Role of cancer survivor health and health service use in spouses' use of mental health-related care.

BACKGROUND: Spouses of cancer survivors are at an increased risk of poor mental health outcomes but are known to underuse supportive services. The objective of the current study was to determine how the health and health care use of cancer survivors were associated with depression and anxiety-related health care use in their spouses. METHODS: The current observational study used data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey to identify married individuals with a cancer-related medical event or disability ("cancer survivors"), and linked health and health care use data across spousal dyads. Spouses reporting a prescription for an antidepressant or antianxiety medication or any psychotherapy were flagged as having used mental health care. Correlates of use were assessed, with a focus on the health and health care use of the cancer survivor. RESULTS: Greater than 25% of the spouses of cancer survivors used mental health care over the approximately 2.5 years of follow-up. Controlling for their own predisposing, enabling, and need characteristics, spouses were found to be less likely to use mental health care if the cancer survivor reported more health conditions or elevated depressed mood compared with dyads in which the survivor reported low distress and depression. Spouses were nearly 3 times more likely to use mental health care if the cancer survivor themselves had used mental health care (odds ratio, 2.98; 95% confidence interval, 2.17-4.09). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the current study enhance understanding of how health outcomes are intertwined in families with cancer, and reinforce the importance of a family-centered approach to cancer care that facilitates psychosocial care. LAY SUMMARY: The health and well-being of cancer survivors and their spouses are intertwined. The results of the current study demonstrated that this interrelationship extends to mental health care related to depression and anxiety. Spouses of cancer survivors were found to be less likely to receive mental health care when the survivor had more health care needs. Spouses were nearly 3 times more likely to receive care if the survivor also was receiving mental health care. Caregiving spouses may face more challenges finding the time, money, or energy to engage in their own self-care. However, providing supportive care to one partner may help the other partner access care as well.

How do spouses of cancer survivors engage with mental healthcare? An exploratory analysis of visit characteristics.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand how cancer caregivers engage with mental healthcare, this exploratory study sought to assess the distribution and correlates of visit characteristics for mental health-related medical care among spouses of cancer survivors. METHODS: Using nationally representative data from the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey, we assessed the proportion of caregivers who received a mental health-related prescription or psychotherapy visit across care settings (office based, outpatient hospital, emergency room, or inpatient visit), provider type (psychiatric, primary care, other specialty, or other), and visit purpose (regular checkup, diagnosis and treatment, follow-up, psychotherapy, other), and the health condition(s) associated with the visit. Logistic and multinomial regressions assessed the predisposing, enabling, need, and survivor characteristics associated with the visit characteristics. RESULTS: A plurality of spouses of cancer survivors accessed mental healthcare through an office-based visit (90%) with a primary care provider (47%). One third accessed treatment as part of a regular check-up (32%). Several factors were associated with visit characteristics, notably the cancer survivor's health status and healthcare utilization. CONCLUSIONS: The findings provide an important reminder of the often-invisible mental health burden experienced by cancer caregivers and confirm the importance of routine primary care as a doorway to mental healthcare. Assessing how the care recipient's care needs and caregiving itself may act as barriers to specialty care will be a critical future research trajectory.

Study protocol: a hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial of Moral Reconation Therapy in the US Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) is a cognitive-behavioral intervention aimed at reducing risk for criminal recidivism by restructuring antisocial attitudes and cognitions (i.e., "criminogenic thinking"). MRT has empirical support for reducing risk for criminal recidivism among civilian offenders. Recently, a version of MRT was developed for military veterans; however, no randomized controlled trials (RCT) have been conducted with the veteran-specific protocol, and the effectiveness and implementation potential of MRT outside of correctional settings has not been established. METHODS: Using a Hybrid Type 1 RCT design, this study will test the effectiveness of MRT to reduce risk for criminal recidivism and improve health-related outcomes among justice-involved veterans entering mental health residential treatment at three US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Medical Centers. Upon admission to the treatment program, justice-involved veterans will complete a baseline assessment, be randomized to usual care (UC) or UC + MRT, and be followed 6 and 12 months post-baseline. A process evaluation will also be conducted to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation of MRT in residential treatment. DISCUSSION: The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of MRT with justice-involved veterans. If MRT proves effective in this trial, the findings can provide large healthcare systems that serve veterans with an evidence-based intervention for addressing criminogenic thinking among justice-involved adults, as well as guidance on how to facilitate future implementation of MRT in non-correctional settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is funded by the VA Health Services Research & Development Program (IIR 14-081) and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT02524171 ).

