Stoic beliefs and health: Development and preliminary validation of the Pathak-Wieten Stoicism Ideology Scale

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. Introduction We developed and validated a new parsimonious scale to measure stoic beliefs. Key domains of stoicism are imperviousness to strong emotions, indifference to death, taciturnity and self-sufficiency. In the context of illness and disease, a personal ideology of stoicism may create an internal resistance to objective needs, which can lead to negative consequences. Stoicism has been linked to help-seeking delays, inadequate pain treatment, caregiver strain and suicide after economic stress. Methods During 2013-2014, 390 adults aged 18+ years completed a brief anonymous paper questionnaire containing the preliminary 24-item Pathak-Wieten Stoicism Ideology Scale (PW-SIS). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test an a priori multidomain theoretical model. Content validity and response distributions were examined. Sociodemographic predictors of strong endorsement of stoicism were explored with logistic regression. Results The final PW-SIS contains four conceptual domains and 12 items. CFA showed very good model fit: root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)=0.05 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.07), goodness-of-fit index=0.96 and Tucker-Lewis Index=0.93. Cronbach's alpha was 0.78 and ranged from 0.64 to 0.71 for the subscales. Content validity analysis showed a statistically significant trend, with respondents who reported trying to be a stoic 'all of the time' having the highest PW-SIS scores. Men were over two times as likely as women to fall into the top quartile of responses (OR=2.30, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.68, P<0.001). ORs showing stronger endorsement of stoicism by Hispanics, Blacks and biracial persons were not statistically significant. Discussion The PW-SIS is a valid and theoretically coherent scale which is brief and practical for integration into a wide range of health behaviour and outcomes research studies

Do we need gastric acid?

Evidence from comparative anatomy and physiology studies indicates that gastric acid secretion developed during the evolution of vertebrates approximately 350 million years ago. The cellular mechanisms that produce gastric acid have been conserved over the millennia and therefore proton pump inhibitors have pharmacological effects in almost all relevant species. These observations suggest that gastric acid provides an important selective advantage; however, in modern-day humans the need for gastric acid can be questioned in light of the widespread use of safe and effective pharmacologic acid suppression. The Kandahar Working Group addressed questions concerning the need, production and effects of gastric acid, specifically: (1) motility in the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract; (2) neuroendocrine factors; (3) digestive and mucosal processes; (4) microbiology, and (5) central processes and psychological involvement. We addressed each topic with the individual models available to answer our questions including animal versus human studies, pharmacologic, surgical as well as pathophysiologic states of acid suppression

Examining the Correspondence Between Relationship Identity and Actual Sexual Risk Behavior Among HIV-Positive Men Who Have Sex with Men

Sexual behavior of men who have sex with men (MSM), within and outside of one’s primary relationship, may contribute to increased risk of HIV transmission among those living with HIV. The current study sought to understand how HIV-infected MSM report their relationship status and the degree to which this corresponds with their sexual behavior. Further, we examined rates and psychosocial associations with sexual HIV transmission risk behavior (TRB) across relationship categories. In a sample of 503 HIV-infected MSM in HIV care, 200 (39.8%) reported having a primary partner. Of these, 115 reported that their relationship was open and 85 reported that it was monogamous. Of the 85 who reported a monogamous relationship, 23 (27%) reported more than one sexual partner in the prior three months, 53 (62%) reported only one partner, and nine did not report on the number of partners in the past 3 months. Hence, there were three categories of relationships: (1) “monogamous with one sexual partner,” (2) “monogamous with more than one sexual partner,” and (3) “open relationship.” The “monogamous with more than one sexual partner” group reported higher TRB and crystal methamphetamine use compared to the “monogamous with one sexual partner” group and different patterns of relationships with TRB emerged across the three groups. Couples-based HIV prevention interventions for MSM may be enhanced by considering that there may be different definitions of monogamy among MSM, and that the context of relationship status may require tailoring interventions to meet the needs of specific subgroups of MSM couples

Between and Within Couple-Level Factors Associated with Gay Male Couples’ Investment in a Sexual Agreement

Sexual agreements are common among gay male couples, and between one-third and two-thirds of gay men acquire HIV while in a same-sex relationship. Studies have assessed whether agreements could be used for HIV prevention yet additional research is needed. By using dyadic data collected from 361 U.S. gay male couples, the present cross-sectional study sought to assess whether certain between and within couple-level relationship characteristics predict a partner's value in, commitment to, and satisfaction with an agreement. On average, couples with higher levels of constructive communication and relationship satisfaction and commitment were associated with partners who had higher levels of investment in the agreement. Within the couple, differences in commitment and investment of the relationship were also found to be negatively associated with partners’ investment toward an agreement. Implications are discussed for how sexual agreements may be used to develop new HIV prevention efforts for gay male couples

A Cause for Concern: Male Couples’ Sexual Agreements and Their Use of Substances with Sex

Substance use is strongly associated with HIV risk among gay men. Many gay couples establish sexual agreements. However, little is known about gay couples’ use of substances with sex, and whether substance use is associated with couples’ agreements. The present study assessed whether gay couples’ use of substances with sex was associated with their establishment of, type of, and adherence to, a sexual agreement. Dyadic data from 275 HIV-negative US gay couples were collected online in a nation-wide, cross-sectional study, and analyzed at the couple-level. Findings revealed that couples with an established agreement, and a recently broken agreement, were more likely to have used amyl nitrates and marijuana with sex within their relationship. This same trend was also noted, but for alcohol use with sex outside of couples’ relationships. Further research is urgently needed to examine the fluidity of HIV-negative gay male couples’ sexual agreements and substance use with sex