This editorial introduces a revised set of publication requirements for papers, submitted to Homeopathy, that involve animal experimentation. Journals that publish studies involving animal experimentation have a major role to play in the maintenance of ethical standards because researchers are reliant upon them for publication of their findings. With an increasing global trend towards greater transparency and accountability in animal experimentation, many academic journals, such as the British Journal of Pharmacology, 1 and 2 are taking action to improve reporting standards. (...) In recognition of this need, members of Homeopathy's Editorial Board have been working together to examine the scientific rationale and the most relevant ethical guidelines for the use of animals in research. In addition, they have examined existing published studies in homeopathy research and current practice within the broad domain of medical research. Each of these aspects has informed the revised publication policy, whose overarching objectives are to maximise the ethical standards and scientific quality of animal research in homeopathy, and thereby ultimately to avoid any unnecessary suffering of animals used in such research. The following description details the background that was considered, the rationale for this development, and the steps that will be taken. (shrink)

ObjectiveApproximately half of all people living with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis experience persistent or recurrent emotional distress, yet little is known about the psychological processes that maintain emotional distress in this population. The self-regulatory executive functioning model specifies that maladaptive metacognitive beliefs and processes are central to the development and maintenance of emotional distress. This study explored whether maladaptive metacognitive beliefs are associated with emotional distress after controlling for demographic factors, time since diagnosis, and current level of physical functioning.DesignIn a cross-sectional (...) design, 75 adults with a diagnosis of ALS completed self-report questionnaires. Participants had a mean age of 60.40 years, mean duration of symptoms 63.92 months, and male:female gender ratio of 14:11.Main Outcome MeasuresQuestionnaires assessed emotional distress, physical functioning, repetitive negative thinking, metacognitive beliefs, and demographic factors.ResultsMaladaptive metacognitive beliefs explained additional variance in emotional distress after controlling for age, gender, time since diagnosis, physical functioning, and repetitive negative thinking. Repetitive negative thinking partially mediated the relationships between positive and negative metacognitive beliefs and emotional distress.ConclusionsThese data support the utility of the metacognitive model in understanding emotional distress in people with ALS. Examination of the temporal relationship between maladaptive metacognitive beliefs and emotional distress in people living with ALS may help to guide the development of therapeutic approaches. (shrink)

IntroductionHead and neck cancer diagnosis and treatment can be a significant life trauma. Some HNC survivors experience post-traumatic growth, which has been linked with better health-related quality-of-life. Empirical research on PTG, and theoretical models, point to the importance of being able to purposely make sense of the traumatic experience. Intrusive rumination, by contrast, is linked to poorer outcomes. This study explored HNC survivors’ experiences of rumination.MethodsTwenty HNC survivors between 9 months and 5 years post-diagnosis were recruited. They had a range (...) of HNC sub-types and cancer treatments. Participants underwent a semi-structured interview about their cancer diagnosis and treatment. Reflexive thematic analysis identified themes and sub-themes around rumination.ResultsFour themes with linked subthemes on the content and process of rumination were identified. Theme 1 was rumination and worry related to diagnosis. Here, survivors discussed how the HNC diagnosis and plans for treatment had dominated their initial thoughts. Theme 2 was processing the trauma of HNC. This theme reflected rumination on the traumatic experience of diagnosis and treatment and how the participant was reacting to it. Theme 3 was considering the impact. This theme encompassed retrospective thinking and comparisons between the participant now versus the early days after diagnosis. Theme 4 was continued rumination. This theme included ongoing intrusive and distressing rumination about the trauma and impact of cancer. Those who expressed ongoing rumination revisited fears or returned to negative experiences.ConclusionThis study uniquely describes the nature and content of rumination following HNC. Early intrusive rumination is common and may reflect perceptions of cancer as an existential threat. Over time, rumination can become more reflective and move towards deliberate meaning-making. Some HNC survivors may benefit from interventions to reduce barriers to this transition. The content of distressing and difficult to control rumination helps to identify those who may benefit from more directed psychological support. (shrink)

The focus of this Perspective article is on the comparison of two of the most popular initial applicant screening methods: Resumes and application forms. The viewpoint offered is that application forms are superior to resumes during the initial applicant screening stage of selection. This viewpoint is supported in part based on criterion-related validity evidence that favors application forms over resumes. For example, the biographical data inventory, which can contain similar questions to those used in application forms, is one of the (...) most valid predictors of job performance, whereas job experience and years of education, which are often inferred from resumes and cover letters, are two of the least valid predictors of job performance. In addition to validity evidence, making decisions based on application forms as opposed to resumes is likely to help organizations defend against claims of discriminatory hiring while enhancing their ability to hire in a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive manner. For example, applicant names on resumes can lead to screening bias against members of identifiable subgroups, whereas an applicant’s name can be easily and automatically hidden from decision-makers when reviewing application forms. Despite these convincing arguments focused on applicant quality and diversity, a substantial research–practice gap regarding the use of resumes and cover letters remains. (shrink)

Homeopathy is controversial and hotly debated. The conclusions of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of homeopathy vary from ‘comparable to conventional medicine’ to ‘no evidence of effects beyond placebo’. It is claimed that homeopathy conflicts with scientific laws and that homoeopaths reject the naturalistic outlook, but no evidence has been cited. We are homeopathic physicians and researchers who do not reject the scientific outlook; we believe that examination of the prior beliefs underlying this enduring stand-off can advance the debate. (...) We show that interpretations of the same set of evidence—for homeopathy and for conventional medicine—can diverge. Prior disbelief in homeopathy is rooted in the perceived implausibility of any conceivable mechanism of action. Using the ‘crossword analogy’, we demonstrate that plausibility bias impedes assessment of the clinical evidence. Sweeping statements about the scientific impossibility of homeopathy are themselves unscientific: scientific statements must be precise and testable. There is growing evidence that homeopathic preparations can exert biological effects; due consideration of such research would reduce the influence of prior beliefs on the assessment of systematic review evidence. (shrink)

Homeopathy is controversial and hotly debated. The conclusions of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of homeopathy vary from ‘comparable to conventional medicine’ to ‘no evidence of effects beyond placebo’. It is claimed that homeopathy conflicts with scientific laws and that homoeopaths reject the naturalistic outlook, but no evidence has been cited. We are homeopathic physicians and researchers who do not reject the scientific outlook; we believe that examination of the prior beliefs underlying this enduring stand-off can advance the debate. (...) We show that interpretations of the same set of evidence—for homeopathy and for conventional medicine—can diverge. Prior disbelief in homeopathy is rooted in the perceived implausibility of any conceivable mechanism of action. Using the ‘crossword analogy’, we demonstrate that plausibility bias impedes assessment of the clinical evidence. Sweeping statements about the scientific impossibility of homeopathy are themselves unscientific: scientific statements must be precise and testable. There is growing evidence that homeopathic preparations can exert biological effects; due consideration of such research would reduce the influence of prior beliefs on the assessment of systematic review evidence. (shrink)