Preliminary Impact of Group-Based Interventions on Stigma and the Mental Health of Caregivers of Adolescents Living with HIV in Uganda.

This study examined the preliminary impact of group-cognitive behavioral therapy (G-CBT) and a family-strengthening intervention delivered via multiple family groups (MFG-FS) on HIV stigma, parenting stress, and the mental health of caregivers of adolescents living with HIV. We analyzed data from the Suubi4Stigma study (2020-2022), a two-year pilot randomized clinical trial for adolescents and their caregivers (N = 89 dyads), recruited from nine health clinics in Uganda. Adolescent-caregiver dyads were randomized to three intervention conditions delivered over three months, with data collected at baseline, three and six-months follow-up. We fitted mixed-effects linear regression models to test the effect of the interventions on caregiver outcomes over time. At six months, caregivers randomized to the MFG-FS condition reported lower levels of stigma by association (mean difference = -1.45, 95% CI = -2.52 - -0.38, p = 0.008), and stigma and discrimination attitudes (mean difference = -3.84, 95% CI = -4.63 - -3.05, p < 0.001), compared to Usual care condition. In addition, caregivers of adolescents randomized to the G-CBT condition reported lower levels of stigma and discrimination attitudes at three months (mean difference = -5.18, 95% CI = -9.13 - -1.22, p = 0.010), and at six months (mean difference = -6.70, 95% CI = -9.28 - -4.12, p < 0.001). Caregiver mental health and parenting stress significantly reduced over time regardless of intervention condition. Findings point to the importance of incorporating stigma reduction components within psychosocial interventions targeting adolescents and families impacted by HIV.

On the nomenclatural status of type genera in Coleoptera (Insecta).

