Dementia Patient Suffering and Caregiver Depression

Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses were carried out to assess the relationship between dementia patient suffering, caregiver depression, and antidepressant medication use in 1222 dementia patients and their caregivers. We assessed the prevalence of 2 types of patient suffering, emotional and existential distress, and examined their independent associations with caregiver depression and antidepressant medication use when controlling for sociodemographic characteristics of caregivers and patients, cognitive and physical disability of the patient, the frequency of patient memory problems and disruptive behaviors, and the amount of time spent caring for the patient. Multiple linear regression models showed that both aspects of perceived patient suffering independently contribute to caregiver depression (emotional distress: β = 1.24; P < 0.001; existential distress: β = 0.66; P < 0.01) whereas only existential suffering contributes to antidepressant medication use: odds ratio = 1.25 95% confidence interval, 1.10–1.42; P < 0.01. In longitudinal analyses, increases in both types of suffering were associated with increases in caregiver depression (emotional distress: β = 1.02; P < 0.01; existential distress: β = 0.64; P < 0.01). This is the first study to show in a large sample that perceived patient suffering independently contributes to family caregiver depression and medication use. Medical treatment of patients that maintain or improve memory but do not address suffering may have little impact on the caregiver. Alzheimer disease patient suffering should be systematically assessed and treated by clinicians

Patient Suffering and Caregiver Compassion: New Opportunities for Research, Practice, and Policy

The purpose of this article is to stimulate discussion and research about patient suffering and caregiver compassion. It is our view that these constructs are central to understanding phenomena such as family caregiving, and that recognizing their unique role in the caregiving experience provides new directions for intervention research, clinical practices, and social policy. We first define and characterize these constructs, review empirical evidence supporting the distinct role of suffering and compassion in the context of caregiving, and then present a conceptual model linking patient suffering with caregiver compassion. We conclude with a discussion of implications and future directions for clinical intervention, research, and policy

Patient suffering and caregiver compassion: new opportunities for research, practice, and policy.

The purpose of this article is to stimulate discussion and research about patient suffering and caregiver compassion. It is our view that these constructs are central to understanding phenomena such as family caregiving, and that recognizing their unique role in the caregiving experience provides new directions for intervention research, clinical practices, and social policy. We first define and characterize these constructs, review empirical evidence supporting the distinct role of suffering and compassion in the context of caregiving, and then present a conceptual model linking patient suffering with caregiver compassion. We conclude with a discussion of implications and future directions for clinical intervention, research, and policy.</p

Resident Research and Scholarly Activity in Internal Medicine Residency Training Programs

OBJECTIVES: 1) To describe how internal medicine residency programs fulfill the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) scholarly activity training requirement including the current context of resident scholarly work, and 2) to compare findings between university and nonuniversity programs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional mailed survey. SETTING: ACGME-accredited internal medicine residency programs. PARTICIPANTS: Internal medicine residency program directors. MEASUREMENTS: Data were collected on 1) interpretation of the scholarly activity requirement, 2) support for resident scholarship, 3) scholarly activities of residents, 4) attitudes toward resident research, and 5) program characteristics. University and nonuniversity programs were compared. MAIN RESULTS: The response rate was 78%. Most residents completed a topic review with presentation (median, 100%) to fulfill the requirement. Residents at nonuniversity programs were more likely to complete case reports (median, 40% vs 25%; P =.04) and present at local or regional meetings (median, 25% vs 20%; P =.01), and were just as likely to conduct hypothesis-driven research (median, 20% vs 20%; P =.75) and present nationally (median, 10% vs 5%; P =.10) as residents at university programs. Nonuniversity programs were more likely to report lack of faculty mentors (61% vs 31%; P <.001) and resident interest (55% vs 40%; P =.01) as major barriers to resident scholarship. Programs support resident scholarship through research curricula (47%), funding (46%), and protected time (32%). CONCLUSIONS: Internal medicine residents complete a variety of projects to fulfill the scholarly activity requirement. Nonuniversity programs are doing as much as university programs in meeting the requirement and supporting resident scholarship despite reporting significant barriers