Developing a research agenda for understanding the stigma of addictions Part I: Lessons from the Mental Health Stigma Literature.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although advocates and providers identify stigma as a major factor in confounding the recovery of people with SUDs, research on addiction stigma is lacking, especially when compared to the substantive literature examining the stigma of mental illness. METHODS: A review of key studies from the stigma literature that yielded empirically supported concepts and methods from the mental health arena was contrasted with the much smaller and mostly descriptive findings from the addiction field. RESULTS: Integration of this information led to Part I of this two part paper, development of a research paradigm seeking to understand phenomena of addiction stigma (eg, stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination) and its different types (public, self, and label avoidance). CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: In Part II paper (American Journal of Addictions, Vol 26, pages 67-74, this issue), we address how this literature informs a research program meant to develop and evaluate and stigma strategies (eg, education, contact, and protest). Both papers end with recommendations for next steps to jumpstart the addiction stigma portfolio. Here in Part I, we offer one possible list of key research issues for studies attempting to describe or explain addiction stigma. (Am J Addict 2017;26:59-66).

Developing a research agenda for reducing the stigma of addictions, part II: Lessons from the mental health stigma literature.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although advocates and providers identify stigma as a major factor in confounding the recovery of people with SUDs, research on addiction stigma is lacking, especially when compared to the substantive literature examining the stigma of mental illness. METHODS: A comprehensive review of the stigma literature that yielded empirically supported concepts and methods from the mental health arena was contrasted with the much smaller and mostly descriptive findings from the addiction field. In Part I of this two part paper (American Journal of Addictions, Vol 26, pages 59-66, this issue), constructs and methods from the mental health stigma literature were used to summarize research that seeks to understand the phenomena of addiction stigma. RESULTS: In Paper II, we use this summary, as well as the extensive literature on mental illness stigma change, to outline a research program to develop and evaluate strategies meant to diminish impact on public and self-stigma (eg, education and contact). CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: The paper ends with recommendations for next steps in addiction stigma research. (Am J Addict 2017;26:67-74).

Perceptions of voluntary consent among jail diverted veterans with co-occurring disorders.

This study assessed perceptions of voluntary consent among 69 veterans who enrolled in a "jail diversion" program for co-occurring disorders. Perceptions were measured using modified items from the MacArthur Perceived Coercion and Negative Pressure Scales. A majority reported that they "chose to" (88.4%) or "felt free to" (85.5%) enroll. Most reported having "control over" (69.6%) and "more influence than anyone else" regarding (60.9%) their participation. About half reported that enrollment was "their idea" (49.3%). Fewer reported perceptions of negative pressure, including the feeling that someone "talked them into" enrolling (24.6%), "threatened them with the maximum criminal punishment" (13.0%), "offered or promised them something" (5.8%), or "forced" them to enroll (5.8%). Nobody felt "tricked, lied to, or fooled into" participating. Total negative pressure scores were higher in those with combat experience, U = 406.50, p = .016. Although potentially inappropriate pressures were reported, these data suggest that the majority perceived enrollment as voluntary.

Substance Use and Mental Health Stigma in Veterans With Co-Occurring Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: This pilot study examined whether substance use or mental illness was more stigmatizing among individuals with co-occurring mental health and substance abuse problems. METHODS: This study included 48 individuals with co-occurring substance use and mental health problems enrolled in a Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services funded treatment program. Subjects received a baseline assessment that included addiction, mental health, and stigma measures. RESULTS: The sample consisted primarily of White males with an average age of 38 years. Substance abuse was found to be more stigmatizing than mental illness, F(1, 47) = 14.213, p < .001, and stigma varied across four different levels of stigma (Aware, Agree, Apply, and Harm), F(2.099, 98.675) = 117.883, p < .001. The interaction between type and level of stigma was also significant, F(2.41, 113.284) = 20.250, p < .001, indicating that differences in reported stigma between types varied across levels of stigma. Post hoc tests found a significant difference between all levels of stigma except for the comparison between Apply and Harm. Reported stigma was significantly higher for substance abuse than mental illness at the Aware and Agree levels. In addition, pairwise comparisons found significant differences between all levels of stigma with the exception of the comparison between Apply and Harm, indicating a pattern whereby reported stigma generally decreased from the first level (Aware stage) to subsequent levels. CONCLUSIONS: These results have important implications for treatment, suggesting the need to incorporate anti-stigma interventions for individuals with co-occurring disorders with a greater focus on substance abuse.

Caregiver Eligibility for Support Services: Correlates and Consequences for Resource Utilization.

Policymakers and community organizations have implemented numerous programs and services to support the more than 40 million family caregivers in the United States. However, the existence of such services is not sufficient to ensure equitable and optimal access and utilization. Using data from the Caregiving in the US study (2015; n = 1,185), we estimated that nearly one in five family caregivers do not meet broad eligibility criteria for support services. This resource gap was particularly likely to affect high-priority populations such as those caring for someone with a mental health problem. Furthermore, ineligible caregivers had lower service utilization and increased financial strain. The findings highlight a pattern of vulnerability among caregivers who do not meet broad eligibility criteria for financial support resources. Careful policy consideration is needed to determine how support services should be allocated to maximize caregiver and care recipient outcomes at the population level.