More than 4700 nominal family-group names (including names for fossils and ichnotaxa) are nomenclaturally available in the order Coleoptera. Since each family-group name is based on the concept of its type genus, we argue that the stability of names used for the classification of beetles depends on accurate nomenclatural data for each type genus. Following a review of taxonomic literature, with a focus on works that potentially contain type species designations, we provide a synthesis of nomenclatural data associated with the type genus of each nomenclaturally available family-group name in Coleoptera. For each type genus the author(s), year of publication, and page number are given as well as its current status (i.e., whether treated as valid or not) and current classification. Information about the type species of each type genus and the type species fixation (i.e., fixed originally or subsequently, and if subsequently, by whom) is also given. The original spelling of the family-group name that is based on each type genus is included, with its author(s), year, and stem. We append a list of nomenclaturally available family-group names presented in a classification scheme. Because of the importance of the Principle of Priority in zoological nomenclature, we provide information on the date of publication of the references cited in this work, when known. Several nomenclatural issues emerged during the course of this work. We therefore appeal to the community of coleopterists to submit applications to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (henceforth "Commission") in order to permanently resolve some of the problems outlined here. The following changes of authorship for type genera are implemented here (these changes do not affect the concept of each type genus): CHRYSOMELIDAE: Fulcidax Crotch, 1870 (previously credited to "Clavareau, 1913"); CICINDELIDAE: Euprosopus W.S. MacLeay, 1825 (previously credited to "Dejean, 1825"); COCCINELLIDAE: Alesia Reiche, 1848 (previously credited to "Mulsant, 1850"); CURCULIONIDAE: Arachnopus Boisduval, 1835 (previously credited to "Guérin-Méneville, 1838"); ELATERIDAE: Thylacosternus Gemminger, 1869 (previously credited to "Bonvouloir, 1871"); EUCNEMIDAE: Arrhipis Gemminger, 1869 (previously credited to "Bonvouloir, 1871"), Mesogenus Gemminger, 1869 (previously credited to "Bonvouloir, 1871"); LUCANIDAE: Sinodendron Hellwig, 1791 (previously credited to "Hellwig, 1792"); PASSALIDAE: Neleides Harold, 1868 (previously credited to "Kaup, 1869"), Neleus Harold, 1868 (previously credited to "Kaup, 1869"), Pertinax Harold, 1868 (previously credited to "Kaup, 1869"), Petrejus Harold, 1868 (previously credited to "Kaup, 1869"), Undulifer Harold, 1868 (previously credited to "Kaup, 1869"), Vatinius Harold, 1868 (previously credited to "Kaup, 1869"); PTINIDAE: Mezium Leach, 1819 (previously credited to "Curtis, 1828"); PYROCHROIDAE: Agnathus Germar, 1818 (previously credited to "Germar, 1825"); SCARABAEIDAE: Eucranium Dejean, 1833 (previously "Brullé, 1838"). The following changes of type species were implemented following the discovery of older type species fixations (these changes do not pose a threat to nomenclatural stability): BOLBOCERATIDAE: Bolbocerusbocchus Erichson, 1841 for Bolbelasmus Boucomont, 1911 (previously Bolbocerasgallicum Mulsant, 1842); BUPRESTIDAE: Stigmoderaguerinii Hope, 1843 for Neocuris Saunders, 1868 (previously Anthaxiafortnumi Hope, 1846), Stigmoderaperoni Laporte & Gory, 1837 for Curis Laporte & Gory, 1837 (previously Buprestiscaloptera Boisduval, 1835); CARABIDAE: Carabuselatus Fabricius, 1801 for Molops Bonelli, 1810 (previously Carabusterricola Herbst, 1784 sensu Fabricius, 1792); CERAMBYCIDAE: Prionuspalmatus Fabricius, 1792 for Macrotoma Audinet-Serville, 1832 (previously Prionusserripes Fabricius, 1781); CHRYSOMELIDAE: Donaciaequiseti Fabricius, 1798 for Haemonia Dejean, 1821 (previously Donaciazosterae Fabricius, 1801), Eumolpusruber Latreille, 1807 for Euryope Dalman, 1824 (previously Cryptocephalusrubrifrons Fabricius, 1787), Galerucaaffinis Paykull, 1799 for Psylliodes Latreille, 1829 (previously Chrysomelachrysocephala Linnaeus, 1758); COCCINELLIDAE: Dermestesrufus Herbst, 1783 for Coccidula Kugelann, 1798 (previously Chrysomelascutellata Herbst, 1783); CRYPTOPHAGIDAE: Ipscaricis G.-A. Olivier, 1790 for Telmatophilus Heer, 1841 (previously Cryptophagustyphae Fallén, 1802), Silphaevanescens Marsham, 1802 for Atomaria Stephens, 1829 (previously Dermestesnigripennis Paykull, 1798); CURCULIONIDAE: Bostrichuscinereus Herbst, 1794 for Crypturgus Erichson, 1836 (previously Bostrichuspusillus Gyllenhal, 1813); DERMESTIDAE: Dermestestrifasciatus Fabricius, 1787 for Attagenus Latreille, 1802 (previously Dermestespellio Linnaeus, 1758); ELATERIDAE: Elatersulcatus Fabricius, 1777 for Chalcolepidius Eschscholtz, 1829 (previously Chalcolepidiuszonatus Eschscholtz, 1829); ENDOMYCHIDAE: Endomychusrufitarsis Chevrolat, 1835 for Epipocus Chevrolat, 1836 (previously Endomychustibialis Guérin-Méneville, 1834); EROTYLIDAE: Ipshumeralis Fabricius, 1787 for Dacne Latreille, 1797 (previously Dermestesbipustulatus Thunberg, 1781); EUCNEMIDAE: Fornaxaustrocaledonicus Perroud & Montrouzier, 1865 for Mesogenus Gemminger, 1869 (previously Mesogenusmellyi Bonvouloir, 1871); GLAPHYRIDAE: Melolonthaserratulae Fabricius, 1792 for Glaphyrus Latreille, 1802 (previously Scarabaeusmaurus Linnaeus, 1758); HISTERIDAE: Histerstriatus Forster, 1771 for Onthophilus Leach, 1817 (previously Histersulcatus Moll, 1784); LAMPYRIDAE: Ototretafornicata E. Olivier, 1900 for Ototreta E. Olivier, 1900 (previously Ototretaweyersi E. Olivier, 1900); LUCANIDAE: Lucanuscancroides Fabricius, 1787 for Lissotes Westwood, 1855 (previously Lissotesmenalcas Westwood, 1855); MELANDRYIDAE: Nothusclavipes G.-A. Olivier, 1812 for Nothus G.-A. Olivier, 1812 (previously Nothuspraeustus G.-A. Olivier, 1812); MELYRIDAE: Lagriaater Fabricius, 1787 for Enicopus Stephens, 1830 (previously Dermesteshirtus Linnaeus, 1767); NITIDULIDAE: Sphaeridiumluteum Fabricius, 1787 for Cychramus Kugelann, 1794 (previously Strongylusquadripunctatus Herbst, 1792); OEDEMERIDAE: Helopslaevis Fabricius, 1787 for Ditylus Fischer, 1817 (previously Ditylushelopioides Fischer, 1817 [sic]); PHALACRIDAE: Sphaeridiumaeneum Fabricius, 1792 for Olibrus Erichson, 1845 (previously Sphaeridiumbicolor Fabricius, 1792); RHIPICERIDAE: Sandalusniger Knoch, 1801 for Sandalus Knoch, 1801 (previously Sandaluspetrophya Knoch, 1801); SCARABAEIDAE: Cetoniaclathrata G.-A. Olivier, 1792 for Inca Lepeletier & Audinet-Serville, 1828 (previously Cetoniaynca Weber, 1801); Gnathoceravitticollis W. Kirby, 1825 for Gnathocera W. Kirby, 1825 (previously Gnathoceraimmaculata W. Kirby, 1825); Melolonthavillosula Illiger, 1803 for Chasmatopterus Dejean, 1821 (previously Melolonthahirtula Illiger, 1803); STAPHYLINIDAE: Staphylinuspolitus Linnaeus, 1758 for Philonthus Stephens, 1829 (previously Staphylinussplendens Fabricius, 1792); ZOPHERIDAE: Hispamutica Linnaeus, 1767 for Orthocerus Latreille, 1797 (previously Tenebriohirticornis DeGeer, 1775). The discovery of type species fixations that are older than those currently accepted pose a threat to nomenclatural stability (an application to the Commission is necessary to address each problem): CANTHARIDAE: Malthinus Latreille, 1805, Malthodes Kiesenwetter, 1852; CARABIDAE: Bradycellus Erichson, 1837, Chlaenius Bonelli, 1810, Harpalus Latreille, 1802, Lebia Latreille, 1802, Pheropsophus Solier, 1834, Trechus Clairville, 1806; CERAMBYCIDAE: Callichroma Latreille, 1816, Callidium Fabricius, 1775, Cerasphorus Audinet-Serville, 1834, Dorcadion Dalman, 1817, Leptura Linnaeus, 1758, Mesosa Latreille, 1829, Plectromerus Haldeman, 1847; CHRYSOMELIDAE: Amblycerus Thunberg, 1815, Chaetocnema Stephens, 1831, Chlamys Knoch, 1801, Monomacra Chevrolat, 1836, Phratora Chevrolat, 1836, Stylosomus Suffrian, 1847; COLONIDAE: Colon Herbst, 1797; CURCULIONIDAE: Cryphalus Erichson, 1836, Lepyrus Germar, 1817; ELATERIDAE: Adelocera Latreille, 1829, Beliophorus Eschscholtz, 1829; ENDOMYCHIDAE: Amphisternus Germar, 1843, Dapsa Latreille, 1829; GLAPHYRIDAE: Anthypna Eschscholtz, 1818; HISTERIDAE: Hololepta Paykull, 1811, Trypanaeus Eschscholtz, 1829; LEIODIDAE: Anisotoma Panzer, 1796, Camiarus Sharp, 1878, Choleva Latreille, 1797; LYCIDAE: Calopteron Laporte, 1838, Dictyoptera Latreille, 1829; MELOIDAE: Epicauta Dejean, 1834; NITIDULIDAE: Strongylus Herbst, 