Very nice literature review, but I had to chuckle when I read this sentence: ". . . met with enthusiasm from the scientific community, including calls for further investigation," because the author cites himself as one of the people calling for it.
Trying not to cherry-pick the evidence, but I find the emergence of this treatment to be just fascinating. Another article suggests reduced occurrence of domestic violence incidents: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0269881113513851
A training institute for therapists is going on in Amsterdam this month: https://www.synthesisinstitute.com/psychedelic-practitioner-training- Fascibating field.
This study makes an important point, but I would like to have seen the concept of "estimated net cost" in the abstract be more explicit; that is, cost to whom? The same policies could easily affect redistribute costs among public payers, private payers, social services--I'm assuming they mean overall societal cost but in that case it would still need to be defined.
This very brief report does not address whether income was included in the multivariable models that determined that "having less than a high school education was negatively associated with
satisfaction in: the amount paid for medication." The MCBS does have a very detailed income and assets section, but I can't tell if it was used. If not, then educational attainment is probably a proxy for income in this instance.
This is odd. As far as I can tell, there is no presentation of results, nor is this article a study design proposal. It just says they did focus groups to find out about the issue described in the title. I'm puzzled.
论文