Daydreaming and grandiose delusions: development of the Qualities of Daydreaming Scale.

BACKGROUND: Daydreaming may contribute to the maintenance of grandiose delusions. Repeated, pleasant and vivid daydreams about the content of grandiose delusions may keep the ideas in mind, elaborate the details, and increase the degree of conviction in the delusion. Pleasant daydreams more generally could contribute to elevated mood, which may influence the delusion content. AIMS: We sought to develop a brief questionnaire, suitable for research and clinical practice, to assess daydreaming and test potential associations with grandiosity. METHOD: 798 patients with psychosis (375 with grandiose delusions) and 4518 non-clinical adults (1788 with high grandiosity) were recruited. Participants completed a daydreaming item pool and measures of grandiosity, time spent thinking about the grandiose belief, and grandiose belief conviction. Factor analysis was used to derive the Qualities of Daydreaming Scale (QuOD) and associations were tested using pairwise correlations and structural equation modelling. RESULTS: The questionnaire had three factors: realism, pleasantness, and frequency of daydreams. The measure was invariant across clinical and non-clinical groups. Internal consistency was good (alpha-ordinals: realism=0.86, pleasantness=0.93, frequency=0.82) as was test-retest reliability (intra-class coefficient=0.75). Daydreaming scores were higher in patients with grandiose delusions than in patients without grandiose delusions or in the non-clinical group. Daydreaming was significantly associated with grandiosity, time spent thinking about the grandiose delusion, and grandiose delusion conviction, explaining 19.1, 7.7 and 5.2% of the variance in the clinical group data, respectively. Similar associations were found in the non-clinical group. CONCLUSIONS: The process of daydreaming may be one target in psychological interventions for grandiose delusions.

Efficiency, Precision, Validity, and Reliability of GlauCAT-Asian Computerized Adaptive Tests in Measuring Glaucoma-Related Quality of Life.

Purpose: To determine the efficiency, precision, and agreement of GlauCAT-Asian and its corresponding validity and reliability. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 219 participants (mean ± standard deviation age, 66.59 ± 8.61 years; 34% female) across the spectrum of glaucoma severity and 50 glaucoma suspects were recruited from glaucoma clinics in Singapore. Participants answered seven computerized adaptive testing (CAT) evaluations (Ocular Comfort, Activity Limitation, Lighting, Mobility, Concerns, Psychosocial, Glaucoma Management) and underwent eye examinations. Efficiency (mean number of items required for each CAT and time taken for CAT versus full item banks [IBs]), agreement (concordance between CATs and full IB person measures, henceforth referred to as scores), and precision (standard error of measurement [SE]) were evaluated. Other validity and reliability metrics were also assessed. Results: The mean number of items administered ranged from 9 (Mobility/Glaucoma Management) to 12 (Ocular Comfort). Compared to answering the full IBs, CATs provided an average time saving of 38.3% (range, 10% to 70.6% for Lighting and Activity Limitation, respectively). Agreement between scores obtained by CAT versus full IB was high (intracorrelation coefficient ≥0.75), as was precision of score estimates (mean SE range: 0.35 for Psychosocial to 0.29 for Mobility). Scores from Activity Limitation, Mobility, Lighting, and Concerns decreased significantly as glaucoma severity increased (criterion validity; P-trend <0.05). All tests displayed good convergent/divergent validity and test-retest reliability. Conclusions: GlauCAT-Asian provides efficient, precise, accurate, valid, and reliable measurement of the patient-centered impact of glaucoma. Translational Relevance: GlauCAT-Asian may provide a valuable clinical tool for ophthalmologists to monitor impact of disease progression and the effectiveness of therapies.

Explaining paranoia: cognitive and social processes in the occurrence of extreme mistrust.

