The role of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis in stress: A behavioral, neurophysiological and neuropharmacological study

During the fifty-five years since the origin of the modern concept of stress, a variety of neurochemical, physiological, behavioral and pathological data have been collected in order to define stress and catalogue the components of the stress response. Over the last twenty-five years, as interest in the neural mechanisms underlying the stress response grew, most of the studies have focused on the hypothalamus and major limbic structures such as the amygdala or on nuclei involved in neurochemical changes observed during stress. There are other CNS sites, such as the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST), that neuroanatomical and neurochemical studies suggest may be involved in stress, but these sites have rarely been studied. Four experiments were performed for this dissertation, the goal of which was to examine the BNST to determine its role in the regulation of the stress response. The first experiment demonstrated that electrical stimulation of BNST was sufficient to produce stress-like behaviors. The second experiment demonstrated that single BNST neurons altered their firing rate in response to both a noxious somatosensory stimulus such as tail pinch and electrical stimulation of the amygdala (AmygS). The third experiment showed that the opioid, cholinergic, and noradrenergic systems, three neurotransmitter systems implicated in the control of the stress response, were effective in altering the firing rate of BNST neurons. The fourth experiment demonstrated that the cholinergic effects were mediated via muscarinic receptors and showed that the effects of AmygS were not mediated via cholinergic pathways. Collectively, these findings provide a possible explanation for the nonspecificity in causation of stress and the invariability of the stress response and suggest a neurochemical basis for its pharmacological control. ^

COMPARISON OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INVESTOR-OWNED AND VOLUNTARY MULTIHOSPITAL SECTORS

Objectives. The central objective of this study was to systematically examine the internal structure of multihospital systems, determining the management principles used and the performance levels achieved in medical care and administrative areas.^ The Universe. The study universe consisted of short-term general American hospitals owned and operated by multihospital corporations. Corporations compared were the investor-owned (for-profit) and the voluntary multihospital systems. The individual hospital was the unit of analysis for the study.^ Theoretical Considerations. The contingency theory, using selected aspects of the classical and human relations schools of thought, seemed well suited to describe multihospital organization and was used in this research.^ The Study Hypotheses. The main null hypotheses generated were that there are no significant differences between the voluntary and the investor-owned multihospital sectors in their (1) hospital structures and (2) patient care and administrative performance levels.^ The Sample. A stratified random sample of 212 hospitals owned by multihospital systems was selected to equally represent the two study sectors. Of the sampled hospitals approached, 90.1% responded.^ The Analysis. Sixteen scales were constructed in conjunction with 16 structural variables developed from the major questions and sub-items of the questionnaire. This was followed by analysis of an additional 7 structural and 24 effectiveness (performance) measures, using frequency distributions. Finally, summary statistics and statistical testing for each variable and sub-items were completed and recorded in 38 tables.^ Study Findings. While it has been argued that there are great differences between the two sectors, this study found that with a few exceptions the null hypotheses of no difference in organizational and operational characteristics of non-profit and for-profit hospitals was accepted. However, there were several significant differences found in the structural variables: functional specialization, and autonomy were significantly higher in the voluntary sector. Only centralization was significantly different in the investor owned. Among the effectiveness measures, occupancy rate, cost of data processing, total manhours worked, F.T.E. ratios, and personnel per occupied bed were significantly higher in the voluntary sector. The findings indicated that both voluntary and for-profit systems were converging toward a common hierarchical corporate management approach. Factors of size and management style may be better descriptors to characterize a specific multihospital group than its profit or nonprofit status. (Abstract shortened with permission of author.) ^