Steve R. Makkar

Behavioral and Neural Analysis of GABA in the Acquisition, Consolidation, Reconsolidation, and Extinction of Fear Memory

The current review systematically documents the role of γ-amino-butyric acid (GABA) in different aspects of fear memory—acquisition and consolidation, reconsolidation, and extinction, and attempts to resolve apparent contradictions in the data in order to identify the function of GABAA receptors in fear memory. First, numerous studies have shown that pre- and post-training administration of drugs that facilitate GABAergic transmission disrupt the initial formation of fear memories, indicating a role for GABAA receptors, possibly within the amygdala and hippocampus, in the acquisition and consolidation of fear memories. Similarly, recent evidence indicates that these drugs are also detrimental to the restorage of fear memories after their reactivation. This suggests a role for GABAA receptors in the reconsolidation of fear memories, although the precise neural circuits are yet to be identified. Finally, research regarding the role of GABA in extinction has shown that GABAergic transmission is also disruptive to the formation of newly acquired extinction memories. We argue that contradictions to these patterns are the result of variations in (a) the location of drug infusion, (b) the dosage of the drug and/or (c) the time point of drug administration. The question of whether these GABA-induced memory deficits reflect deficits in retrieval is discussed. Overall, the evidence implies that the processes mediating memory stability consequent to initial fear learning, memory reactivation, and extinction training are dependent on a common mechanism of reduced GABAergic neurotransmission.

Social anxiety and the effects of negative self-imagery on emotion, cognition, and post-event processing.

Numerous studies have shown that social phobia patients experience negative self-impressions or images during social situations. Clark and Wells (1995) posited that such negative self-images are involved in the maintenance of social phobia. Thus, the present study investigated the effects of negative self-imagery on cognition and emotion during and following a brief social situation. Specifically, high and low socially anxious participants (N = 77) were instructed to hold either a negative or control self-image as they engaged in a brief speech. Participants then rated their anxiety, performance, cognitions, and focus of attention. Twenty-four hours later, they returned to the laboratory and completed questionnaires assessing the amount of post-event processing (PEP) they engaged in. The results showed that, irrespective of the level of social anxiety or depressive symptoms, participants that held the negative self-image experienced higher levels of anxiety, were more self-focused, experienced more negative thoughts, rated their anxiety as more visible, appraised their performance more negatively, and engaged in more negative and less positive PEP than participants that held the control self-image. Collectively the results indicate that negative imagery is causally involved in the maintenance of social phobia, as well as in the generation of social anxiety among non-anxious individuals.

Development and validation of SEER (Seeking, Engaging with and Evaluating Research): a measure of policymakers’ capacity to engage with and use research

BackgroundCapacity building strategies are widely used to increase the use of research in policy development. However, a lack of well-validated measures for policy contexts has hampered efforts to identify priorities for capacity building and to evaluate the impact of strategies. We aimed to address this gap by developing SEER (Seeking, Engaging with and Evaluating Research), a self-report measure of individual policymakers’ capacity to engage with and use research.MethodsWe used the SPIRIT Action Framework to identify pertinent domains and guide development of items for measuring each domain. Scales covered (1) individual capacity to use research (confidence in using research, value placed on research, individual perceptions of the value their organisation places on research, supporting tools and systems), (2) actions taken to engage with research and researchers, and (3) use of research to inform policy (extent and type of research use). A sample of policymakers engaged in health policy development provided data to examine scale reliability (internal consistency, test-retest) and validity (relation to measures of similar concepts, relation to a measure of intention to use research, internal structure of the individual capacity scales).ResultsResponse rates were 55% (150/272 people, 12 agencies) for the validity and internal consistency analyses, and 54% (57/105 people, 9 agencies) for test-retest reliability. The individual capacity scales demonstrated adequate internal consistency reliability (alpha coefficients > 0.7, all four scales) and test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficients > 0.7 for three scales and 0.59 for fourth scale). Scores on individual capacity scales converged as predicted with measures of similar concepts (moderate correlations of > 0.4), and confirmatory factor analysis provided evidence that the scales measured related but distinct concepts. Items in each of these four scales related as predicted to concepts in the measurement model derived from the SPIRIT Action Framework. Evidence about the reliability and validity of the research engagement actions and research use scales was equivocal.ConclusionsInitial testing of SEER suggests that the four individual capacity scales may be used in policy settings to examine current capacity and identify areas for capacity building. The relation between capacity, research engagement actions and research use requires further investigation.

