Yee, Claire I.

Abstract Objectives There are striking differences among caregivers of people with dementia in their health and well-being during active caregiving and after caregiving has ended. A key factor influencing caregiver health is the emotional quality of the caregiver–care recipient relationship, which may be reflected in the emotional language caregivers use when describing this relationship. The present study assessed whether caregivers’ positive and negative language is associated with their current and future depression trajectories. Methods Active caregivers responded to an open-ended question about a recent time they felt connected to the care recipient. We summed the number of positive and negative emotion words and divided them by the total words in the response. We evaluated whether caregivers’ emotional language (a proxy for the emotional quality of the caregiver–care recipient relationship) was associated with their depression assessed both concurrently (N = 347 active caregivers) and longitudinally (N = 224 former caregivers). Results Neither positive nor negative emotional language significantly correlated with caregiver depression during active caregiving. Structural equation modeling revealed caregivers’ greater positive emotional language (accounting for baseline depression) was associated with less steep increases in depression after the care recipient’s death. Results were robust when accounting for negative emotional language and covariates. Negative emotional language was not significantly associated with changes in caregiver depression. Discussion Caregivers who use more positive words when describing their connection with the care recipient may be more resilient, underscoring the potential role of positive emotional qualities of the caregiving relationship in preserving caregivers’ mental health after caregiving ends.

Abstract The Patient‐Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO‐CTCAE) was developed by the US National Cancer Institute to allow patients to directly report their side effects, enhancing the accuracy and patient‐centeredness of cancer clinical trial adverse event reporting. Clinician‐based reporting often misses the full range of patient symptoms, resulting in underreporting of side effects. The selection of adverse events for patient reporting must be defined in advance and consistently applied across all study arms. Investigators can use core symptom sets, including diarrhea, fatigue, and nausea, alongside tailored items specific to the treatments being studied. PRO‐CTCAE has demonstrated similar scores across electronic, paper‐based, and automated telephone administration methods. PRO‐CTCAE administration typically occurs before start of treatment and regularly throughout treatment, with the administration frequency tailored to the expected trajectory of side effects. Ensuring high survey completion rates is essential for PRO‐CTCAE success. Standard reporting can include tabular reporting of the proportion of patients with any (score ≥1) and high (score ≥3) levels of symptoms at the individual item level. A baseline‐adjustment approach should be applied to account for symptoms before start of treatment to isolate treatment‐emergent adverse events. The distribution of PRO‐CTCAE scores at each time point can be visualized using stacked bar charts. PRO‐CTCAE integration into cancer clinical trials is crucial for capturing a comprehensive range of treatment‐related symptomatic adverse events and improving the evaluation of therapy tolerability. Ongoing research continues to refine its implementation, supported by regulatory guidance.

Abstract Objectives Urine drug testing (UDT) is a critical tool used in medical, forensic, and occupational settings, but interpreting results can be challenging. We performed a study to assess the ability of health care professionals to interpret UDT results accurately. Methods In total, 911 clinical and laboratory professionals in the United States and Canada responded to a survey with questions gauging expertise in UDT interpretation. Responses were analyzed to identify knowledge gaps. Results Toxicologists and laboratory PhD scientists performed well, with means of 4.82 and 4.63 questions answered correctly (out of 6 possible), respectively. Physicians specializing in pathology, emergency medicine, primary care, and internal medicine, however, displayed concerning knowledge gaps, as did laboratorians with nondoctoral degrees. Experience and training correlated with interpretation accuracy. Identification of simulated compliance as well as understanding opioid exposure, metabolism, and immunoassay cross-reactivity were among the most clinically significant knowledge gaps. More than 30% of survey respondents indicated that they would seek UDT information from the internet or peers rather than clinical or laboratory experts. Conclusions The study highlighted the need for targeted education and better collaboration between clinical and laboratory experts and other health care professionals to ensure that when physicians order UDT, they can accurately interpret results and reduce harm.