BACKGROUND: Paranoia-incorrectly thinking that others are deliberating trying to harm you-causes distress, undermines social interactions and leads to withdrawal. It presents across multiple psychiatric diagnoses. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim was to determine the extent that cognitive and social processes may explain paranoia. The secondary aim was to identify explanatory factors that distinguished paranoia and social anxiety. METHODS: 10 382 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income and region, participated in a non-probability survey. All participants completed a paranoia measure and assessments of cognitive and social processes. Structural equation modelling was conducted. FINDINGS: 2586 (24.9%) participants described being mistrustful of other people. 1756 (16.9%) participants wanted help to trust more. 66.7% of variance in paranoia was explained by a model comprising (in descending order of importance): within-situation defence behaviours, negative images, negative self-beliefs, discrimination, dissociation, aberrant salience, anxiety sensitivity, agoraphobic distress, worry, less social support, agoraphobic avoidance, less analytical reasoning and alcohol use. All explanatory factors were associated with paranoia and social anxiety. Ten factors were more closely associated with paranoia than social anxiety, including discrimination, hallucinations, negative images, aberrant salience and alcohol use. Nine factors were more closely associated with social anxiety, including less positive self-belief, an external locus of control, worry and less analytical reasoning. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple causes are likely to be involved in paranoia. Cognitive and social processes may explain a high degree of paranoia. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Multiple clear targets for intervention to reduce paranoia are identified.

Validating the Unmind Index as a measure of mental health and wellbeing among adults in USA, Australia, and New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: The Unmind Index is a 26-item, 7-subscale measure of mental health and wellbeing designed for use on the Unmind digital workplace mental health platform. The Unmind Index was developed and validated in the UK but is used internationally. This paper reports further psychometric validation of this measure for use in USA, Australia, and New Zealand (ANZ). METHODS: Participants in four countries completed the Unmind Index and a battery of existing measures. In Study 1 (N = 770), we validated the Unmind Index separately in USA and in ANZ. In Study 2 (N = 600), we used multiple group confirmatory factor analysis to test the measurement invariance of the Unmind Index across the UK, USA, and ANZ. RESULTS: Study 1 establishes the factor structure, reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and measurement invariance by age and gender of the Unmind Index separately for USA and for ANZ. Study 2 further demonstrates measurement invariance across locations, and establishes benchmark scores by location, age, and gender. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the Unmind Index is valid and reliable as a measure of mental health and wellbeing in these locations.

The Oxford Agoraphobic Avoidance Scale.

BACKGROUND: Agoraphobic avoidance of everyday situations is a common feature in many mental health disorders. Avoidance can be due to a variety of fears, including concerns about negative social evaluation, panicking, and harm from others. The result is inactivity and isolation. Behavioural avoidance tasks (BATs) provide an objective assessment of avoidance and in situ anxiety but are challenging to administer and lack standardisation. Our aim was to draw on the principles of BATs to develop a self-report measure of agoraphobia symptoms. METHOD: The scale was developed with 194 patients with agoraphobia in the context of psychosis, 427 individuals in the general population with high levels of agoraphobia, and 1094 individuals with low levels of agoraphobia. Factor analysis, item response theory, and receiver operating characteristic analyses were used. Validity was assessed against a BAT, actigraphy data, and an existing agoraphobia measure. Test-retest reliability was assessed with 264 participants. RESULTS: An eight-item questionnaire with avoidance and distress response scales was developed. The avoidance and distress scales each had an excellent model fit and reliably assessed agoraphobic symptoms across the severity spectrum. All items were highly discriminative (avoidance: a = 1.24-5.43; distress: a = 1.60-5.48), indicating that small increases in agoraphobic symptoms led to a high probability of item endorsement. The scale demonstrated good internal reliability, test-retest reliability, and validity. CONCLUSIONS: The Oxford Agoraphobic Avoidance Scale has excellent psychometric properties. Clinical cut-offs and score ranges are provided. This precise assessment tool may help focus attention on the clinically important problem of agoraphobic avoidance.

Measuring glaucoma quality of life in an Asian population using item banking: psychometric evaluation and computerized adaptive testing simulations.