How Can the Use of Evidence in Mental Health Policy Be Increased? A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE The aim of this review was to explore what is known about the effectiveness of strategies to increase the use of research in mental health policies. METHODS PsycINFO, MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE were searched for peer-reviewed journal articles by using the terms information dissemination OR knowledge OR diffusion of innovation OR knowledge transfer OR knowledge exchange OR evidence based OR evidence informed AND mental health policy OR decision makers. Searches were limited to articles pertaining to humans, written in English, and published from 1995 to 2013. Studies were excluded if they did not include a component related either to mental health policy or to mental health policy and decision makers or did not describe the development, implementation, or evaluation of an intervention that included a component aimed at increasing use of evidence. Reference lists were scanned to identify additional papers. RESULTS The search returned 2,677 citations. Fifty additional papers were identified via reference lists of relevant articles. Nine separate intervention studies were identified that included a component aimed at increasing use of evidence in mental health policy. All employed at least three strategies to increase evidence use, mostly in regard to implementation of a particular evidence-based policy. Methodologies of the identified studies did not enable estimation of the effectiveness of individual strategies to increase evidence use. CONCLUSIONS Little research has examined how to increase the use of evidence in mental health policy. Available research suggests a number of potentially effective strategies for increasing the use of evidence that warrant further examination.

Using conjoint analysis to develop a system to score research engagement actions by health decision makers

BackgroundEffective use of research to inform policymaking can be strengthened by policymakers undertaking various research engagement actions (e.g., accessing, appraising, and applying research). Consequently, we developed a thorough measurement and scoring tool to assess whether and how policymakers undertook research engagement actions in the development of a policy document. This scoring tool breaks down each research engagement action into its key ‘subactions’ like a checklist. The primary aim was to develop the scoring tool further so that it assigned appropriate scores to each subaction based on its effectiveness for achieving evidence-informed policymaking. To establish the relative effectiveness of these subactions, we conducted a conjoint analysis, which was used to elicit the opinions and preferences of knowledge translation experts.MethodFifty-four knowledge translation experts were recruited to undertake six choice surveys. Respondents were exposed to combinations of research engagement subactions called ‘profiles’, and rated on a 1–9 scale whether each profile represented a limited (1–3), moderate (4–6), or extensive (7–9) example of each research engagement action. Generalised estimating equations were used to analyse respondents’ choice data, where a utility coefficient was calculated for each subaction. A large utility coefficient indicates that a subaction was influential in guiding experts’ ratings of extensive engagement with research.ResultsThe calculated utilities were used as the points assigned to the subactions in the scoring system. The following subactions yielded the largest utilities and were regarded as the most important components of engaging with research: searching academic literature databases, obtaining systematic reviews and peer-reviewed research, appraising relevance by verifying its applicability to the policy context, appraising quality by evaluating the validity of the method and conclusions, engaging in thorough collaborations with researchers, and undertaking formal research projects to inform the policy in question.ConclusionsWe have generated an empirically-derived and context-sensitive method of measuring and scoring the extent to which policymakers engaged with research to inform policy development. The scoring system can be used by organisations to quantify staff research engagement actions and thus provide them with insights into what types of training, systems, and tools might improve their staff’s research use capacity.