1792; SCARABAEIDAE: Anisoplia Schönherr, 1817, Anticheira Eschscholtz, 1818, Cyclocephala Dejean, 1821, Glycyphana Burmeister, 1842, Omaloplia Schönherr, 1817, Oniticellus Dejean, 1821, Parachilia Burmeister, 1842, Xylotrupes Hope, 1837; STAPHYLINIDAE: Batrisus Aubé, 1833, Phloeonomus Heer, 1840, Silpha Linnaeus, 1758; TENEBRIONIDAE: Bolitophagus Illiger, 1798, Mycetochara Guérin-Méneville, 1827. Type species are fixed for the following nominal genera: ANTHRIBIDAE: Decataphanesgracilis Labram & Imhoff, 1840 for Decataphanes Labram & Imhoff, 1840; CARABIDAE: Feroniaerratica Dejean, 1828 for Loxandrus J.L. LeConte, 1853; CERAMBYCIDAE: Tmesisternusoblongus Boisduval, 1835 for Icthyosoma Boisduval, 1835; CHRYSOMELIDAE: Brachydactylaannulipes Pic, 1913 for Pseudocrioceris Pic, 1916, Cassidaviridis Linnaeus, 1758 for Evaspistes Gistel, 1856, Ocnosceliscyanoptera Erichson, 1847 for Ocnoscelis Erichson, 1847, Promecothecapetelii Guérin-Méneville, 1840 for Promecotheca Guérin- Méneville, 1840; CLERIDAE: Attelabusmollis Linnaeus, 1758 for Dendroplanetes Gistel, 1856; CORYLOPHIDAE: Corylophusmarginicollis J.L. LeConte, 1852 for Corylophodes A. Matthews, 1885; CURCULIONIDAE: Hoplorhinusmelanocephalus Chevrolat, 1878 for Hoplorhinus Chevrolat, 1878; SonnetiusbinariusCasey, 1922 for Sonnetius Casey, 1922; ELATERIDAE: Pyrophorusmelanoxanthus Candèze, 1865 for Alampes Champion, 1896; PHYCOSECIDAE: Phycosecislitoralis Pascoe, 1875 for Phycosecis Pascoe, 1875; PTILODACTYLIDAE: Aploglossasallei Guérin-Méneville, 1849 for Aploglossa Guérin-Méneville, 1849, Coloboderaovata Klug, 1837 for Colobodera Klug, 1837; PTINIDAE: Dryophilusanobioides Chevrolat, 1832 for Dryobia Gistel, 1856; SCARABAEIDAE: Achloahelvola Erichson, 1840 for Achloa Erichson, 1840, Camentaobesa Burmeister, 1855 for Camenta Erichson, 1847, Pinotustalaus Erichson, 1847 for Pinotus Erichson, 1847, Psilonychusecklonii Burmeister, 1855 for Psilonychus Burmeister, 1855. New replacement name: CERAMBYCIDAE: Basorus Bouchard & Bousquet, nom. nov. for Sobarus Harold, 1879. New status: CARABIDAE: KRYZHANOVSKIANINI Deuve, 2020, stat. nov. is given the rank of tribe instead of subfamily since our classification uses the rank of subfamily for PAUSSINAE rather than family rank; CERAMBYCIDAE: Amymoma Pascoe, 1866, stat. nov. is used as valid over Neoamymoma Marinoni, 1977, Holopterus Blanchard, 1851, stat. nov. is used as valid over Proholopterus Monné, 2012; CURCULIONIDAE: Phytophilus Schönherr, 1835, stat. nov. is used as valid over the unnecessary new replacement name Synophthalmus Lacordaire, 1863; EUCNEMIDAE: Nematodinus Lea, 1919, stat. nov. is used as valid instead of Arrhipis Gemminger, 1869, which is a junior homonym. Details regarding additional nomenclatural issues that still need to be resolved are included in the entry for each of these type genera: BOSTRICHIDAE: Lyctus Fabricius, 1792; BRENTIDAE: Trachelizus Dejean, 1834; BUPRESTIDAE: Pristiptera Dejean, 1833; CANTHARIDAE: Chauliognathus Hentz, 1830, Telephorus Schäffer, 1766; CARABIDAE: Calathus Bonelli, 1810, Cosnania Dejean, 1821, Dicrochile Guérin-Méneville, 1847, Epactius D.H. Schneider, 1791, Merismoderus Westwood, 1847, Polyhirma Chaudoir, 1850, Solenogenys Westwood, 1860, Zabrus Clairville, 1806; CERAMBYCIDAE: Ancita J. Thomson, 1864, Compsocerus Audinet-Serville, 1834, Dorcadodium Gistel, 1856, Glenea Newman, 1842; Hesperophanes Dejean, 1835, Neoclytus J. Thomson, 1860, Phymasterna Laporte, 1840, Tetrops Stephens, 1829, Zygocera Erichson, 1842; CHRYSOMELIDAE: Acanthoscelides Schilsky, 1905, Corynodes Hope, 1841, Edusella Chapuis, 1874; Hemisphaerota Chevrolat, 1836; Physonota Boheman, 1854, Porphyraspis Hope, 1841; CLERIDAE: Dermestoides Schäffer, 1777; COCCINELLIDAE: Hippodamia Chevrolat, 1836, Myzia Mulsant, 1846, Platynaspis L. Redtenbacher, 1843; CURCULIONIDAE: Coeliodes Schönherr, 1837, Cryptoderma Ritsema, 1885, Deporaus Leach, 1819, Epistrophus Kirsch, 1869, Geonemus Schönherr, 1833, Hylastes Erichson, 1836; DYTISCIDAE: Deronectes Sharp, 1882, Platynectes Régimbart, 1879; EUCNEMIDAE: Dirhagus Latreille, 1834; HYBOSORIDAE: Ceratocanthus A. White, 1842; HYDROPHILIDAE: Cyclonotum Erichson, 1837; LAMPYRIDAE: Luciola Laporte, 1833; LEIODIDAE: Ptomaphagus Hellwig, 1795; LUCANIDAE: Leptinopterus Hope, 1838; LYCIDAE: Cladophorus Guérin-Méneville, 1830, Mimolibnetis Kazantsev, 2000; MELOIDAE: Mylabris Fabricius, 1775; NITIDULIDAE: Meligethes Stephens, 1829; PTILODACTYLIDAE: Daemon Laporte, 1838; SCARABAEIDAE: Allidiostoma Arrow, 1940, Heterochelus Burmeister, 1844, Liatongus Reitter, 1892, Lomaptera Gory & Percheron, 1833, Megaceras Hope, 1837, Stenotarsia Burmeister, 1842; STAPHYLINIDAE: Actocharis Fauvel, 1871, Aleochara Gravenhorst, 1802; STENOTRACHELIDAE: Stenotrachelus Berthold, 1827; TENEBRIONIDAE: Cryptochile Latreille, 1828, Heliopates Dejean, 1834, Helops Fabricius, 1775. First Reviser actions deciding the correct original spelling: CARABIDAE: Aristochroodes Marcilhac, 1993 (not Aritochroodes); CERAMBYCIDAE: Dorcadodium Gistel, 1856 (not Dorcadodion), EVODININI Zamoroka, 2022 (not EVODINIINI); CHRYSOMELIDAE: Caryopemon Jekel, 1855 (not Carpopemon), Decarthrocera Laboissière, 1937 (not Decarthrocerina); CICINDELIDAE: Odontocheila Laporte, 1834 (not Odontacheila); CLERIDAE: CORMODINA Bartlett, 2021 (not CORMODIINA), Orthopleura Spinola, 1845 (not Orthoplevra, not Orthopleuva); CURCULIONIDAE: Arachnobas Boisduval, 1835 (not Arachnopus), Palaeocryptorhynchus Poinar, 2009 (not Palaeocryptorhynus); DYTISCIDAE: Ambarticus Yang et al., 2019 and AMBARTICINI Yang et al., 2019 (not Ambraticus, not AMBRATICINI); LAMPYRIDAE: Megalophthalmus G.R. Gray, 1831 (not Megolophthalmus, not Megalopthalmus); SCARABAEIDAE: Mentophilus Laporte, 1840 (not Mintophilus, not Minthophilus), Pseudadoretusdilutellus Semenov, 1889 (not P.ditutellus). While the correct identification of the type species is assumed, in some cases evidence suggests that species were misidentified when they were fixed as the type of a particular nominal genus. Following the requirements of Article 70.3.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature we hereby fix the following type species (which in each case is the taxonomic species actually involved in the misidentification): ATTELABIDAE: Rhynchitescavifrons Gyllenhal, 1833 for Lasiorhynchites Jekel, 1860; BOSTRICHIDAE: Ligniperdaterebrans Pallas, 1772 for Apate Fabricius, 1775; BRENTIDAE: Ceocephalusappendiculatus Boheman, 1833 for Uroptera Berthold, 1827; BUPRESTIDAE: Buprestisundecimmaculata Herbst, 1784 for Ptosima Dejean, 1833; CARABIDAE: Amaralunicollis Schiødte, 1837 for Amara Bonelli, 1810, Buprestisconnexus Geoffroy, 1785 for Polistichus Bonelli, 1810, Carabusatrorufus Strøm, 1768 for Patrobus Dejean, 1821, Carabusgigas Creutzer, 1799 for Procerus Dejean, 1821, Carabusteutonus Schrank, 1781 for Stenolophus Dejean, 1821, Carenumbonellii Westwood, 1842 for Carenum Bonelli, 1813, Scaritespicipes G.-A. Olivier, 1795 for Acinopus Dejean, 1821, Trigonotomaindica Brullé, 1834 for Trigonotoma Dejean, 1828; CERAMBYCIDAE: Cerambyxlusitanus Linnaeus, 1767 for Exocentrus Dejean, 1835, Clytussupernotatus Say, 1824 for Psenocerus J.L. LeConte, 1852; CICINDELIDAE: Ctenostomajekelii Chevrolat, 1858 for Ctenostoma Klug, 1821; CURCULIONIDAE: Cnemogonuslecontei Dietz, 1896 for Cnemogonus J.L. LeConte, 1876; Phloeophagusturbatus Schönherr, 1845 for Phloeophagus Schönherr, 1838; GEOTRUPIDAE: Lucanusapterus Laxmann, 1770 for Lethrus Scopoli, 1777; HISTERIDAE: Histerrugiceps Duftschmid, 1805 for Hypocaccus C.G. Thomson, 1867; HYBOSORIDAE: Hybosorusilligeri Reiche, 1853 for Hybosorus W.S. MacLeay, 1819; HYDROPHILIDAE: Hydrophilusmelanocephalus G.-A. Olivier, 1793 for Enochrus C.G. Thomson, 1859; MYCETAEIDAE: Dermestessubterraneus Fabricius, 1801 for Mycetaea Stephens, 1829; SCARABAEIDAE: Aulaciumcarinatum Reiche, 1841 for Mentophilus Laporte, 1840, Phanaeusvindex W.S. MacLeay, 1819 for Phanaeus W.S. MacLeay, 1819, Ptinusgermanus Linnaeus, 1767 for Rhyssemus Mulsant, 1842, Scarabaeuslatipes Guérin-Méneville, 1838 for Cheiroplatys Hope, 1837; STAPHYLINIDAE: Scydmaenustarsatus P.W.J. Müller & Kunze, 1822 for Scydmaenus Latreille, 1802. New synonyms: CERAMBYCIDAE: CARILIINI Zamoroka, 2022, syn. nov. of ACMAEOPINI Della Beffa, 1915, DOLOCERINI Özdikmen, 2016, syn. nov. of BRACHYPTEROMINI Sama, 2008, PELOSSINI Tavakilian, 2013, syn. nov. of LYGRINI Sama, 2008, PROHOLOPTERINI Monné, 2012, syn. nov. of HOLOPTERINI Lacordaire, 1868.