PURPOSE: To assess the psychometric properties of glaucoma-specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) item banks (IBs), and explore their efficiency using computerized adaptive testing (CAT) simulations. METHODS: In this cross-sectional, clinical study, 300 Asian glaucoma patients answered 221 items within seven IBs: Ocular Comfort Symptoms (OS); Activity Limitation (AL); Lighting (LT); Mobility (MB); Glaucoma Management (GM); Psychosocial (PSY); and Work (WK). Rasch analysis was conducted to assess each IB's psychometric properties (e.g., item "fit" to the construct; unidimensionality) and a set of analytic performance criteria guiding decision making relating to retaining or dropping domains and items was employed. CAT simulations determined the mean number of items for 'high' and 'moderate' measurement precision (stopping rule: SEM 0.3 and 0.387, respectively). RESULTS: Participants' mean age was 67.2 ± 9.2 years (62% male; 87% Chinese). LT, MB, and GM displayed good psychometric properties overall. To optimize AL's psychometric properties, 16 items were deleted due to poor "fit", high missing data, item bias, low discrimination and/or a low clinical/patient importance rating. To resolve multidimensionality in PSY, we rehomed 16 items into a "Concern (CN)" domain. PSY and CN required further amendment, including collapsing of response categories, and removal of poorly functioning items (N = 7). Due to poor measurement precision, low applicability and high ceiling effect, low test information indices, and low item separation index the WK IB was not considered further. In CAT simulations on the final seven IBs (n = 182 items total), an average of 12.1 and 15.7 items per IB were required for moderate and high precision measurement, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: After reengineering our seven IBs, they displayed robust psychometric properties and good efficiency in CAT simulations. Once finalized, GlauCAT™-Asian may enable comprehensive assessment of the HRQoL impact of glaucoma and associated treatments.

The Difficulties of Grandiose Delusions: Harms, Challenges, and Implications for Treatment Engagement.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Grandiose delusions may entail difficult responsibilities and detrimental actions for patients. Recognition of these consequences by patients may provide an avenue for engagement in treatment. Furthermore, when patients carry out actions within the delusional system ("immersion behaviors") or spend considerable time thinking about their grandiose beliefs this may contribute to the persistence of the grandiosity and further harmful consequences. We, therefore, investigated grandiose-related subjective harm, immersion behaviors, and perseverative thinking. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study with 798 patients with psychosis (375 of whom had grandiose delusions) and 4518 nonclinical adults. Factor analyses using data from participants scoring highly on grandiosity were used to form 3 scales: subjective harm from exceptional experiences questionnaire; immersion behaviors questionnaire; and thinking about exceptional experiences questionnaire. Associations with grandiosity were tested using structural equation modeling. STUDY RESULTS: A total of 268 (77.9%) patients with grandiose delusions identified grandiose-related harms in the past 6 months and 199 (55.1%) wanted help. Immersion behaviors and perseverative thinking were highly prevalent, and explained 39.5% and 20.4% of the variance in grandiosity, respectively. Immersion behaviors and perseverative thinking were significantly associated with subjective harm, even when severity of grandiosity was controlled. Requests for help were associated with higher levels of subjective harm, use of immersion behaviors, and perseverative thinking but not severity of grandiosity. CONCLUSIONS: Acting on grandiose delusions, including harmful behaviors and excessive thinking about grandiose delusions, may be routes for clinicians to engage patients in treatment. This could be a starting point for targeted psychological interventions for grandiose delusions.

