Annual average gross and net wage earnings, single individual no children, 2000-20

Background: Attention deficit hyperactivity (ADHD) disorder is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by inattention, hyperactivity, disruptive behaviour, and impulsivity. Despite considered typical of children for a long time, the persistence of ADHD symptoms in adulthood gained increasing interest during the last decades. Indeed, its diagnosis, albeit controversial, is rarely carried out even because ADHD is often comorbid with several other psychiatric diosrders, in particular with bipolar disorders (BDs), a condition that complicates the clinical picture, assessment and treatment. Aims: The aim of this paper was to systematically review the scientific literature on the neurobiological, clinical features and current pharmacological management of ADHD comorbid with BDs across the entire lifespan, with a major focus on the adulthood. Discussion: The pharmacology of ADHD-BD in adults is still empirical and influenced by the individual experience of the clinicians. Stimulants are endowed of a prompt efficacy and safety, whilst non-stimulants are useful when a substance abuse history is detected, although they require some weeks in order to be fully effective. In any case, an in-depth diagnostic and clinical evaluation of the single individual is mandatory. Conclusions: The comorbidity of ADHD with BD is still a controversial matter, as it is the notion of adult ADHD as a distinct nosological category. Indeed, some findings highlighted the presence of common neurobiological mechanisms and overlapping clinical features, although disagreement does exist. In any case, while expecting to disentangle this crucial question, a correct management of this comorbidity is essential, which requires the co-administration of mood stabilizers. Further controlled clinical studies in large samples of adult ADHD-BD patients appear extremely urgent in order to better define possible therapeutic guidelines, as well as alternative approaches for this potentially invalidating condition.

Download Full-text

Not In Their Name

10.1093/oso/9780198833666.001.0001 ◽

2019 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Holly Lawford-Smith

Keyword(s):

Political Theory ◽

Public Services ◽

The State ◽

Alternative Conceptions ◽

Popular Sovereignty ◽

Collective Agency ◽

Single Individual ◽

Collective Agent ◽

Social Metaphysics ◽

Ordinary Citizens

Given their size and influence, states are able to inflict harm far beyond the reach of a single individual. But there is a great deal of unclarity about exactly who is implicated in that kind of harm, and how we should think about both culpability and responsibility for it. The idea of popular sovereignty is dominant in classical political theory. It is a commonplace assumption that democratic publics both authorize and have control over what their states do; that their states act in their name and on their behalf. Not In Their Name approaches these assumptions from the perspective of social metaphysics, asking whether the state is a collective agent, and whether ordinary citizens are members of that agent. If it is, and they are, there is a clear case for democratic collective culpability. The book explores alternative conceptions of the state and of membership in the state; alternative conceptions of collective agency applied to the state; the normative implications of membership in the state; and both culpability (from the inside) and responsibility (from the outside) for what the state does. Ultimately, Not In Their Name argues for the exculpation of ordinary citizens and the inculpation of those working in public services, and defends a particular distribution of culpability from government to its members.

Download Full-text

Can Groups Assert That P?

The Oxford Handbook of Assertion ◽

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190675233.013.34 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 326-344

Author(s):

Deborah Tollefsen

Keyword(s):

Common Ground ◽

Speech Act ◽

Single Individual ◽

Constitutive Rule ◽

The Past ◽

Group Members ◽

The Common ◽

Declarative Statement ◽

John Macfarlane

When a group or institution issues a declarative statement, what sort of speech act is this? Is it the assertion of a single individual (perhaps the group’s spokesperson or leader) or the assertion of all or most of the group members? Or is there a sense in which the group itself asserts that p? If assertion is a speech act, then who is the actor in the case of group assertion? These are the questions this chapter aims to address. Whether groups themselves can make assertions or whether a group of individuals can jointly assert that p depends, in part, on what sort of speech act assertion is. The literature on assertion has burgeoned over the past few years, and there is a great deal of debate regarding the nature of assertion. John MacFarlane has helpfully identified four theories of assertion. Following Sandy Goldberg, we can call these the attitudinal account, the constitutive rule account, the common-ground account, and the commitment account. I shall consider what group assertion might look like under each of these accounts and doing so will help us to examine some of the accounts of group assertion (often presented as theories of group testimony) on offer. I shall argue that, of the four accounts, the commitment account can best be extended to make sense of group assertion in all its various forms.

Download Full-text

A review of multistate modelling approaches in monitoring disease progression: Bayesian estimation using the Kolmogorov-Chapman forward equations

Statistical Methods in Medical Research ◽

10.1177/0962280221997507 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 096228022199750

Author(s):

Zvifadzo Matsena Zingoni ◽

Tobias F Chirwa ◽

Jim Todd ◽

Eustasius Musenge

Keyword(s):

Bayesian Estimation ◽

Transition Probabilities ◽

Markov Property ◽

Likelihood Estimation ◽

Single Individual ◽

Transition Rates ◽

Multistate Models ◽

Time To Event ◽

Modeling Framework ◽

Forward Equations

There are numerous fields of science in which multistate models are used, including biomedical research and health economics. In biomedical studies, these stochastic continuous-time models are used to describe the time-to-event life history of an individual through a flexible framework for longitudinal data. The multistate framework can describe more than one possible time-to-event outcome for a single individual. The standard estimation quantities in multistate models are transition probabilities and transition rates which can be mapped through the Kolmogorov-Chapman forward equations from the Bayesian estimation perspective. Most multistate models assume the Markov property and time homogeneity; however, if these assumptions are violated, an extension to non-Markovian and time-varying transition rates is possible. This manuscript extends reviews in various types of multistate models, assumptions, methods of estimation and data features compatible with fitting multistate models. We highlight the contrast between the frequentist (maximum likelihood estimation) and the Bayesian estimation approaches in the multistate modeling framework and point out where the latter is advantageous. A partially observed and aggregated dataset from the Zimbabwe national ART program was used to illustrate the use of Kolmogorov-Chapman forward equations. The transition rates from a three-stage reversible multistate model based on viral load measurements in WinBUGS were reported.

Download Full-text