Feasibility and Acceptability of Group-Based Stigma Reduction Interventions for Adolescents Living with HIV and Their Caregivers: The Suubi4Stigma Randomized Clinical Trial (2020-2022).

This study examined the feasibility and acceptability of two group-based interventions: group-cognitive behavioral therapy (G-CBT) and a family-strengthening intervention delivered via multiple family group (MFG-FS), to address HIV stigma among adolescents living with HIV (ALHIV) and their caregivers. A total of 147 adolescent -caregiver dyads from 9 health clinics situated within 7 political districts in Uganda were screened for eligibility. Of these, 89 dyads met the inclusion criteria and provided consent to participate in the study. Participants were randomized, at the clinic level, to one of three study conditions: Usual care, G-CBT or MFG-FS. The interventions were delivered over a 3-month period. While both adolescents and their caregivers attended the MFG-FS sessions, G-CBT sessions were only attended by adolescents. Data were collected at baseline, 3 and 6-months post intervention initiation. The retention rate was 94% over the study period. Across groups, intervention session attendance ranged between 85 and 92%, for all sessions. Fidelity of the intervention was between 85 and 100%, and both children and caregivers rated highly their satisfaction with the intervention sessions. ALHIV in Uganda, and most of sub-Saharan Africa, are still underrepresented in stigma reduction interventions. The Suubi4Stigma study was feasible and acceptable to adolescents and their caregivers -supporting testing the efficacy of the interventions in a larger trial.

Preliminary Impact of Group-Based Interventions on Stigma, Mental Health, and Treatment Adherence Among Adolescents Living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus in Uganda.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the preliminary impact of group cognitive behavioral therapy and multiple family group-based family strengthening to address HIV stigma and improve the mental health functioning of adolescents living with HIV in Uganda. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed data from the Suubi4Stigma study, a 2-year pilot randomized clinical trial that recruited adolescents living with HIV (10-14 years) and their caregivers (n = 89 dyads), from 9 health clinics. We fitted separate three-level mixed-effects linear regression models to test the effect of the interventions on adolescent outcomes at 3 and 6 months post intervention initiation. RESULTS: The average age was 12.2 years and 56% of participants were females. Participants in the multiple family group-based family strengthening intervention reported lower levels of internalized stigma (mean difference = -0.008, 95% CI = -0.015, -0.001, P = .025) and depressive symptoms at 3 months (mean difference = -0.34, 95% CI = -0.53, -0.14, P < .001), compared with usual care. On the other hand, participants in the group cognitive behavioral therapy intervention reported lower levels of anticipated stigma at 3 months (mean difference = -0.039, 95% CI = -0.072, -0.006), P = .013) and improved self-concept at 6 months follow-up (mean difference = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.01, 0.01, P = .025). CONCLUSION: Outcome trends from this pilot study provide compelling evidence to support testing the efficacy of these group-based interventions on a larger scale. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered in the Clinical trials.gov database (Identifier #: NCT04528732).

Ecology and social behavior of the social vole Microtus socialis: A generalized review.

The present review is a compilation of the published data on the ecology and social behavior of the social vole. Field studies provide evidence that these voles live in family groups consisting of 1 adult male, 1 or 2 breeding females, and their offspring (1 or 2 litters). The social vole is capable of year-round reproduction, but in arid regions, the voles demonstrate seasonality in breeding. The mating system of this species may be defined as behavioral monogamy. A typical feature of the space use system is territoriality characterized by a locus-dependent dominance in relationships between neighboring breeding pairs as well as family groups. The family group social organization may be defined as consistent relationships without a dominant hierarchy. Social voles are cooperative in defending their territories, constructing burrows, digging underground tunnels, maintaining nests, and raising young. Cooperation appears to enhance the survival of family groups of this species under the extreme climatic conditions of Central Asia.

An Examination of the 4 Rs 2 Ss for Problem Behaviors: A Preventive Approach.

Early treatment of behavioral problems can prevent their progression into intractable disorders. This study examined the impact of a multiple family group (MFG) intervention for children with behavior symptoms and their families. Fifty-four (n = 54) caregiver/child dyads with sub-clinical levels of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) participated in a 16-week MFG. Child, caregiver, and family outcomes were assessed at baseline, post-treatment, and at 6 months follow-up. Significant decreases in impairment with parents, family members, and peers, and improvements in child self-esteem were found from baseline to follow-up. Caregiver stress increased; no significant changes in depression or perceived social support were found over time. The effectiveness of MFG as a preventive approach and areas of future research are discussed.

