This article explores the persistent and deeply troubling issue of conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV) throughout history and in contemporary conflicts. It examines the roots of wartime sexual violence in wartime, the evolving international legal framework for the protection of civilians, and the emergence of concerns about the protection of women and girls from such violence. The article delves into controversial aspects, including competing theories to explain CRSV, the challenges in obtaining accurate data on its prevalence, and the often-overlooked issue of CRSV against men and boys. It also addresses the cultural and societal factors that perpetuate CRSV and the long-lasting consequences on survivors. The article concludes by underscoring the importance of comprehensive care for survivors and the need to tackle the deep-seated causes of this violence, including gender inequality.

The case-crossover design is a self-controlled study design used to compare exposure immediately preceding an event occurrence with exposure in earlier control periods. The design is most suitable for transient exposures in order to avoid biases that can be problematic when using the case-crossover design for non-transient (i.e., chronic) exposures. Our goal was to conduct a systematic review of case-crossover studies and its variants (case-time-control and case-case-time-control) in order to compare design and analysis choices by medication type.
We conducted a systematic search to identify recent case-crossover, case-time-control, and case-case-time-control studies focused on medication exposures. Articles indexed in MEDLINE and EMBASE using these study designs that were published between January 2015 and December 2021 in the English language were identified. Reviews, methodological studies, commentaries, articles without medications as the exposure of interest, and articles with no available full text were excluded. Study characteristics including study design, outcome, risk window, control window, reporting of discordant pairs, and inclusion of sensitivity analyses were summarized overall and by medication type. We further evaluated the implementation of recommended methods to account for biases introduced by non-transient exposures among articles that used the case-crossover design on a non-transient exposure.
Of the 2036 articles initially identified, 114 articles were included. The case-crossover was the most common study design (88%), followed by the case-time-control (17%), and case-case-time-control (3%). Fifty-three percent of the articles included only transient medications, 35% included only non-transient medications, and 12% included both. Across years, the proportion of case-crossover articles evaluating a non-transient medication ranged from 30% in 2018 to 69% in 2017. We found that 41% of the articles that evaluated a non-transient medication did not apply any of the recommended methods to account for biases and more than half of which were conducted by authors with no previous publication history of case-crossover studies.
Using the case-crossover design to evaluate a non-transient medication remains common in pharmacoepidemiology. Researchers should apply appropriate design and analysis choices when opting to use a case-crossover design with non-transient medication exposures.

Accurate assessment of suicide risk is critical for clinical practice, empirical advances, and informing public policy. In this narrative review of the literature, we compiled evidence from longitudinal studies that identify reporting bias of past self-injurious thoughts and behaviors (SITB) and examined possible correlates of inconsistent reporting.
We conducted an extensive literature search, including 19 longitudinal samples or subsamples who reported the presence of current or past SITB at an initial but not at a subsequent assessment (yes/no inconsistent reports).
The median was 33%, and the weighted mean was 39% (95% CI, 37%-41%) for the prevalence of inconsistent reporting of SITB across the longitudinal samples. Importantly, inconsistent reports were linked with less internalizing psychopathology and more adaptive functioning. The type of sample recruited and assessment interval may also be relevant factors to consider.
Variability of sample characteristics and methodology made it challenging to draw firm conclusions across studies but provide information about critical sources of bias.
Results suggest considerable caution for clinical, empirical, and policy decision-making based on lifetime reports of suicide and encourage a continued consideration for identifying potential reporting biases for SITB.

Genetic influences are ubiquitous as virtually all phenotypes and most exposures typically classified as environmental have been found to be heritable. A polygenic score summarises the associations between millions of genetic variants and an outcome in a single value for each individual. Ever lowering costs have enabled the genotyping of many samples relevant to child psychology and psychiatry research, including cohort studies, leading to the proliferation of polygenic score studies. It is tempting to assume that associations detected between polygenic scores and phenotypes in those studies only reflect genetic effects. However, such associations can reflect many pathways (e.g. via environmental mediation) and biases.
Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of the many reasons why associations between polygenic scores, environmental exposures, and phenotypes exist. We include formal representations of common analyses in polygenic score studies using structural equation modelling. We derive biases, provide illustrative empirical examples and, when possible, mention steps that can be taken to alleviate those biases.
Structural equation models and derivations show the many complexities arising from jointly modelling polygenic scores with environmental exposures and phenotypes. Counter-intuitive examples include that: (a) associations between polygenic scores and phenotypes may exist even in the absence of direct genetic effects; (b) associations between child polygenic scores and environmental exposures can exist in the absence of evocative/active gene-environment correlations; and (c) adjusting an exposure-outcome association for a polygenic score can increase rather than decrease bias.
Strikingly, using polygenic scores may, in some cases, lead to more bias than not using them. Appropriately conducting and interpreting polygenic score studies thus requires researchers in child psychology and psychiatry and beyond to be versed in both epidemiological and genetic methods or build on interdisciplinary collaborations.