Injection fears and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

BACKGROUND: When vaccination depends on injection, it is plausible that the blood-injection-injury cluster of fears may contribute to hesitancy. Our primary aim was to estimate in the UK adult population the proportion of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy explained by blood-injection-injury fears. METHODS: In total, 15 014 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income and region, took part (19 January-5 February 2021) in a non-probability online survey. The Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale assessed intent to be vaccinated. Two scales (Specific Phobia Scale-blood-injection-injury phobia and Medical Fear Survey-injections and blood subscale) assessed blood-injection-injury fears. Four items from these scales were used to create a factor score specifically for injection fears. RESULTS: In total, 3927 (26.2%) screened positive for blood-injection-injury phobia. Individuals screening positive (22.0%) were more likely to report COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy compared to individuals screening negative (11.5%), odds ratio = 2.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.97-2.40, p < 0.001. The population attributable fraction (PAF) indicated that if blood-injection-injury phobia were absent then this may prevent 11.5% of all instances of vaccine hesitancy, AF = 0.11; 95% CI 0.09-0.14, p < 0.001. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was associated with higher scores on the Specific Phobia Scale, r = 0.22, p < 0.001, Medical Fear Survey, r = 0.23, p = <0.001 and injection fears, r = 0.25, p < 0.001. Injection fears were higher in youth and in Black and Asian ethnic groups, and explained a small degree of why vaccine hesitancy is higher in these groups. CONCLUSIONS: Across the adult population, blood-injection-injury fears may explain approximately 10% of cases of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Addressing such fears will likely improve the effectiveness of vaccination programmes.

Virtual reality (VR) therapy for patients with psychosis: satisfaction and side effects.

BACKGROUND: Automated virtual reality therapies are being developed to increase access to psychological interventions. We assessed the experience with one such therapy of patients diagnosed with psychosis, including satisfaction, side effects, and positive experiences of access to the technology. We tested whether side effects affected therapy. METHODS: In a clinical trial 122 patients diagnosed with psychosis completed baseline measures of psychiatric symptoms, received gameChange VR therapy, and then completed a satisfaction questionnaire, the Oxford-VR Side Effects Checklist, and outcome measures. RESULTS: 79 (65.8%) patients were very satisfied with VR therapy, 37 (30.8%) were mostly satisfied, 3 (2.5%) were indifferent/mildly dissatisfied, and 1 (0.8%) person was quite dissatisfied. The most common side effects were: difficulties concentrating because of thinking about what might be happening in the room (n = 17, 14.2%); lasting headache (n = 10, 8.3%); and the headset causing feelings of panic (n = 9, 7.4%). Side effects formed three factors: difficulties concentrating when wearing a headset, feelings of panic using VR, and worries following VR. The occurrence of side effects was not associated with number of VR sessions, therapy outcomes, or psychiatric symptoms. Difficulties concentrating in VR were associated with slightly lower satisfaction. VR therapy provision and engagement made patients feel: proud (n = 99, 81.8%); valued (n = 97, 80.2%); and optimistic (n = 96, 79.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with psychosis were generally very positive towards the VR therapy, valued having the opportunity to try the technology, and experienced few adverse effects. Side effects did not significantly impact VR therapy. Patient experience of VR is likely to facilitate widespread adoption.

The Disease Influenced Vaccine Acceptance Scale-Six (DIVAS-6): Validation of a Measure to Assess Disease-Related COVID-19 Vaccine Attitudes and Concerns.

