Measuring hope amongst Tanzanian women who participate in microfinance: An evaluation of the Snyder hope scale

ABSTRACT

Measuring hope reliably and accurately remains an important research objective, not least in less prosperous settings where ‘holding on to hope’ may be critically important in the struggle against adverse life conditions. The State Hope Scale was designed for use in the US. Despite reported application in diverse cultures and using translations the scale has not been extensively validated outside US populations. This study contributes to a larger project exploring the measurement of hope and provides a critique of Snyder’s scale as used in a Tanzanian female population of 1021 urban microfinance participants. We evaluate the scale’s validity through assessment of the empirical distribution of scores, item response profiles, internal consistency and discriminatory ability. Participants mostly scored very high and many reached very near the maximum attainable score. Hardly any endorsed the negative half of the response scale. Several problems are discussed including poor discrimination and strong evidence of acquiescence response bias. We also found little association of the scale scores with hypothesised correlates of hope. Future improvements on the measurement of hope are recommended, especially in studies outside the narrow Western context in which the scale was devised.     

Maximizing intelligence obtained from higher-order DNA mixtures from volume crime samples

ABSTRACT

This work collates data from the analysis of complex mixtures analysed in STRmix during routine no-suspect volume crime work. It interrogates the upload rate for these types of mixtures and which component of the profile has been able to be interpreted for upload. The number of profiles giving multiple uploads and the amount of replicate PCR analysis has been collated.     

Brand-Name Antidepressants Outperform Their Generic Counterparts in Preventing Hospitalization for Depression: The Real-World Evidence from Taiwan

BackgroundGeneric antidepressants are approved on the market based on evidence of bioequivalence to their brand-name versions. We aimed to assess whether generic antidepressants exert equal effectiveness as their brand-name counterparts for treating patients with depressive disorders.MethodsIn a nationwide, population-based cohort in Taiwan from 1997 through 2013, patients with a diagnosis of a depressive disorder aged between 18 and 65 years who were new users of antidepressant drugs were classified into either the brand-name group or the generic group. All patients were followed up until medication discontinuation or the end of the study period. We assessed the risk for hospitalization as a primary outcome and augmentation therapy, daily dose, medication discontinuation, or switching to another antidepressant as secondary outcomes.ResultsA total of 277 651 brand-name users (35.8% male; mean age: 41.2 years) and 270 583 generic users (35.8% male; mean age: 41.0 years) were divided into 10 different antidepressant groups (fluoxetine, sertraline, paroxetine, escitalopram, citalopram, venlafaxine, mirtazapine, moclobemide, imipramine, and bupropion). We found that patients treated with the generic form of sertraline, paroxetine, escitalopram, venlafaxine, mirtazapine, and bupropion demonstrated significantly higher risks of psychiatric hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratios ranged from 1.20–2.34), compared to their brand-name counterparts. The differences between brand-name antidepressants and their generic counterparts in secondary outcomes varied across different drugs.ConclusionsCompared to most generic antidepressants, brand-name drugs exhibited more protective effects on psychiatric hospitalization for depressive patients. These findings could serve as an important reference for clinicians when encountering patients with depressive disorder.