Patterns of and Factors Associated With Mental Health Service Utilization Among School-Going Adolescent Girls in Southwestern Uganda: A Latent Class Analysis.

PURPOSE: The study aimed to improve understanding of patterns of multiple family group intervention engagement and associated factors among adolescent girls in a low-resource country, Uganda. METHODS: The data used in this analysis were part of a larger cluster randomized controlled trial consisting of 1260 adolescent girls across 47 public secondary schools. The sample in the current study consisted of 317 adolescent girls (ages 14-17 at enrollment) recruited from senior one and senior two classes across 12 secondary schools in the southwestern region of Uganda. Participants in this study participated in the multiple family group intervention-a 16-week manualized intervention. Attendance data from 16 sessions were used to identify the heterogeneity of intervention engagement using latent class analysis modeling. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess the association between predisposing, enabling, need factors, and mental health utilization patterns. RESULTS: On average, participants attended 10 sessions (standard deviation = 5.90), 34.38% (N = 109) completed all 16 sessions, and 13.56% (N = 43) did not attend any of the sessions. Two attendance groups were identified: low and high attendants using latent class analysis. In addition, two family-level factors, the number of adults and the number of children in the family, were associated with an increase in the utilization of mental health services. DISCUSSION: Findings suggest that enhancing family support systems may be useful in promoting mental health utilization among adolescent girls with the potential to improve self-esteem, reduce feelings of inadequacy, and ultimately achieve better mental health outcomes.

Effects of a Combination Economic Empowerment and Family Strengthening Intervention on Psychosocial Well-being Among Ugandan Adolescent Girls and Young Women: Analysis of a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial (Suubi4Her).

PURPOSE: Economic empowerment and family strengthening interventions have shown promise for improving psychosocial well-being in a range of populations. This study investigates the effect of a combination economic and family strengthening intervention on psychosocial well-being among Ugandan adolescent girls and young women (AGYW). METHODS: We harnessed data from a three-arm cluster randomized controlled trial among AGYW aged 14-17 years in 47 Ugandan secondary schools. Schools were randomized to either a youth development account intervention (YDA) [N = 16 schools], YDA plus a multiple family group intervention (YDA + MFG) [N = 15 schools], or bolstered standard of care (BSOC) [N = 16 schools]. We estimated the effect of each intervention (BSOC = referent) on three measures of psychosocial well-being: hopelessness (Beck's Hopelessness Scale), self-concept (Tennessee Self-Concept Scale), and self-esteem (Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale) at 12 months following enrollment using multi-level linear mixed models for each outcome. RESULTS: A total of 1,260 AGYW (mean age, 15.4) were enrolled-471 assigned to YDA (37%), 381 to YDA + MFG (30%), and 408 to usual care (32%). Over the 12-month follow-up, participants assigned to the YDA + MFG group had significantly greater reductions in hopelessness and improvements in self-esteem outcomes compared to BSOC participants. Those enrolled in the YDA arm alone also had significantly greater reductions in hopelessness compared to BSOC participants. DISCUSSION: Combination interventions, combining economic empowerment (represented here by YDA), and family-strengthening (represented by MFG) can improve the psychosocial well-being of AGYW. The long-term effects of these interventions should be further tested for potential scale-up in an effort to address the persistent mental health treatment gap in resource-constrained settings.

Virtual care during the pandemic: Multi-family group sessions for Hong Kong Chinese families of adolescents with intellectual disabilities.

The suspension of social services in Hong Kong during the COVID-19 pandemic increased the caregiver strain for families of adolescent children with intellectual disabilities, possibly aggravating their family relationships. This article reports on an online Multi-Family Group (MFG) conducted during the pandemic for Hong Kong Chinese families of adolescents affected by mild-to-moderate intellectual disabilities. A thematic analysis of the experiences of the participating service users revealed three positive effects of the intervention model: improved family relationships, mutual helpful influences occurring among families, and a new understanding of family members with intellectual disabilities. The therapeutic group process used to promote family development is illustrated by a group vignette. The challenges and the practical considerations for conducting an MFG online are discussed.

Diálogos abiertos en un grupo multifamiliar dentro de un programa de atención a primeras crisis psicóticas / Open dialogues in a multifamily group within a program of care for first psychotic crises

Introducción: describimos la experiencia de un grupo multifamiliar, dirigido a jóvenes y su red social, afectados por primeras crisis psicóticas, en la práctica clínica real dentro del Sistema Sanitario Nacional de Salud de España, bajo la filosofía de Diálogos Abiertos, en el contexto de pandemia por COVID-19. Método: Participan 3 familias y 3 profesionales de la red de salud mental. Instrumentos: SCORE-15, SWLS, CSQ-8 y un registro de temas que aparecen en los diálogos. Resultados: tanto los 5 sujetos como las facilitadoras perciben mejoría a nivel de funcionamiento familiar y utilidad de la terapia; solo uno de los sujetos informa de mejoría a nivel de satisfacción vital al finalizar el grupo; observamos una alta satisfacción con la atención recibida en el grupo por parte de los participantes. Discusión: la fortaleza de este estudio es su validez ecológica. Los resultados obtenidos y las sinergias que se desarrollan en los encuentros dialógicos multifamiliares aquí descritos nos permiten confiar en que otras maneras de hacer más alineadas con los principios de Diálogos Abiertos, con los recursos de que disponemos en nuestro contexto sanitario, son posibles ya (AU)

Introduction: We describe the experience of a multi-family group, directed at young people affected by their first psychotic crisis and their social networks, in a real clinical environment within the Spanish national health system, based on the Open Dialogue philosophy, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Method: three families and three mental health professionals took part in the study. Instruments: SCORE-15, SWLS, CSQ-8 and a list of themes that appear in the dialogues.Results: both the five subjects and the facilitators perceive an improvement in the level of family functioning and the usefulness of the therapy; only one of the subjects reports an improvement in the level of life satisfaction at the end of the group; we observe high satisfaction on the part of the participants with the care received in the group. Discussion: the strength of this study is its ecological validity. The results obtained, and the synergies developed in the multifamily meetings described here, demonstrate that different methods more aligned with the principles of Open Dialogues are now possible with the resources available in our clinical context (AU)

The Short-Term Impact of a Combination Intervention on Depressive Symptoms Among School-Going Adolescent Girls in Southwestern Uganda: The Suubi4Her Cluster Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: This study aims to examine the short-term impact of a combined intervention consisting of evidence-based family economic empowerment (FEE) and multiple family group (MFG) interventions on depressive symptoms among school-going adolescent girls in southwestern Uganda. METHODS: We analyzed longitudinal data from a cluster randomized trial. The sample consisted of 1,260 adolescent girls (aged 14-17 years at enrollment) recruited from senior one and senior two classes across 47 secondary schools in the southwestern region of Uganda. Participants were randomized at the school level to either the control condition receiving bolstered standard of care or one of the two treatment conditions-the treatment one condition receiving the FEE intervention or the treatment two conditions receiving both the FEE plus MFG interventions. Descriptive statistics and a three-level mixed-effects model were conducted to examine the effect of a combination intervention on depressive symptoms. RESULTS: At baseline, there were no significant differences between the control condition and both treatment conditions. While all three groups experienced a substantial reduction in depressive symptoms from baseline to 12 months, the reductions were stronger for the two intervention groups. However, FEE + MFG was not significantly different from FEE at 12 months. DISCUSSION: Results imply that the FEE intervention may be a promising tool in addressing depressive symptoms among adolescent girls. Therefore, to reduce the long-term implications of adverse psychosocial health during adolescence, policymakers and program implementers should explore scaling up economic empowerment interventions in similar settings to bridge the mental health treatment gap for adolescent girls.