Patients with underlying comorbidities are particularly vulnerable to poor outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Despite the context-specific nature of vaccine hesitancy, there are currently no scales that incorporate disease or treatment-related hesitancy factors. We developed a six-item scale assessing disease-related COVID-19 vaccine attitudes and concerns (The Disease Influenced COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance Scale-Six: DIVAS-6). A survey incorporating the DIVAS-6 was completed by 4683 participants with severe and/or chronic illness (3560 cancer; 842 diabetes; 281 multiple sclerosis (MS)). The survey included the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale, demographic, disease-related, and vaccination status questions. The six items loaded onto two factors (disease complacency and vaccine vulnerability) using exploratory factor analysis and exploratory structural equation modeling. The two factors were internally consistent. Measurement invariance analysis showed the two factors displayed psychometric equivalence across the patient groups. Each factor significantly correlated with the two Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine scales, showing convergent validity. The summary score showed acceptable ability to discriminate vaccination status across diseases, with the total sample providing good-to-excellent discriminative ability. The DIVAS-6 has two factors measuring COVID-19 vaccine attitudes and concerns relating to potential complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to underlying disease (disease complacency) and vaccine-related impact on disease progression and treatment (vaccine vulnerability). This is the first validated scale to measure disease-related COVID-19 vaccine concerns and has been validated in people with cancer, diabetes, and MS. It is quick to administer and should assist with guiding information delivery about COVID-19 vaccination in medically vulnerable populations.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Australian Patients with Solid Organ Cancers.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is the cornerstone of the global public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Excess morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 infection is seen in people with cancer. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has been observed in this medically vulnerable population, although associated attitudes and beliefs remain poorly understood. METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey of people with solid organ cancers was conducted through nine health services across Australia. Demographics, cancer-related characteristics and vaccine uptake were collected. Perceptions and beliefs regarding COVID-19 vaccination were assessed using the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale and the Disease Influenced Vaccine Acceptance Scale-6. RESULTS: Between June and October 2021, 2691 people with solid organ cancers completed the survey. The median age was 62.5 years (SD = 11.8; range 19-95), 40.9% were male, 71.3% lived in metropolitan areas and 90.3% spoke English as their first language. The commonest cancer diagnoses were breast (36.6%), genitourinary (18.6%) and gastrointestinal (18.3%); 59.2% had localized disease and 56.0% were receiving anti-cancer therapy. Most participants (79.7%) had at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose. Vaccine uptake was higher in people who were older, male, metropolitan, spoke English as a first language and had a cancer diagnosis for more than six months. Vaccine hesitancy was higher in people who were younger, female, spoke English as a non-dominant language and lived in a regional location, and lower in people with genitourinary cancer. Vaccinated respondents were more concerned about being infected with COVID-19 and less concerned about vaccine safety and efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: People with cancer have concerns about acquiring COVID-19, which they balance against vaccine-related concerns about the potential impact on their disease progress and/or treatment. Detailed exploration of concerns in cancer patients provides valuable insights, both for discussions with individual patients and public health messaging for this vulnerable population.

Serious Underlying Medical Conditions and COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: A Large Cross-Sectional Analysis from Australia.

As COVID-19 vaccinations became available and were proven effective in preventing serious infection, uptake amongst individuals varied, including in medically vulnerable populations. This cross-sectional multi-site study examined vaccine uptake, hesitancy, and explanatory factors amongst people with serious and/or chronic health conditions, including the impact of underlying disease on attitudes to vaccination. A 42-item survey was distributed to people with cancer, diabetes, or multiple sclerosis across ten Australian health services from 30 June to 5 October 2021. The survey evaluated sociodemographic and disease-related characteristics and incorporated three validated scales measuring vaccine hesitancy and vaccine-related beliefs generally and specific to their disease: the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale and the Disease Influenced Vaccine Acceptance Scale-Six. Among 4683 participants (2548 [54.4%] female, 2108 [45.0%] male, 27 [0.6%] other; mean [SD] age, 60.6 [13.3] years; 3560 [76.0%] cancer, 842 [18.0%] diabetes, and 281 [6.0%] multiple sclerosis), 3813 (81.5%) self-reported having at least one COVID-19 vaccine. Unvaccinated status was associated with younger age, female sex, lower education and income, English as a second language, and residence in regional areas. Unvaccinated participants were more likely to report greater vaccine hesitancy and more negative perceptions toward vaccines. Disease-related vaccine concerns were associated with unvaccinated status and hesitancy, including greater complacency about COVID-19 infection, and concerns relating to vaccine efficacy and impact on their disease and/or treatment. This highlights the need to develop targeted strategies and education about COVID-19 vaccination to support medically vulnerable populations and health professionals.

A New Digital Assessment of Mental Health and Well-being in the Workplace: Development and Validation of the Unmind Index.

