Caregivers of people with neurodegenerative diseases: profile and unmet needs from a population-based survey in South Australia.

INTRODUCTION: Neurodegenerative diseases (NDD) are characterized by progressive decline and loss of function, requiring considerable third-party care. NDD carers report low quality of life and high caregiver burden. Despite this, little information is available about the unmet needs of NDD caregivers. METHODS: Data from a cross-sectional, whole of population study conducted in South Australia were analyzed to determine the profile and unmet care needs of people who identify as having provided care for a person who died an expected death from NDDs including motor neurone disease and multiple sclerosis. Bivariate analyses using chi(2) were complemented with a regression analysis. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty respondents had a person close to them die from an NDD in the 5 years before responding. NDD caregivers were more likely to have provided care for more than 2 years and were more able to move on after the death than caregivers of people with other disorders such as cancer. The NDD caregivers accessed palliative care services at the same rate as other caregivers at the end of life, however people with an NDD were almost twice as likely to die in the community (odds ratio [OR] 1.97; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30 to 3.01) controlling for relevant caregiver factors. NDD caregivers reported significantly more unmet needs in emotional, spiritual, and bereavement support. CONCLUSION: This study is the first step in better understanding across the whole population the consequences of an expected death from an NDD. Assessments need to occur while in the role of caregiver and in the subsequent bereavement phase.

A strategy to advance the evidence base in palliative medicine: formation of a palliative care research cooperative group.

BACKGROUND: Palliative medicine has made rapid progress in establishing its scientific and clinical legitimacy, yet the evidence base to support clinical practice remains deficient in both the quantity and quality of published studies. Historically, the conduct of research in palliative care populations has been impeded by multiple barriers including health care system fragmentation, small number and size of potential sites for recruitment, vulnerability of the population, perceptions of inappropriateness, ethical concerns, and gate-keeping. METHODS: A group of experienced investigators with backgrounds in palliative care research convened to consider developing a research cooperative group as a mechanism for generating high-quality evidence on prioritized, clinically relevant topics in palliative care. RESULTS: The resulting Palliative Care Research Cooperative (PCRC) agreed on a set of core principles: active, interdisciplinary membership; commitment to shared research purposes; heterogeneity of participating sites; development of research capacity in participating sites; standardization of methodologies, such as consenting and data collection/management; agile response to research requests from government, industry, and investigators; focus on translation; education and training of future palliative care researchers; actionable results that can inform clinical practice and policy. Consensus was achieved on a first collaborative study, a randomized clinical trial of statin discontinuation versus continuation in patients with a prognosis of less than 6 months who are taking statins for primary or secondary prevention. This article describes the formation of the PCRC, highlighting processes and decisions taken to optimize the cooperative group's success.

I can see it both ways: first- and third-person visual perspectives at retrieval.

The number of studies examining visual perspective during retrieval has recently grown. However, the way in which perspective has been conceptualized differs across studies. Some studies have suggested perspective is experienced as either a first-person or a third-person perspective, whereas others have suggested both perspectives can be experienced during a single retrieval attempt. This aspect of perspective was examined across three studies, which used different measurement techniques commonly used in studies of perspective. Results suggest that individuals can experience more than one perspective when recalling events. Furthermore, the experience of the two perspectives correlated differentially with ratings of vividness, suggesting that the two perspectives should not be considered in opposition of one another. We also found evidence of a gender effect in the experience of perspective, with females experiencing third-person perspectives more often than males. Future studies should allow for the experience of more than one perspective during retrieval.

The IGNITE network: a model for genomic medicine implementation and research.

BACKGROUND: Patients, clinicians, researchers and payers are seeking to understand the value of using genomic information (as reflected by genotyping, sequencing, family history or other data) to inform clinical decision-making. However, challenges exist to widespread clinical implementation of genomic medicine, a prerequisite for developing evidence of its real-world utility. METHODS: To address these challenges, the National Institutes of Health-funded IGNITE (Implementing GeNomics In pracTicE; www.ignite-genomics.org ) Network, comprised of six projects and a coordinating center, was established in 2013 to support the development, investigation and dissemination of genomic medicine practice models that seamlessly integrate genomic data into the electronic health record and that deploy tools for point of care decision making. IGNITE site projects are aligned in their purpose of testing these models, but individual projects vary in scope and design, including exploring genetic markers for disease risk prediction and prevention, developing tools for using family history data, incorporating pharmacogenomic data into clinical care, refining disease diagnosis using sequence-based mutation discovery, and creating novel educational approaches. RESULTS: This paper describes the IGNITE Network and member projects, including network structure, collaborative initiatives, clinical decision support strategies, methods for return of genomic test results, and educational initiatives for patients and providers. Clinical and outcomes data from individual sites and network-wide projects are anticipated to begin being published over the next few years. CONCLUSIONS: The IGNITE Network is an innovative series of projects and pilot demonstrations aiming to enhance translation of validated actionable genomic information into clinical settings and develop and use measures of outcome in response to genome-based clinical interventions using a pragmatic framework to provide early data and proofs of concept on the utility of these interventions. Through these efforts and collaboration with other stakeholders, IGNITE is poised to have a significant impact on the acceleration of genomic information into medical practice.