What Behaviours and Cognitions Support Responsible Consumption of Gambling? Results from an Expert Survey

This study analysed expert views on (1) the adequacy of the current promotion of responsible gambling, (2) the practicality and worth of developing an evidence-based set of responsible gambling consumption behaviours and cognitions and (3) the relative importance of behaviours and cognitions promoted as supporting responsible consumption of gambling. Experts (N = 107) rated the importance of 61 behaviours and cognitions, distilled from a systematic literature review and content analysis of 30 websites, and grouped into seven categories. Behaviours and cognitions considered most important for problem gamblers related to ensuring gambling is affordable, limiting persistence at gambling, and using help and support. Those for at-risk gamblers related to understanding gambling, ensuring gambling expenditure is affordable, and keeping gambling in balance. For non-problem gamblers, important behaviours and cognitions related to understanding gambling, keeping gambling in balance, and positive motivations for gambling. Current promotion of responsible gambling was considered inadequate. Efforts to develop, validate and promote evidence-based responsible gambling consumption behaviours and cognitions can build on those identified in this research.     

Legal Representatives’ Opinions regarding Psychologists Engaging in Expert Witness Services in Australian Courts and Tribunals

Legal representatives engage psychologists to provide expert witness opinions about a number of factors, including the psychological factors that may have contributed to the perpetrator's behaviour and the likelihood of reoffending. Although this evidence can affect the outcome of proceedings, little is known about how the experts who provide it are chosen or about the quality of their services. This paper explored legal representatives’ reasons for engaging psychologists as expert witnesses, how they choose these experts, and their opinions about the expertise provided. Questions were also asked about the features of good and poor written and oral expert testimony. The results show that the majority of legal representatives engage psychologists who are usually chosen through referrals from colleagues and others. The legal representatives in the present sample had little awareness about the different backgrounds of experts (e.g. clinical vs forensic psychology). These results have implications for psychologists who provide expert evidence and the legal representatives who engage them.     

Examining Harry Thaw’s “Brain-Storm” Defense: APA and ANA Presidents as Expert Witnesses in a 1907 Trial

In 1907, Harry K. Thaw, son of a railroad multi-millionaire, stood trial for shooting and killing architect Stanford White during the performance of a Broadway musical. The defense claimed that Thaw had experienced a "brain storm" causing temporary insanity. The brain-storm defense was ridiculed by professional groups, the public and the press. However, the defense experts were all respected leaders in their fields. They included five past or future presidents of the American Psychiatric Association and American Neurological Association. With no standard terminology in 1907, the much-maligned brain-storm diagnosis was in many respects an appropriate term for a sudden, drastic and temporary defect of reasoning having a physical cause. In spite of a strict test for mental nonresponsibility, the jury did not return a murder verdict.     

Expert clinicians’ prototypes of an ideal child treatment in psychodynamic and cognitive-behavioral therapy: Is mentalization seen as a common process factor?

Objective: To investigate (a) whether expert clinicians within psychodynamic therapy (PDT) and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) agree on key features of child psychotherapy process using the Child Psychotherapy Process Q-Set (CPQ); (b) whether these two prototypes can be empirically distinguished; and (c) whether promoting mentalization (operationalized as reflective functioning [RF]) is a shared component of the way expert clinicians conceptualize these two treatment models. Method: Thirty-one raters with expertise in PDT, CBT, and RF provided ratings of the 100 CPQ items to describe an ideal prototype session that adheres to the principles of their treatment model. Two Q-factor analyses with varimax rotation were conducted. Results: Expert clinicians reached a high level of agreement on their respective PDT and CBT prototypes. These prototypes loaded onto two independent factors. The RF process prototype loaded onto both factors. Conclusions: From the theoretical perspective of expert clinicians representing PDT and CBT, a focus on RF appears to be a common process factor in the way both treatment models are conceptualized. The CPQ can also be a useful instrument in teaching psychotherapy process from different theoretical perspectives and training future clinicians in their application. Future researchers can use these prototypes to explore process in actual sessions.     

Expert opinion: use of valproate in girls and women of childbearing potential with epilepsy: recommendations and alternatives based on a review of the literature and clinical experience—a European perspective

Journal of Neurology - Valproate is a broad-spectrum antiepileptic drug (AED) of particular interest in pediatric epilepsy syndromes and idiopathic generalized epilepsy, as it is relatively more...