Combined internal medicine-psychiatry and family medicine-psychiatry training programs, 1999-2000: program directors' perspectives.

PURPOSE: Despite tremendous growth in the number of combined-training residency programs, little is known about their directorships, financing, recruitment, curricula, and attrition rates, and the practice patterns of graduates. The authors surveyed residency program directors from combined internal medicine-psychiatry (IM/PSY) and family medicine-psychiatry (FP/PSY) programs to provide initial descriptive information. METHOD: Programs' directors were determined from the American Medical Association's Graduate Medical Education Directory and FREIDA online database. Three mailings of a pretested questionnaire were sent to the 40 identified combined IM/PSY and FP/PSY residency programs. RESULTS: A total of 32 directors from 29 programs responded. Most programs were under the dual directorship of representatives from both the psychiatry department and either the internal medicine or the family medicine program. Although most directors responded that the residency program was based in psychiatry, both departments shared in administrative, recruiting, and financial responsibilities. Curricula varied widely, with limited focus on combined training experiences. Graduates (n = 41) tended to practice in academic settings (37%), where both aspects of training could be used. Others practiced in either community mental health centers or traditional private practice settings. The estimated attrition rate from combined residencies was 11%. CONCLUSIONS: Combined-training programs are directed by a diverse group of individuals, including dual-boarded physicians. Curricula vary widely, but most programs are within recommended guidelines. Further prospective studies are warranted to determine predictors of attrition and future practice plans.

Illness fears in the general population.

OBJECTIVES: Because relatively little is known about illness fears, we sought to estimate the prevalence, risk factors, and morbidity associated with such fears in the community. METHODS: We conducted a brief telephone survey of persons aged 40 to 65 years from randomly selected households in the Johnson County, Iowa, area. Respondents were asked whether a series of illness and medical care items made them no more nervous, somewhat more nervous, or much more nervous than other people. Those who reported more discomfort were asked to what extent this interfered with medical care or caused impairment or distress. Information about demographic and health characteristics was also obtained. RESULTS: Five hundred persons, 62% of those contacted, responded to the survey. A factor analysis revealed four fear dimensions: illness/injury, medical care, blood/needle, and aging/death. Five percent of respondents reported much more nervousness in relation to at least four of six illness/injury items, 4% indicated that such fears interfered with their medical care, and 5% reported some negative effect on their life. Similarly, 5% of respondents reported much more nervousness in relation to at least two of four medical care items. Illness/injury fears were somewhat more common in persons with lower income and education and in those with medical conditions. CONCLUSIONS: This survey shows that fears of illness and medical care are common in the general population and indicates that lower socioeconomic status and experience with illness are associated with these fears. The findings also suggest that interference with care occurs among those with the strongest fears.