development Index and Power Distance Index) explain variation within and across European countries. We applied multilevel models to 2009 Eurobarometer data collected in 26 countries (N = 20 874). RESULTS: Results were largely in line with expectations derived from risk perception and power and status difference theories. Generally, women, older adults, the lower educated and those earning lower incomes perceived heightened risk. Most of the variation across Europe was explained by the Human Development Index. Risk perception regarding blood transfusions was lower in countries with higher Human Development Indices, that is countries with higher average education, life expectancy and Gross Domestic Product. CONCLUSION: This study provides new insights of how risk perception regarding blood transfusions is shaped within and across Europe. Both individual demographic factors and country characteristics play a role.