Mental health and wellness research continue to be a topic of importance among veterinary students in the United States of America (US). Limited peer reviewed literature focusing on South African veterinary students is available. South African veterinary medical students might benefit from approaches to improve mental health and wellness similar to those recommended in the US. However, these recommendations may not address the underlying risk factors for mental health and wellness concerns or mismatch resources available to South African veterinary medical students. The purpose of this collaborative study was to compare the mental health and wellness among veterinary students enrolled at the University of California, Davis (UCD), and the University of Pretoria (UP), the only veterinary school in South Africa. Our primary research question was; Are the measures of mental health and wellness for students at similar stages in the veterinary curriculum different between the two schools? We hypothesized that mental health and wellness as determined by assessment of anxiety, burnout, depression, and quality of life between the two schools is different. A cross-sectional study of 102 students from UCD and 74 students from UP, at similar preclinical stages (Year 2 for UCD and Year 4 for UP) of the veterinary curriculum was performed. Anxiety, burnout, depression, and quality of life were assessed using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and Short Form-8 (SF-8), respectively. Students from both schools had moderate levels of anxiety, high levels of burnout, mild to moderate levels of depression, poor mental health, and good physical health. Our results suggest that similar mental health and wellness concerns in South African veterinary students is comparable with concerns in veterinary medical students in the US. Recommendations and resources to improve mental health and wellness in US veterinary medical students might be applicable to South African veterinary medical students.

Violent acts on university campuses are becoming more frequent. Enrollment rates of Latinos at universities is increasing. Research has indicated that youths are more susceptible to trauma, particularly Latinos. Thus, it is imperative to evaluate the validity of commonly used posttraumatic stress measures among Latino college students. The Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) is one of the most commonly used metrics of posttraumatic stress disorder symptomatology. However, it is largely unknown if the IES-R is measuring the same construct across different sub-samples (e.g. Latino versus non-Latino). The current study aimed to assess measurement invariance for the IES-R between Latino and non-Latino participants. A total of 545 participants completed the IES-R. One- and three-factor scoring solutions were compared using confirmatory factor analyses. Measurement invariance was then evaluated by estimating several multiple-group confirmatory factor analytic models. Four models with an increasing degree of invariance across groups were compared. A significant χ2 difference test was used to indicate a significant change in model fit between nested models within the measurement invariance testing process. The three-factor scoring solution could not be used for the measurement invariance process because the subscale correlations were too high for estimation (rs 0.92-1.00). Therefore, the one-factor model was used for the invariance testing process. Invariance was met for each level of invariance: configural, metric, scalar, and strict. All measurement invariance testing results indicated that the one-factor solution for the IES-R was equivalent for the Latino and non-Latino participants.

Medication adherence is an important determinant of transplant outcomes. Attempts to investigate adherence are frequently undermined by selection bias: It is very hard to recruit and retain non-adherent patients in research efforts. This manuscript presents recruitment strategies and results from the MALT (Medication Adherence in children who had a Liver Transplant) multisite prospective cohort study. MALT sites recruited 400 pediatric liver transplant patients who agreed to be followed for 2 years. The primary purpose was to determine whether a marker of adherence, the Medication Level Variability Index (MLVI), predicts rejection outcomes. The present manuscript describes methods used in MALT to ensure that a representative sample was recruited, and presents detailed recruitment results. MALT sites were able to recruit a nationally representative sample, as determined by a comparison between the MALT cohort and a national sample of transplant recipients. Strategies that helped ensure that the sample was representative included monitoring of the outcome measure in comparison with a national sample, drastically limiting patient burden, and specific recruitment methods. We discuss the importance of a representative sample in adherence research and recommend that future efforts to study adherence pay special attention to sample characteristics.

Objective

To further refine a measure of self-management, the Responsibility and Familiarity with Illness Survey (REFILS), and to determine if this score predicts medication adherence and, thus, fewer instances of allograft rejection among pediatric liver transplant recipients.

Study design

Participants were 400 liver transplant recipients and their parents recruited for the Medication Adherence in Children Who Had a Liver Transplant study, from 5 US pediatric transplant centers. The REFILS was administered to participants (ages 9-17 years) and their parents at enrollment (n = 213 completed dyads). The REFILS scores, and a discrepancy score calculated between patient and parent report of the patient's self-management, were used to predict Medication Level Variability Index (MLVI), a measure of medication adherence (higher MLVI = more variability in medication levels) and central pathologist-diagnosed rejection over a 2-year follow-up.

Results

When patients reported greater self-management, their adherence was lower (higher MLVI, r = 0.26, P < .01). Discrepancies between patient and parent report (patients endorsing higher levels than parents) were associated with lower adherence (r = 0.20, P < .01). Greater patient-reported self-management and higher discrepancy scores also predicted rejection.

Conclusions

We found that when patients endorse more responsibility for their care, clinical outcomes are worse, indicating that indiscriminate promotion of self-management by adolescents may not be advisable. A discrepancy between patient and parent perception of self-management emerged as a novel strategy to gauge the degree of risk involved in transitioning care responsibilities to the child.

A central pathology or site reading of biopsy slides is used in liver transplant clinical trials to determine rejection. We evaluated interrater reliability of readings of "rejection or not" using digitized slides from the Medication Adherence in Children who had a Liver Transplant (MALT) study. Four masked experienced pathologists read the digitized slides and then reread them after a study-specific histologic endpoint development program. Agreement was expressed throughout as a Kappa or Fleiss Kappa statistic (ҡ). A ҡ > 0.6 was predefined as desirable. Readings were correlated with immunosuppressant adherence (the Medication Level Variability Index, [MLVI]), and maximal liver enzyme levels during the study period. Interrater agreement between site and central review in MALT, and between 4 pathologists later on, was low (ҡ = 0.44, Fleiss ҡ = 0.41, respectively). Following the endpoint development program, agreement improved and became acceptable (ҡ = 0.71). The final reading was better-aligned with maximal gamma-glutamyl transferase levels and MLVI as compared with the original central reading. We found substantial disagreement between experienced pathologists reading the same slides. A unique study-specific procedure improved interrater reliability to the point it was acceptable. Such a procedure may be indicated to increase reliability of histopathologic determinations in future research, and perhaps also clinically.