Association of Caregiving Receipt With Mental Health Utilization in a National Cohort of Older Adults.

OBJECTIVE: There exist significant age disparities in mental health (MH) utilization, such that older adults, including older veterans, are much less likely to use MH services. In-home caregivers represent a novel, yet understudied, pathway to increase appropriate utilization. We sought to examine the association between receiving caregiving assistance and MH utilization and test moderation effects of cognitive status and depression severity in a sample of older veterans. METHODS: Cross-sectional, mixed effects logistic regression with moderation analyses was used with a unique data resource combining survey data from the 2000-2012 U.S. Health and Retirement Study with Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare administrative records. The analytic sample included N=1,957 Community-dwelling veterans (mean age 68.2 [9.7]), primarily male (96.5%) and non-Hispanic white (77.0%). Measures included MH utilization extracted from VA records or self-report; CESD-8 for depressive symptoms; and the Langa-Weir cognitive status classification using the modified TICS. RESULTS: After accounting for demographics, spousal caregiver availability, health factors, and socioeconomic status, caregiving receipt was associated with two-fold odds of MH utilization, compared to receiving no assistance (8,839 person-year observations; OR = 2.02; 95% CI 1.54-2.65) and remained similar following VA policy changes to enhance MH access. Exploratory analyses revealed that categories of cognition and depressive symptoms may moderate the association. CONCLUSION: Receipt of any in-home caregiving is associated with increased likelihood of MH use by older adults. Caregivers may represent an underutilized resource to reduce age-related mental health access disparities.

"The Equipoise Ruler:" A National Survey on Surgeon Judgment about the Value of Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to understand professional norms regarding the value of surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Agreed-upon professional norms may improve surgical decision making by contextualizing the nature of surgical treatment for patients. However, the extent to which these norms exist among surgeons practicing in the US is not known. METHODS: We administered a survey with 30 exemplar cases asking surgeons to use their best judgement to place each case on a scale ranging from "Definitely would do this surgery" to "Definitely would not do this surgery." We then asked surgeons to repeat their assessments after providing responses from the first survey. We interviewed respondents to characterize their rationale. RESULTS: We received 580 responses, a response rate of 28.5%. For 19 of 30 cases there was consensus (≥60% agreement) about the value of surgery (range 63% - 99%). There was little within-case variation when the mode was for surgery and more variation when the mode was against surgery or equipoise. Exposure to peer response increased the number of cases with consensus. Women were more likely to endorse a non-operative approach when treatment had high mortality. Specialists were less likely to operate for salvage procedures. Surgeons noted their clinical practice was to withhold judgment and let patients decide despite their assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Professional judgment about the value of surgery exists along a continuum. While there is less variation in judgment for cases that are highly beneficial, consensus can be improved by exposure to the assessments of peers.

Embedding an Education Intervention about Shared Decision Making into an RCT: Ensuring competency and fidelity.

Objective: To describe the outcomes of training nephrology clinicians and clinical research participants, to use the Best Case/Worst Case Communication intervention, for discussions about dialysis initiation for patients with life-limiting illness, during a randomized clinical trial to ensure competency, fidelity to the intervention, and adherence to study protocols and the intervention throughout the trial. Methods: We enrolled 68 nephrologists at ten study sites and randomized them to receive training or wait-list control. We collected copies of completed graphic aids (component of the intervention), used with study-enrolled patients, to measure fidelity and adherence. Results: We trained 34 of 36 nephrologists to competence and 27 completed the entire program. We received 60 graphic aids for study-enrolled patients for a 73% return rate in the intervention arm. The intervention fidelity score for the graphic aid reflected completion of all elements throughout the study. Conclusion: We successfully taught the Best Case/Worst Case Communication intervention to clinicians as research participants within a randomized clinical trial. Innovation: Decisions about dialysis are an opportunity to discuss prognosis and uncertainty in relation to consideration of prolonged life supporting therapy. Our study reveals a strategy to evaluate adherence to a communication intervention in real time during a clinical study.