Suubi4Stigma study protocol: a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial to address HIV-associated stigma among adolescents living with HIV in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is heavily burdened by HIV, with 85% of the global new infections among adolescents happening in the region. With advances in medication and national policies promoting antiretroviral therapy (ART), children < 15 years living with HIV (CLWH) continue to grow with a chronic, highly stigmatized disease. Unfortunately, the stigma they experience results in much lower quality of life, including poor mental health and treatment outcomes. Family members also experience stigma and shame by virtue of their association with an HIV-infected family member. Yet, stigma-reduction interventions targeting CLWH and their families are very limited. The goal of this study is to address HIV-associated stigma among CLWH and their caregivers in Uganda. METHODS: This three-arm cluster randomized control trial, known as Suubi4Stigma, will evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary impact of two evidence-based interventions: (1) group cognitive behavioral therapy (G-CBT) focused on cognitive restructuring and strengthening coping skills at the individual level and (2) a multiple family group (MFG) intervention that strengthens family relationships to address stigma among CLWH (N = 90, 10-14 years) and their families (dyads) in Uganda. Nine clinics will be randomized to one of three study arms (n = 3 clinics, 30 child-caregiver dyads each): (1) usual care; (2) G-CBT + usual care; and (3) MFG + usual care. Both treatment and control conditions  will be delivered over a 3-month period. Data will be collected at baseline (pre-intervention) and at 3 months and 6 months post-intervention initiation. CONCLUSION: The primary aim of the proposed project is to address the urgent need for theoretically and empirically informed interventions that seek to reduce HIV-associated stigma and its negative impact on adolescent health and psychosocial well-being. As several countries in SSA grapple with care and support for CLWH, this study will lay the foundation for a larger intervention study investigating how HIV-associated stigma can be reduced to foster healthy child development-especially for CLWH as they transition through adolescence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04528732 ; Registered August 27, 2020.

Impact of Working Together for adults with autism spectrum disorder: a multifamily group intervention.

BACKGROUND: Adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have lower engagement in their communities, higher rates of unemployment/underemployment, and continued difficulties with challenging behavior compared to their neurotypical peers. Multi-family psychoeducation emphasizes education and problem-solving with the goal of improving these outcomes for the individual with the disability. METHODS: Using a randomized waitlist control design, the present study evaluated a multi-family group psychoeducation intervention, Working Together, for adults on the autism spectrum without intellectual disability (n = 40). Five waves of data were collected at 3-month intervals. In this design, families in the intervention condition participated in intervention during the 6 months between baseline and time 3 data collection; the waitlist control condition received the intervention immediately after the time 3 data collection. We compared these two conditions, intervention group (n = 20) vs waitlist control group (n = 20), on key outcomes for the adults with ASD: engagement in work-related activities, engagement in meaningful activities, and behavior problems. RESULTS: Results indicated medium to large effect sizes associated with the Working Together intervention across key outcomes, including adults on the spectrum experiencing significant increases in meaningful activities and decreases in internalizing problems. Although increases in work-related activities were not statistically significant, an observed one-half of a standard deviation difference from before to after the intervention indicated clinically significant change. We also found maintenance of the treatment effect through 6 months post-treatment for the intervention group and replication of the treatment effect within the control group after they received the intervention. CONCLUSION: Working Together is a promising multi-family group psychoeducation intervention designed to improve functioning during adulthood. These findings highlight the need for more intervention services research during adulthood and specifically the need for family-centered supports.

Adaptation and Implementation of the Multiple-Family Group Intervention in Ghana.

BACKGROUND: The health system in Ghana is severely underequipped to meet the needs of children with behavioral health problems. A substantial treatment gap exists among individuals with behavioral challenges, necessitating the implementation of an evidence-based intervention to address child behavioral challenges in Ghana. This article presents learning opportunities from the adaptation and initiation process of an evidence-based approach, the multiple-family group (MFG) intervention, aimed at addressing child behavioral challenges in northern Ghana. METHODS: The MFG intervention will be tested and implemented in three schools selected through a clustered randomization process, with 60 child-caregiver dyads per school. Each school will be assigned to MFG delivery by parent peers, MFG delivery by School Health Education Program (SHEP) coordinators, or an intervention where students are supplied only with mental health wellness materials and educational supports. The providers will be assessed on a fidelity measure. RESULTS: The approach of engaging stakeholders in Ghana is anticipated to prove challenging because multiple partners are involved in MFG implementation. Participants are expected to actively participate, however, given some changes to the protocol to adapt it to the Ghanaian context, including the types of MFG facilitators and sample size. Other anticipated challenges include obtaining permission from key partners such as the education authorities, timing of the study within the academic calendar in Ghana, and meeting the high expectations of school authorities for the study. NEXT STEPS: The MFG intervention will be delivered by parent peers and SHEP coordinators at the selected schools.

Multiple family group intervention for spinal cord injury: Quantitative and qualitative comparison with standard education.

Objective: To evaluate a Multiple Family Group (MFG) education and support intervention for individuals with Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) and their primary caregivers. We hypothesized that MFG would be superior to an Education Control Group (EC) for improving patient activation and coping skills, social supports, and relationship functioning.Setting: A large free-standing inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation facility.Participants: Community dwelling adults with SCI and their caregivers living in the Northwest United States.Interventions/Methods: Nineteen individuals with SCI who had been discharged from inpatient rehabilitation within the previous three years, and their primary caregivers participated. Patient/caregiver pairs were randomized to the MFG intervention or an active SCI EC condition in a two-armed clinical trial design. Participants were assessed pre- and post-program and 6 months post-program. Qualitative and quantitative outcomes were evaluated. Focus groups were conducted with each group to determine benefits and recommendations for improvement.Results: Relative to EC, MFG reduced passive coping and increased subjective and overall social support in participants with SCI. Relative to EC, MFG also reduced passive coping in caregivers. Patient activation relative to EC was non-significantly increased. Content analysis identified four themes describing participants' experiences: enhanced sense of belonging, increased opportunities for engagement, knowledge, and team work; results that were generally congruent with quantitative measures of improved social support.Conclusions: Relative to EC, MFG assisted participants with SCI and their caregivers to manage the difficult, long-term, life adjustments by improving coping and strengthening social support.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02161913. Registered 10 June 2014.

Multi-Family Therapy for First Episode Psychosis: Experiences of Families in Singapore.

