Craig Bryan, PsyD, ABPP

I’ve been surprised by how often I’m asked to run new analyses from clinical trials that include variables or groupings that were not originally reported. Aside from the time commitment involved in that, it seems problematic to include findings from new and otherwise unreported analyses.

I estimate that I receive 4-6 requests per year now related to meta-analyses that ask for some sort of reanalysis. I’m okay with simple things like “hey can you tell us what the r value is for men separate from women in this one study you did?”

I can think of many instances where the information provided in a meta analysis cannot be traced back to the original publication. How often are “ghost findings” included in meta-analyses?

A question I’ve wondered about this: if the original study can only meet inclusion criteria by running analyses that were not previously conducted or don’t flow naturally from the original study aims, is it appropriate to include in a meta-analysis?

Every email I receive from meta-analysis researchers:

“Hi, I’d like to include your study in my meta-analysis. I just need you to do everything in a completely different way. I will not pay you nor will you receive credit for your time and effort. Thanks for supporting science!”

A Human Resources Software Company Used By Most Fortune 500 Companies Is Laying Off 8.5% of Its Workforce — Entrepreneur Human resources software platform Workday, a $73 billion company, announced on Wednesday that it is cutting 1,750 positions or 8.5% of its current 20,500-person workforce.

Workday? More like Worstday. What an absolutely terrible system.

apple.news/AEtojtt5HQcu...

It’s been really difficult to get the MH field to see how risk-benefit ratios change when interventions initially developed for higher acuity clinical contexts are subsequently implemented in lower acuity settings.

This same article could be written about Workday.

We have 5 (yes 5!) postdoc joining the STRIVE team next year!!! 🎉🥂

Why the latest CDC teen mental health report is a politically inconvenient bombshell for crusading California pols The report reveals that teens’ use of social media is more complicated than the simplistic campaigns to restrict access recognize.

New CDC data again shows that “Linking smartphones and social media to youth well-being distracts us from the real difficulties faced by young people”

Exactly.

Excellent summary of why in the San Francisco Chronicle by Mike Males.

www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/open...

We used the Stanley-Brown form.

CRP’s advantage held at 6 and 12 months although this advantage was not statistically significant. CRP also had around 50% fewer suicide attempts than safety planning.

Overall results support the superiority of CRP vs safety planning. This is the second RCT to support CRP’s effectiveness.

Crisis response planning rapidly reduces suicidal ideation among U.S. military veterans receiving ma... Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is common among U.S. military veterans and is associated with increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors. …

🚨 New Paper 🚨

We randomized veterans with PTSD to crisis response planning (CRP) or safety planning during massed PTSD therapy. Results support the superiority of CRP for suicide risk reduction. Sig diff emerged at week 1 & were maintained at treatment end.

www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

The latter. The rationale is that the big gains have already been made so the effect sizes going forward will be much smaller by default. I think it reflects a bias that views larger effect sizes as more impactful.

I should note that I’m making this point not only as someone proposing tx refinements but also as a fellow reviewer who has rebutted this perspective more than once.

The rationale presented is often that the treatment is already better than something else with a much larger effect size, so any refinements by default will have smaller effect sizes, which is viewed as having low impact.

This issue is especially pronounced in suicide prevention. I’m stunned by how often reviewers discount efforts to make an effective tx even more effective. It’s akin to saying “20% of patients attempting suicide in tx is okay. Trying to reduce that to 10% isn’t meaningful.”

The obsession of grant reviewers with “innovation” and “impact” directly impedes advances in MH/psych treatments. If you propose to take a good tx and improve it somehow, reviewers will unfailingly say “so what?” or “why bother?” As a result, we end up with lots of ok but not great txs.

Randomly reflecting on the show Barry and marveling over Bill Hader’s range from dry comedic to intense dramatic.

Only a few states and territories remaining to visit.

Me: okay, here you go.

University: rejected. The amount charged doesn’t match our calculations of exchange rates.

Me: 🤷🏻‍♂️ that’s what I paid.

University: we’re only going to reimburse you 99.999% of your voucher total.

Me: Ok…. So you spent hundreds of dollars to save <$10. Cool cool cool.

Latest adventures in university travel reimbursements:

Attended an international conference. ~1/3 of the credit charges I selected the USD option to account for exchange rates.

University: Rejected. We need credit card statements to confirm the amounts on the receipt are what you actually paid.

Veterans are leading the drive to encourage a culture of responsible firearm ownership.

apnews.com/article/gun-...

It’s been a few years since that happened to me. I do wonder how that happens.

Did anyone by chance give you a sock?

Thanks @ploederl.bsky.social. We’ve been doing massed therapy for several years now and it’s been a total game changer for patients.

This is a satisfying thread. Thank you for your service.

Integrating crisis response planning into massed CPT led to faster reductions in suicidal ideation and 50% fewer suicide attempts vs. massed CPT with usual care safety planning.

I’m not gonna lie. We have the best team ever at OSU.

Thanks so much for taking this pic!