BACKGROUND: Unmind is a workplace, digital, mental health platform with tools to help users track, maintain, and improve their mental health and well-being (MHWB). Psychological measurement plays a key role on this platform, providing users with insights on their current MHWB, the ability to track it over time, and personalized recommendations, while providing employers with aggregate information about the MHWB of their workforce. OBJECTIVE: Due to the limitations of existing measures for this purpose, we aimed to develop and validate a novel well-being index for digital use, to capture symptoms of common mental health problems and key aspects of positive well-being. METHODS: In Study 1A, questionnaire items were generated by clinicians and screened for face validity. In Study 1B, these items were presented to a large sample (n=1104) of UK adults, and exploratory factor analysis was used to reduce the item pool and identify coherent subscales. In Study 2, the final measure was presented to a new nationally representative UK sample (n=976), along with a battery of existing measures, with 238 participants retaking the Umind Index after 1 week. The factor structure and measurement invariance of the Unmind Index was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis, convergent and discriminant validity by estimating correlations with existing measures, and reliability by examining internal consistency and test-retest intraclass correlations. RESULTS: Studies 1A and 1B yielded a 26-item measure with 7 subscales: Calmness, Connection, Coping, Happiness, Health, Fulfilment, and Sleep. Study 2 showed that the Unmind Index is fitted well by a second-order factor structure, where the 7 subscales all load onto an overall MHWB factor, and established measurement invariance by age and gender. Subscale and total scores correlate well with existing mental health measures and generally diverge from personality measures. Reliability was good or excellent across all subscales. CONCLUSIONS: The Unmind Index is a robust measure of MHWB that can help to identify target areas for intervention in nonclinical users of a mental health app. We argue that there is value in measuring mental ill health and mental well-being together, rather than treating them as separate constructs.

General intelligence disentangled via a generality metric for natural and artificial intelligence.

Success in all sorts of situations is the most classical interpretation of general intelligence. Under limited resources, however, the capability of an agent must necessarily be limited too, and generality needs to be understood as comprehensive performance up to a level of difficulty. The degree of generality then refers to the way an agent's capability is distributed as a function of task difficulty. This dissects the notion of general intelligence into two non-populational measures, generality and capability, which we apply to individuals and groups of humans, other animals and AI systems, on several cognitive and perceptual tests. Our results indicate that generality and capability can decouple at the individual level: very specialised agents can show high capability and vice versa. The metrics also decouple at the population level, and we rarely see diminishing returns in generality for those groups of high capability. We relate the individual measure of generality to traditional notions of general intelligence and cognitive efficiency in humans, collectives, non-human animals and machines. The choice of the difficulty function now plays a prominent role in this new conception of generality, which brings a quantitative tool for shedding light on long-standing questions about the evolution of general intelligence and the evaluation of progress in Artificial General Intelligence.

Effects of different types of written vaccination information on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK (OCEANS-III): a single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccination programme depends on mass participation: the greater the number of people vaccinated, the less risk to the population. Concise, persuasive messaging is crucial, particularly given substantial levels of vaccine hesitancy in the UK. Our aim was to test which types of written information about COVID-19 vaccination, in addition to a statement of efficacy and safety, might increase vaccine acceptance. METHODS: For this single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, we aimed to recruit 15 000 adults in the UK, who were quota sampled to be representative. Participants were randomly assigned equally across ten information conditions stratified by level of vaccine acceptance (willing, doubtful, or strongly hesitant). The control information condition comprised the safety and effectiveness statement taken from the UK National Health Service website; the remaining conditions addressed collective benefit, personal benefit, seriousness of the pandemic, and safety concerns. After online provision of vaccination information, participants completed the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (outcome measure; score range 7-35) and the Oxford Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale (mediation measure). The primary outcome was willingness to be vaccinated. Participants were analysed in the groups they were allocated. p values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. The study was registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN37254291. FINDINGS: From Jan 19 to Feb 5, 2021, 15 014 adults were recruited. Vaccine hesitancy had reduced from 26·9% the previous year to 16·9%, so recruitment was extended to Feb 18 to recruit 3841 additional vaccine-hesitant adults. 12 463 (66·1%) participants were classified as willing, 2932 (15·6%) as doubtful, and 3460 (18·4%) as strongly hesitant (ie, report that they will avoid being vaccinated for as long as possible or will never get vaccinated). Information conditions did not alter COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in those willing or doubtful (adjusted p values >0·70). In those strongly hesitant, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was reduced, in comparison to the control condition, by personal benefit information (mean difference -1·49, 95% CI -2·16 to -0·82; adjusted p=0·0015), directly addressing safety concerns about speed of development (-0·91, -1·58 to -0·23; adjusted p=0·0261), and a combination of all information (-0·86, -1·53 to -0·18; adjusted p=0·0313). In those strongly hesitant, provision of personal benefit information reduced hesitancy to a greater extent than provision of information on the collective benefit of not personally getting ill (-0·97, 95% CI -1·64 to -0·30; adjusted p=0·0165) or the collective benefit of not transmitting the virus (-1·01, -1·68 to -0·35; adjusted p=0·0150). Ethnicity and gender were found to moderate information condition outcomes. INTERPRETATION: In the approximately 10% of the population who are strongly hesitant about COVID-19 vaccines, provision of information on personal benefit reduces hesitancy to a greater extent than information on collective benefits. Where perception of risk from vaccines is most salient, decision making becomes centred on the personal. As such, messaging that stresses the counterbalancing personal benefits is likely to prove most effective. The messaging from this study could be used in public health communications. Going forwards, the study highlights the need for future health campaigns to engage with the public on the terrain that is most salient to them. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.