Aim: This qualitative study examined the experiences of families with Multi-Family Therapy (MFT) provided by the Early Psychosis Intervention Programme (EPIP) in Singapore. The MFT was piloted over a period of 2 years and findings from this study were used to further refine the MFT to better meet the needs of Singaporean families in the service. Methods: Families who completed the MFT were invited to participate in the study. Nine clients and ten carers who consented to participate in the study were allocated to two client and two carer Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) respectively. A semi-structured interview schedule was used to facilitate the discussions. The FGDs were audio recorded, transcribed, and anonymised. The data was analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Four main themes emerged from the analysis: (1) therapeutic processes of MFT, (2) positive changes in family relationships, (3) improvements in coping with psychosis, and (4) suggestions for improvement in MFT. The families suggested some structural changes to the MFT, and more carers than clients would prefer therapists to offer more expert advice. Conclusions: Findings suggest that a Western-based MFT can be adapted to work with Singaporean families. This study sheds light on the therapeutic processes that may be related to the changes in family relationships and coping with psychosis. In addition, it suggests that therapists taking an expert and authoritative approach may not fit with the needs of younger generations in Singapore. It advocates for therapists to take a flexible and fluid stance to work with Singaporean families.

Providers' Perspectives on Implementing a Multiple Family Group for Children with Disruptive Behavior.

OBJECTIVES: The adoption of research-supported treatments is contingent upon multiple interactional levels, including provider level factors. Provider-level factors have been shown to be critical to uptake. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between sociodemographic factors, attitudes, and perceived barriers/facilitators to implementation through a comparative approach involving practitioners trained to facilitate a multiple family group intervention for children with disruptive behavior. METHODS: Participants included 91 practitioners who participated in an intervention study regarding barriers to adopting an evidence-based practice. Demographic characteristics were collected via a socio-demographic questionnaire. Barriers and facilitators were assessed via open-ended questions as well as a scale, developed by the authors and guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research that explored provider views regarding the intervention, the systemic and organizational context, experience facilitating groups and involving families in treatment, and feelings toward involving families in treatment. Between group analyses were conducted to examine demographic and characteristic differences of providers by implementation status. Independent samples t-tests for continuous characteristics and chi-square tests for categorical characteristics were used. Responses to open-ended questions were compiled, reviewed, and coded, and frequencies and percentages were calculated. RESULTS: Results demonstrated that providers who implemented the intervention were significantly more likely to have favorable attitudes toward the intervention compared to those who did not implement it. Prior experience facilitating groups was significantly associated with implementation. Common barriers to implementation included ineligible caseloads and feeling unqualified to deliver the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Further attention on improving recruitment rates and promoting adequate training and supervision is needed.

What is communication assistance? Describing a new and emerging profession in the New Zealand youth justice system.

'Communication assistance' is a term that derives from section 80 of the Evidence Act 2006: a legislative provision that has given birth to a whole new profession in the New Zealand legal system. This legislative provision has been used to appoint a new role: that of the communication assistant to support complainants, witnesses and defendants of all ages with identified communication needs. This study focuses specifically on the provision of communication assistance for young people who offend in the New Zealand criminal justice system. It provides a qualitative analysis of professionals' descriptions (n = 28 participants) of communication assistance for this population in justice processes. The findings illustrate that communication assistance shares its core with a similar role in England and Wales, that of the intermediary, but that communication assistants in New Zealand have broader scope than their counterparts working in the area of youth justice.

Additions and corrections to "Family-group names in Coleoptera (Insecta)".

