Linking dispositional mindfulness and positive psychological processes in cancer survivorship: a multivariate path analytic test of the mindfulness-to-meaning theory.

BACKGROUND: Research indicates that dispositional mindfulness is associated with positive psychological functioning. Although this disposition has been linked with beneficial outcomes in the broader mental health literature, less is known about dispositional mindfulness in cancer survivors and how it may be linked with indices of psychological and physical health relevant to cancer survivorship. METHODS: We conducted a multivariate path analysis of data from a heterogeneous sample of cancer patients (N = 97) to test the Mindfulness-to-Meaning Theory, an extended process model of emotion regulation linking dispositional mindfulness with cancer-related quality of life via positive psychological processes. RESULTS: We found that patients endorsing higher levels of dispositional mindfulness were more likely to pay attention to positive experiences (ß = .56), a tendency which was associated with positive reappraisal of stressful life events (ß = .51). Patients who engaged in more frequent positive reappraisal had a greater sense of meaning in life (ß = .43) and tended to savor rewarding or life affirming events (ß = .50). In turn, those who engaged in high levels of savoring had better quality of life (ß = .33) and suffered less from emotional distress (ß = -.54). CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide support for the Mindfulness-to-Meaning Theory and help explicate the processes by which mindfulness promotes psychological flourishing in the face of cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORSHIP: Cancer survivors may benefit from enhancing mindfulness, reappraisal, and savoring. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Protecting Ideas: Ethical and Legal Considerations When a Grant's Principal Investigator Changes.

Ethical issues related the responsible conduct of research involve questions concerning the rights and obligations of investigators to propose, design, implement, and publish research. When a principal investigator (PI) transfers institutions during a grant cycle, financial and recognition issues need to be addressed to preserve all parties' obligations and best interests in a mutually beneficial way. Although grants often transfer with the PI, sometimes they do not. Maintaining a grant at an institution after the PI leaves does not negate the grantee institution's obligation to recognize the PI's original ideas, contributions, and potential rights to some forms of expression and compensation. Issues include maintaining a role for the PI in determining how to take credit for, share and publish results that involve his or her original ideas. Ascribing proper credit can become a thorny issue. This paper provides a framework for addressing situations and disagreements that may occur when a new PI continues the work after the original PI transfers. Included are suggestions for proactively developing institutional mechanisms that address such issues. Considerations include how to develop solutions that comply with the responsible conduct of research, equitably resolve claims regarding reporting of results, and avoid the possibility of plagiarism.

Ethics and the law: is there common ground on informed consent for disparities in hospital outcomes?

The association between procedure volume at institutions and outcomes of cancer surgeries has been widely published in the medical literature; discussed in the lay press; and, during the past 15 years, incorporated into quality improvement endeavors. In certain cases, institutional volume has become a proxy for quality. Despite the vast amount of retrospective data on this topic, physicians generally have been unsure how to approach the information and interpret it for their patients. Even more challenging to some physicians has been deciding whether the data oblige them to either direct patients with cancer to high-volume centers for care or discuss the data with these patients as part of informed consent. An additional challenge is that physicians must understand laws related to these issues and that these laws are unclear. This article reviews the ethical arguments for including disparities in hospital outcomes as part of informed consent and examines whether legal precedent can shed light on this debate.