Maximizing the Potential of Patient-Reported Assessments by Using the Open-Source Concerto Platform With Computerized Adaptive Testing and Machine Learning.

Patient-reported assessments are transforming many facets of health care, but there is scope to modernize their delivery. Contemporary assessment techniques like computerized adaptive testing (CAT) and machine learning can be applied to patient-reported assessments to reduce burden on both patients and health care professionals; improve test accuracy; and provide individualized, actionable feedback. The Concerto platform is a highly adaptable, secure, and easy-to-use console that can harness the power of CAT and machine learning for developing and administering advanced patient-reported assessments. This paper introduces readers to contemporary assessment techniques and the Concerto platform. It reviews advances in the field of patient-reported assessment that have been driven by the Concerto platform and explains how to create an advanced, adaptive assessment, for free, with minimal prior experience with CAT or programming.

Computerized Adaptive Tests: Efficient and Precise Assessment of the Patient-Centered Impact of Diabetic Retinopathy.

Purpose: Evaluate efficiency, precision, and validity of RetCAT, which comprises ten diabetic retinopathy (DR) quality of life (QoL) computerized adaptive tests (CATs). Methods: In this cross-sectional clinical study, 183 English and/or Mandarin-speaking participants with DR (mean age ± standard deviation [SD] 56.4 ± 11.9 years; 38% proliferative DR [worse eye]) were recruited from retinal clinics in Singapore. Participants answered the RetCAT tests (Symptoms, Activity Limitation, Mobility, Emotional, Health Concerns, Social, Convenience, Economic, Driving, and Lighting), which were capped at seven items each, and other questionnaires, and underwent eye tests. Our primary evaluation focused on RetCAT efficiency (i.e. standard error of measurement [SEM] ± SD achieved and time needed to complete each CAT). Secondary evaluations included an assessment of RetCAT's test precision and validity. Results: Mean SEM across all RetCAT tests was 0.351, ranging from 0.272 ± 0.130 for Economic to 0.484 ± 0.130 for Emotional. Four tests (Mobility, Social, Convenience, and Driving) had a high level of measurement error. The median time to take each RetCAT test was 1.79 minutes, ranging from 1.12 (IQR [interquartile range] 1.63) for Driving to 3.28 (IQR 2.52) for Activity Limitation. Test precision was highest for participants at the most impaired end of the spectrum. Most RetCAT tests displayed expected correlations with other scales (convergent/divergent validity) and were sensitive to DR and/or vision impairment severity levels (criterion validity). Conclusions: RetCAT can provide efficient, precise, and valid measurement of DR-related QoL impact. Future application of RetCAT will employ a stopping rule based on SE rather than number of items to ensure that all tests can detect meaningful differences in person abilities. Responsiveness of RetCAT to treatment interventions must also be determined. Translational Relevance: RetCAT may be useful for measuring the patient-centered impact of DR severity and disease progression and evaluating the effectiveness of new therapies.