UNASSIGNED: The ability of neurosurgeons to analyze and reflect on their complications in a constructive way is important both for professional development and for patient safety. The purpose of the present paper is to highlight some psychological factors that might impair or bias the ability of the neurosurgeon to do this successfully.
UNASSIGNED: Five fictitious cases, loosely inspired by real events and situations, are used as a basis for a discussion of some of the most important potential sources of psychological bias in the context of understanding neurosurgical complications.
UNASSIGNED: The issues of a) self-serving bias and the actor-observer effect; b) heuristics and biases in interpreting probabilistic events; c) emotional avoidance and denial; d) limitations of attention (dual systems theory) and e) errors of memory, are discussed.
UNASSIGNED: There are a number of psychological factors, that are well known to science that may be ubiquitous sources of influence on the ability of neurosurgeons to grow by reflection on their own complications. Exactly how these factors can and should be efficiently adressed by the individual neurosurgeon and/or the organisation and team in which the neurosurgeon works may vary according to type of bias, context and circumstances. However, being aware of these issues and addressing them on an individual and organizational level remains important to the quality of our craft.

Being confronted with uncertainty in the context of health-related judgments and decision making can give rise to the occurrence of systematic biases. These biases may detrimentally affect lay persons and health experts alike. Debiasing aims at mitigating these negative effects by eliminating or reducing the biases. However, little is known about its effectiveness. This study seeks to systematically review the research on health-related debiasing to identify new opportunities and challenges for successful debiasing strategies.
A systematic search resulted in 2748 abstracts eligible for screening. Sixty-eight articles reporting 87 relevant studies met the predefined inclusion criteria and were categorized and analyzed with regard to content and quality. All steps were undertaken independently by 2 reviewers, and inconsistencies were resolved through discussion.
The majority of debiasing interventions ( n = 60) was at least partially successful. Optimistic biases ( n = 25), framing effects ( n = 14), and base rate neglects ( n = 10) were the main targets of debiasing efforts. Cognitive strategies ( n = 36) such as \"consider-the-opposite\" and technological interventions ( n = 33) such as visual aids were mainly tested. Thirteen studies aimed at debiasing health care professionals\' judgments, while 74 interventions addressed the general population. Studies\' methodological quality ranged from 26.2% to 92.9%, with an average rating of 68.7%.
In the past, the usefulness of debiasing was often debated. Yet most of the interventions reviewed here are found to be effective, pointing to the utility of debiasing in the health context. In particular, technological strategies offer a novel opportunity to pursue large-scale debiasing outside the laboratory. The need to strengthen the transfer of debiasing interventions to real-life settings and a lack of conceptual rigor are identified as the main challenges requiring further research.

The role of cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making is of growing interest. The purpose of this study was to determine whether studies on cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making are based on actual or hypothetical decisions and are conducted with populations that are representative of those who typically make the medical decision; to categorize the types of cognitive biases and heuristics found and whether they are found in patients or in medical personnel; and to critically review the studies based on standard methodological quality criteria.
Data sources were original, peer-reviewed, empirical studies on cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making found in Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, and the CINAHL databases published in 1980-2013. Predefined exclusion criteria were used to identify 213 studies. During data extraction, information was collected on type of bias or heuristic studied, respondent population, decision type, study type (actual or hypothetical), study method, and study conclusion.
Of the 213 studies analyzed, 164 (77%) were based on hypothetical vignettes, and 175 (82%) were conducted with representative populations. Nineteen types of cognitive biases and heuristics were found. Only 34% of studies (n = 73) investigated medical personnel, and 68% (n = 145) confirmed the presence of a bias or heuristic. Each methodological quality criterion was satisfied by more than 50% of the studies, except for sample size and validated instruments/questions. Limitations are that existing terms were used to inform search terms, and study inclusion criteria focused strictly on decision making.
Most of the studies on biases and heuristics in medical decision making are based on hypothetical vignettes, raising concerns about applicability of these findings to actual decision making. Biases and heuristics have been underinvestigated in medical personnel compared with patients.