The development of ORACLe: a measure of an organisation’s capacity to engage in evidence-informed health policy

BackgroundEvidence-informed policymaking is more likely if organisations have cultures that promote research use and invest in resources that facilitate staff engagement with research. Measures of organisations’ research use culture and capacity are needed to assess current capacity, identify opportunities for improvement, and examine the impact of capacity-building interventions. The aim of the current study was to develop a comprehensive system to measure and score organisations’ capacity to engage with and use research in policymaking, which we entitled ORACLe (Organisational Research Access, Culture, and Leadership).MethodWe used a multifaceted approach to develop ORACLe. Firstly, we reviewed the available literature to identify key domains of organisational tools and systems that may facilitate research use by staff. We interviewed senior health policymakers to verify the relevance and applicability of these domains. This information was used to generate an interview schedule that focused on seven key domains of organisational capacity. The interview was pilot-tested within four Australian policy agencies. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was then undertaken using an expert sample to establish the relative importance of these domains. This data was used to produce a scoring system for ORACLe.ResultsThe ORACLe interview was developed, comprised of 23 questions addressing seven domains of organisational capacity and tools that support research use, including (1) documented processes for policymaking; (2) leadership training; (3) staff training; (4) research resources (e.g. database access); and systems to (5) generate new research, (6) undertake evaluations, and (7) strengthen relationships with researchers. From the DCE data, a conditional logit model was estimated to calculate total scores that took into account the relative importance of the seven domains. The model indicated that our expert sample placed the greatest importance on domains (2), (3) and (4).ConclusionWe utilised qualitative and quantitative methods to develop a system to assess and score organisations’ capacity to engage with and apply research to policy. Our measure assesses a broad range of capacity domains and identifies the relative importance of these capacities. ORACLe data can be used by organisations keen to increase their use of evidence to identify areas for further development.

Effects of False Feedback on Affect, Cognition, Behavior, and Postevent Processing: The Mediating Role of Self-Focused Attention

Current social phobia models (e.g., Clark & Wells, 1995; Leary & Kowalski, 1995) postulate that socially anxious individuals negatively appraise their anxiety sensations (e.g., sweating, heart racing, blushing) as evidence of poor social performance, and thus fear these anxiety symptoms will be noticed and judged negatively by others. Consequently, they become self-focused and hypervigilant of these sensations and use them to judge how they appear to others. To test this model, high (N=41) and low (N=38) socially anxious participants were shown false physiological feedback regarding an increase or decrease in heart rate prior to and during an impromptu speech task. Relative to participants who observed a false heart rate decrease, those in the increase condition reported higher levels of negative affect, more negative performance appraisals, and more frequent negative ruminative thoughts, and these effects were mediated by an increase in self-focused attention. The unhelpful effects of the physiological feedback were not specific to high socially anxious participants. The results have implications for current cognitive models as well as the treatment of social phobia.

Using conjoint analysis to develop a system of scoring policymakers’ use of research in policy and program development

BackgroundThe importance of utilising the best available research evidence in the development of health policies, services, and programs is increasingly recognised, yet few standardised systems for quantifying policymakers’ research use are available. We developed a comprehensive measurement and scoring tool that assesses four domains of research use (i.e. instrumental, conceptual, tactical, and imposed). The scoring tool breaks down each domain into its key subactions like a checklist. Our aim was to develop a tool that assigned appropriate scores to each subaction based on its relative importance to undertaking evidence-informed health policymaking. In order to establish the relative importance of each research use subaction and generate this scoring system, we conducted conjoint analysis with a sample of knowledge translation experts.MethodsFifty-four experts were recruited to undertake four choice surveys. Respondents were shown combinations of research use subactions called profiles, and rated on a 1 to 9 scale whether each profile represented a limited (1–3), moderate (4–6), or extensive (7–9) example of research use. Generalised Estimating Equations were used to analyse respondents’ choice data, which calculated a utility coefficient for each subaction. A large utility coefficient indicated that a subaction was particularly influential in guiding experts’ ratings of extensive research use.ResultsUtility coefficients were calculated for each subaction, which became the points assigned to the subactions in the scoring system. The following subactions yielded the largest utilities and were regarded as the most important components of each research use domain: using research to directly influence the core of the policy decision; using research to inform alternative perspectives to deal with the policy issue; using research to persuade targeted stakeholders to support a predetermined decision; and using research because it was a mandated requirement by the policymaker’s organisation.ConclusionsWe have generated an empirically derived and context-sensitive means of measuring and scoring the extent to which policymakers used research to inform the development of a policy document. The scoring system can be used by organisations to not only quantify the extent of their research use, but also to provide them with insights into potential strategies to improve subsequent research use.