The Development and Validation of an Online Spatial Network Measure.

Planning is an essential cognitive process of executive functions and is considered as one of the most important brain functions. Planning has been extensively studied in the field of neuropsychology, but there is a lack of computerized assessment tools of planning ability that are easily accessible to researchers and clinicians. The present study aims to validate a newly developed online spatial network test that is designed for both clinical and nonclinical populations. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a unidimensional factorial structure with moderate to high internal consistency in the test. Two-parameter logistic item response theory analysis showed acceptable item and model fit and no violation of the local independence assumption. The overall success rate exhibited a positive correlation with the performance of planning before attempting to solve the items. After correcting for attenuation, moderate to high correlations were found between the spatial network test and the International Cognitive Ability Resource 16 short form cognitive ability test and the automated perceptual maze test, respectively, demonstrating convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity. Future directions and potential applications of the spatial network test as an assessment tool to measure planning for researchers and clinicians are discussed in the end.

Optimizing measurement of vision-related quality of life: a computerized adaptive test for the impact of vision impairment questionnaire (IVI-CAT).

PURPOSE: To compare the results from a simulated computerized adaptive test (CAT) for the 28-item Impact of Vision Impairment (IVI) questionnaire and the original paper-pencil version in terms of efficiency (main outcome), defined as percentage item reduction. METHODS: Using paper-pencil IVI data from 832 participants across the spectrum of vision impairment, item calibrations of the 28-item IVI instrument and its associated 20-item vision-specific functioning (VSF) and 8-item emotional well-being (EWB) subscales were generated with Rasch analysis. Based on these calibrations, CAT simulations were conducted on 1000 cases, with 'high' and 'moderate' precision stopping rules (standard error of measurement [SEM] 0.387 and 0.521, respectively). We examined the average number of items needed to satisfy the stopping rules and the corresponding percentage item reduction, level of agreement between person measures estimated from the full IVI item bank and from the CAT simulations, and item exposure rates (IER). RESULTS: For the overall IVI-CAT, 5 or 9.7 items were required, on average, to obtain moderate or high precision estimates of vision-related quality of life, corresponding to 82.1 and 65.4% item reductions compared to the paper-pencil IVI. Agreement was high between the person measures generated from the full IVI item bank and the IVI-CAT for both the high precision simulation (mean bias, - 0.004 logits; 95% LOA - 0.594 to 0.587) and moderate precision simulation (mean bias, 0.014 logits; 95% LOA - 0.828 to 0.855). The IER for the IVI-CAT in the moderate precision simulation was skewed, with six EWB items used > 40% of the time. CONCLUSION: Compared to the paper-pencil IVI instrument, the IVI-CATs required fewer items without loss of measurement precision, making them potentially attractive outcome instruments for implementation into clinical trials, healthcare, and research. Final versions of the IVI-CATs are available.

The Perceptual Maze Test Revisited: Evaluating the Difficulty of Automatically Generated Mazes.

The Elithorn perceptual maze test is widely used in clinical research and practice. However, there is little evidence of its psychometric properties, and its application is limited by the technical difficulty of developing more mazes. The current research aims to adopt a rigorous approach to evaluate 18 mazes that were automatically generated by a novel R software package. Various item response theory models were employed to examine the difficulty parameters. The findings suggested that the data best fitted the Rasch model. The linear logistic test model revealed meaningful contribution to the sources of maze difficulty. Additionally, the linear logistic test model plus error was considered the most parsimonious model. The Automatic Perceptual Maze Test was moderately correlated with a nonverbal intelligence test. By introducing more mazes to provide adequate information on participants' ability at all levels, the Automatic Perceptual Maze Test promises future clinical and research utility for the study of cognitive performance.