Changes to the treatment of Coleoptera family-group names published by Bouchard et al. (2011) are given. These include necessary additions and corrections based on much-appreciated suggestions from our colleagues, as well as our own research. Our ultimate goal is to assemble a complete list of available Coleoptera family-group names published up to the end of 2010 (including information about their spelling, author, year of publication, and type genus). The following 59 available Coleoptera family-group names are based on type genera not included in Bouchard et al. (2011): Prothydrinae Guignot, 1954, Aulonogyrini Ochs, 1953 (Gyrinidae); Pogonostomini Mandl 1954, Merismoderini Wasmann, 1929, †Escheriidae Kolbe, 1880 (Carabidae); Timarchopsinae Wang, Ponomarenko & Zhang, 2010 (Coptoclavidae); Stictocraniini Jakobson, 1914 (Staphylinidae); Cylindrocaulini Zang, 1905, Kaupiolinae Zang, 1905 (Passalidae); Phaeochroinae Kolbe, 1912 (Hybosoridae); Anthypnidae Chalande, 1884 (Glaphyridae); Comophorini Britton, 1957, Comophini Britton, 1978, Chasmidae Streubel, 1846, Mimelidae Theobald, 1882, Rhepsimidae Streubel, 1846, Ometidae Streubel, 1846, Jumnidae Burmeister, 1842, Evambateidae Gistel, 1856 (Scarabaeidae); Protelmidae Jeannel, 1950 (Byrrhoidea); Pseudeucinetini Csiki, 1924 (Limnichidae); Xylotrogidae Schönfeldt, 1887 (Bostrichidae); †Mesernobiinae Engel, 2010, Fabrasiinae Lawrence & Reichardt, 1966 (Ptinidae); Arhinopini Kirejtshuk & Bouchard, 2018 (Nitidulidae); Hypodacninae Dajoz, 1976, Ceuthocera Mannerheim, 1852 (Cerylonidae); Symbiotinae Joy, 1932 (Endomychidae); Cheilomenini Schilder & Schilder, 1928, Veraniini Schilder & Schilder, 1928 (Coccinellidae); Ennearthroninae Chûjô, 1939 (Ciidae); Curtimordini Odnosum, 2010, Mordellochroini Odnosum, 2010 (Mordellidae); Chanopterinae Borchmann, 1915 (Promecheilidae); Heptaphyllini Prudhomme de Borre, 1886, Olocratarii Baudi di Selve, 1875, Opatrinaires Mulsant & Rey, 1853, Telacianae Poey, 1854, Ancylopominae Pascoe, 1871 (Tenebrionidae); Oxycopiini Arnett, 1984 (Oedemeridae); Eutrypteidae Gistel, 1856 (Mycteridae); Pogonocerinae Iablokoff-Khnzorian, 1985 (Pyrochroidae); Amblyderini Desbrochers des Loges, 1899 (Anthicidae); Trotommideini Pic, 1903 (Scraptiidae); Acmaeopsini Della Beffa, 1915, Trigonarthrini Villiers, 1984, Eunidiini Téocchi, Sudre & Jiroux, 2010 (Cerambycidae); Macropleini Lopatin, 1977, Stenopodiides Horn, 1883, Microrhopalides Horn, 1883, Colaphidae Siegel, 1866, Lexiphanini Wilcox, 1954 (Chrysomelidae); †Medmetrioxenoidesini Legalov, 2010, †Megametrioxenoidesini Legalov, 2010 (Nemonychidae); Myrmecinae Tanner, 1966, Tapinotinae Joy, 1932, Acallinae Joy, 1932, Cycloderini Hoffmann, 1950, Sthereini Hatch, 1971 (Curculionidae). The following 21 family-group names, listed as unavailable in Bouchard et al. (2011), are determined to be available: Eohomopterinae Wasmann, 1929 (Carabidae); Prosopocoilini Benesh, 1960, Pseudodorcini Benesh, 1960, Rhyssonotini Benesh, 1960 (Lucanidae); Galbini Beaulieu, 1919 (Eucnemidae); Troglopates Mulsant & Rey, 1867 (Melyridae); Hippodamiini Weise, 1885 (Coccinellidae); Micrositates Mulsant & Rey, 1854, Héliopathaires Mulsant & Rey, 1854 (Tenebrionidae); Hypasclerini Arnett, 1984; Oxaciini Arnett, 1984 (Oedemeridae); Stilpnonotinae Borchmann, 1936 (Mycteridae); Trogocryptinae Lawrence, 1991 (Salpingidae); Grammopterini Della Beffa, 1915, Aedilinae Perrier, 1893, Anaesthetinae Perrier, 1893 (Cerambycidae); Physonotitae Spaeth, 1942, Octotomides Horn, 1883 (Chrysomelidae); Sympiezopinorum Faust, 1886, Sueinae Murayama, 1959, Eccoptopterini Kalshoven, 1959 (Curculionidae). The following names were proposed as new without reference to family-group names based on the same type genus which had been made available at an earlier date: Dineutini Ochs, 1926 (Gyrinidae); Odonteini Shokhin, 2007 (Geotrupidae); Fornaxini Cobos, 1965 (Eucnemidae); Auletobiina Legalov, 2001 (Attelabidae). The priority of several family-group names, listed as valid in Bouchard et al. (2011), is affected by recent bibliographic discoveries or new nomenclatural interpretations. †Necronectinae Ponomarenko, 1977 is treated as permanently invalid and replaced with †Timarchopsinae Wang, Ponomarenko & Zhang, 2010 (Coptoclavidae); Agathidiini Westwood, 1838 is replaced by the older name Anisotomini Horaninow, 1834 (Staphylinidae); Cyrtoscydmini Schaufuss, 1889 is replaced by the older name Stenichnini Fauvel, 1885 (Staphylinidae); Eremazinae Iablokoff-Khnzorian, 1977 is treated as unavailable and replaced with Eremazinae Stebnicka, 1977 (Scarabaeidae); Coryphocerina Burmeister, 1842 is replaced by the older name Rhomborhinina Westwood, 1842 (Scarabaeidae); Eudysantina Bouchard, Lawrence, Davies & Newton, 2005 is replaced by the older name Dysantina Gebien, 1922 which is not permanently invalid (Tenebrionidae). The names Macraulacinae/-ini Fleutiaux, 1923 (Eucnemidae), Anamorphinae Strohecker, 1953 (Endomychidae), Pachycnemina Laporte, 1840 (Scarabaeidae), Thaumastodinae Champion, 1924 (Limnichidae), Eudicronychinae Girard, 1971 (Elateridae), Trogoxylini Lesne, 1921 (Bostrichidae), Laemophloeidae Ganglbauer, 1899 (Laemophloeidae); Ancitini Aurivillius, 1917 (Cerambycidae) and Tropiphorini Marseul, 1863 (Curculionidae) are threatened by the discovery of older names; Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: Art. 23.9) or an application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature will be necessary to retain usage of the younger synonyms. Reversal of Precedence is used herein to qualify the following family-group names as nomina protecta: Murmidiinae Jacquelin du Val, 1858 (Cerylonidae) and Chalepini Weise, 1910 (Chrysomelidae). The following 17 Coleoptera family-group names (some of which are used as valid) are homonyms of other family-group names in zoology, these cases must be referred to the Commission for a ruling to remove the homonymy: Catiniidae Ponomarenko, 1968 (Catiniidae); Homopterinae Wasmann, 1920, Glyptini Horn, 1881 (Carabidae); Tychini Raffray, 1904, Ocypodina Hatch, 1957 (Staphylinidae); Gonatinae Kuwert, 1891 (Passalidae); Aplonychidae Burmeister, 1855 (Scarabaeidae); Microchaetini Paulus, 1973 (Byrrhidae); Epiphanini Muona, 1993 (Eucnemidae); Limoniina Jakobson, 1913 (Elateridae); Ichthyurini Champion, 1915 (Cantharidae); Decamerinae Crowson, 1964 (Trogossitidae); Trichodidae Streubel, 1839 (Cleridae); Monocorynini Miyatake, 1988 (Coccinellidae); Gastrophysina Kippenberg, 2010, Chorinini Weise, 1923 (Chrysomelidae); Meconemini Pierce, 1930 (Anthribidae). The following new substitute names are proposed: Phoroschizus (to replace Schizophorus Ponomarenko, 1968) and Phoroschizidae (to replace Schizophoridae Ponomarenko, 1968); Mesostyloides (to replace Mesostylus Faust, 1894) and Mesostyloidini (to replace Mesostylini Reitter, 1913). The following new genus-group name synonyms are proposed [valid names in square brackets]: Plocastes Gistel, 1856 [Aesalus Fabricius, 1801] (Lucanidae); Evambates Gistel, 1856 [Trichius Fabricius, 1775] (Scarabaeidae); Homoeoplastus Gistel, 1856 [Byturus Latreille, 1797] (Byturidae). Two type genera previously treated as preoccupied and invalid, Heteroscelis Latreille, 1828 and Dysantes Pascoe, 1869 (Tenebrionidae), are determined to be senior homonyms based on bibliographical research. While Dysantes is treated as valid here, Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: Art. 23.9) is used to conserve usage of Anomalipus Guérin-Méneville, 1831 over Heteroscelis.

Feasibility of Family Group Conference to promote return-to-work of persons receiving work disability benefit.

Purpose: To investigate the feasibility of Family Group Conference for promoting return to work by clients receiving work disability benefits from the Social Security Institute in the Netherlands.Methods: We conducted a mixed-method pre- post-intervention feasibility study, using questionnaires, semi-structured interviews and return to work plans drafted in Family Group Conferences. A convenient sample of Labour experts, Clients, and Facilitators was followed for a period of six months. Feasibility outcomes were demand, acceptability, implementation and limited efficacy of perceived mental health and level of participation.Results: Fourteen labour experts and sixteen facilitators enrolled in the study. Of 28 eligible clients, nine (32%) participated in a Family Group Conference. About 78% of the Family Group Conferences were implemented as planned. Participant satisfaction about Family Group Conference was good (mean score 7). Perceived mental health and level of participation improved slightly during follow-up. Most actions in the return to work plans were work related. Most frequently chosen to take action was the participating client himself, supported by significant others in his or her social network. Six months after the Family Group Conference five participating clients returned to paid or voluntary work.Conclusions: Family Group Conference seems a feasible intervention to promote return to work by clients on work disability benefit. Involvement of the social network may have added value to support the clients in this process. An effectiveness study to further develop and test Family Group Conferences is recommended.Implications for rehabilitationFamily Group Conference may represent a promising approach to be used in activation strategies to enhance social inclusion and return to work of persons receiving disability benefits.Conventional supply-oriented activation services could be improved by providing the Family Group Conference to unemployed persons on disability benefit.Involvement of the social network may have added value for return to work of clients receiving work disability benefits.