Does knowledge brokering improve the quality of rapid review proposals? A before and after study

BackgroundRapid reviews are increasingly being used to help policy makers access research in short time frames. A clear articulation of the review’s purpose, questions, scope, methods and reporting format is thought to improve the quality and generalisability of review findings. The aim of the study is to explore the effectiveness of knowledge brokering in improving the perceived clarity of rapid review proposals from the perspective of potential reviewers.To conduct the study, we drew on the Evidence Check program, where policy makers draft a review proposal (a pre knowledge brokering proposal) and have a 1-hour session with a knowledge broker, who re-drafts the proposal based on the discussion (a post knowledge brokering proposal).MethodsWe asked 30 reviewers who had previously undertaken Evidence Check reviews to examine the quality of 60 pre and 60 post knowledge brokering proposals. Reviewers were blind to whether the review proposals they received were pre or post knowledge brokering.Using a six-point Likert scale, reviewers scored six questions examining clarity of information about the review’s purpose, questions, scope, method and format and reviewers’ confidence that they could meet policy makers’ needs. Each reviewer was allocated two pre and two post knowledge brokering proposals, randomly ordered, from the 60 reviews, ensuring no reviewer received a pre and post knowledge brokering proposal from the same review.ResultsThe results showed that knowledge brokering significantly improved the scores for all six questions addressing the perceived clarity of the review proposal and confidence in meeting policy makers’ needs; with average changes of 0.68 to 1.23 from pre to post across the six domains.ConclusionsThis study found that knowledge brokering increased the perceived clarity of information provided in Evidence Check rapid review proposals and the confidence of reviewers that they could meet policy makers’ needs. Further research is needed to identify how the knowledge brokering process achieves these improvements and to test the applicability of the findings in other rapid review programs.

Impact of tailored blogs and content on usage of Web CIPHER - an online platform to help policymakers better engage with evidence from research.

BackgroundThere is a need to develop innovations that can help bridge the gap between research and policy. Web CIPHER is an online tool designed to help policymakers better engage with research in order to increase its use in health policymaking. The aim of the present study was to test interventions in order to increase policymakers’ usage of Web CIPHER. Namely, the impact of posting articles and blogs on topics relevant to the missions and scope of selected policy agencies in the Web CIPHER community.MethodsFive policy agencies were targeted for the intervention. Web CIPHER usage data was gathered over a 30-month period using Google Analytics. Time series analysis was used to evaluate whether publication of tailored articles and blogs led to significant changes in usage for all Web CIPHER members from policy agencies, including those from the five target agencies. We further evaluated whether these users showed greater increases in usage following publication of articles and blogs directly targeted at their agency, and if these effects were moderated by the blog author.ResultsWeb CIPHER usage gradually increased over time and was significantly predicted by the number of articles but not blogs that were posted throughout the study period. Publication of articles on sexual and reproductive health was followed by sustained increases in usage among all users, including users from the policy agency that targets this area. This effect of topic relevance did not occur for the four remaining target agencies. Finally, page views were higher for articles targeted at one’s agency compared to other agencies. This effect also occurred for blogs, particularly when the author was internal to one’s agency.ConclusionThe findings suggest that Web CIPHER usage in general was motivated by general interest, engagement and appeal, as opposed to the agency specificity of content and work relevance. Blogs in and of themselves may not be effective at promoting usage. Thus, in order to increase policymakers’ engagement with research through similar online platforms, a potentially effective approach would be to post abundant, frequently updated, engaging, interesting and widely appealing content irrespective of form.