Search

IntroductionDespite the pressing need for primary care-based suicide prevention initiatives and growing acknowledgement of recruitment difficulties and Institutional Review Board (IRB) challenges in suicide research, we are aware of no illustrative examples describing how IRB decisions in the design of a primary care trial can compound recruitment challenges.MethodsThe CDC-funded trial (NCT02986113) of Men and Providers Preventing Suicide aimed to examine the effects of a tailored computer program encourage men with suicidal thoughts (n = 304, ages 35-64) to discuss suicide with a primary care clinician and accept treatment. Before a visit, participants viewed MAPS or a non-tailored control video. Post-visit, both arms were offered telephone collaborative care, as mandated by the institutional review board (IRB). We previously showed that exposure to MAPs led to improvements in communication about suicide in a primary care visit. In this paper, we report data on the study's primary outcome, suicide preparatory behaviors.ResultsAfter screening nearly 4100 men, 48 enrolled. Recruitment challenges, which were exacerabted by an IRB mandate narrowing post-intervention patient management differences between trial arms, limited detection of the effects of MAPS on suicide preparatory behaviors.ConclusionsWhile primary care settings are key sites for suicide prevention trials, issues such as recruitment difficulties and overly restrictive IRB requirements may limit their utility. Methodological innovation to improve recruitment and ethical guidance to inform IRB decision-making are needed.

PurposeMiddle-aged men are at high risk of suicide. While about half of those who kill themselves visit a primary care clinician (PCC) shortly before death, in current practice, few spontaneously disclose their thoughts of suicide during the visits, and PCCs seldom inquire about such thoughts. In a randomized controlled trial, we examined the effect of a tailored interactive computer program designed to encourage middle-aged men's discussion of suicide with PCCs.MethodsWe recruited men 35-74 years old reporting recent (within 4 weeks) active suicide thoughts from the panels of 42 PCCs (the unit of randomization) in eight offices within a single California health system. In the office before a visit, men viewed the intervention corresponding to their PCC's random group assignment: Men and Providers Preventing Suicide (MAPS) (20 PCCs), providing tailored multimedia promoting discussion of suicide thoughts, or control (22 PCCs), composed of a sleep hygiene video plus brief non-tailored text encouraging discussion of suicide thoughts. Logistic regressions, adjusting for patient nesting within physicians, examined MAPS' effect on patient-reported suicide discussion in the subsequent office visit.ResultsSixteen of the randomized PCCs had no patients enroll in the trial. From the panels of the remaining 26 PCCs (12 MAPS, 14 control), 48 men (MAPS 21, control 27) were enrolled (a mean of 1.8 (range 1-5) per PCC), with a mean age of 55.9 years (SD 11.4). Suicide discussion was more likely among MAPS patients (15/21 [65%]) than controls (8/27 [35%]). Logistic regression showed men viewing MAPS were more likely than controls to discuss suicide with their PCC (OR 5.91, 95% CI 1.59-21.94; P = 0.008; nesting-adjusted predicted effect 71% vs. 30%).ConclusionsIn addressing barriers to discussing suicide, the tailored MAPS program activated middle-aged men with active suicide thoughts to engage with PCCs around this customarily taboo topic.

Background: Care teams are increasingly expected to attend to the needs of patient's personal caregivers (e.g., family members). Improving communication among oncologists, patients with advanced cancer, and their personal caregivers might enhance caregivers' experiences of end-of-life (EoL) cancer care and bereavement outcomes. Objective: To explore the effects of the Values and Options in Cancer Care intervention on caregivers' experiences of EoL care and bereavement outcomes. Design: We developed a brief behavioral intervention to improve communication among oncologists, patients with advanced cancer, and their personal caregivers. The intervention was designed to help patients/caregivers ask questions, express concerns, and help oncologists respond effectively. We randomly assigned oncologists (and their patients/caregivers) to the intervention or usual care. Setting/Subjects: Medical oncologists in NY and CA; patients/personal caregivers with advanced cancer. Measurements: Two months after the patient's death, caregivers completed three instruments assessing their experiences of EoL care. Seven months after the patient's death, caregivers completed the Prolonged Grief Disorder-13 (PG-13; primary prespecified outcome), the Purpose-in-Life scale, and scales assessing mental health function, depression, and anxiety. Results: The intervention did not significantly improve caregivers' scores on the PG-13 (p = 0.21), mental health function, depression, or anxiety, but it did improve purpose-in-life scores (p = 0.018). Cohen's d (95% confidence interval) for all three experiences of EoL care outcomes were promising, ranging from 0.22 (-0.19 to 0.63) to 0.39 (-0.07 to 0.86) although none was statistically significant. Conclusion: Preliminary findings show promise that scalable interventions in cancer care settings may improve caregiver experiences with cancer care and some bereavement outcomes.

BackgroundPatients with advanced, incurable cancer who understand their illness is incurable are more likely to prefer hospice care at the end of life compared with patients who believe their illness is curable. To the authors' knowledge, it is unclear whether patient-caregiver agreement regarding perceived prognosis is associated with hospice enrollment.MethodsThe current study examined the prospective relationship between patient-caregiver agreement concerning perceived prognosis and hospice enrollment in the last 30 days of life. Data were collected during a cluster randomized controlled trial examining a communication intervention for oncologists and patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers. At the time of study entry, patients and caregivers (141 dyads) were categorized as endorsing a "good" prognosis if they: 1) reported a >50% chance of surviving ≥2 years; or if they 2) predicted that the patient's quality of life 3 months into the future would be ≥7 on an 11-point scale.ResultsApproximately one-fifth of dyads agreed on a poor prognosis whereas approximately one-half disagreed regarding prognosis. In approximately one-third of dyads, patients and caregivers both believed the patient's future quality of life would be good (34%) and that the patient would live for ≥2 years (30%). Patients in these dyads were less likely to enroll in hospice compared with patients in dyads who disagreed and those who agreed on a shorter life expectancy and poor future quality of life.ConclusionsDyadic understanding of patients' projected life expectancy and future quality of life appears to be predictive of care received at the end of life. Improving rates of hospice enrollment may be best achieved with dyadic interventions.

ContextAlthough patient and physician characteristics are thought to be predictive of discretionary interventions at the end of life (EoL), few studies have data on both parties.ObjectiveTo test the hypothesis that patient preferences and physician attitudes are both independently associated with discretionary interventions at the EoL.MethodsWe report secondary analyses of data collected prospectively from physicians (n = 38) and patients with advanced cancer (n = 265) in the Values and Options in Cancer Care study. Predictor variables were patient attitudes toward EoL care and physician-reported comfort with medical paternalism, assessed indirectly using a modified version of the Control Preference Scale. We explored whether the magnitude of the physician variable was influenced by the inclusion of particular patient treatment-preference variables (i.e., effect modification). Outcomes were a chemotherapy use score (≤14 days before death [scored 2], 15-31 days before death [scored 1], and >31 days [scored 0]) and an emergency department visit/inpatient admission score (two or more admissions in the last 31 days [scored 2], one admission [1], and 0 admissions [0]) in the last month of life.ResultsChemotherapy scores were nearly 0.25 points higher if patients expressed a preference for experimental treatments with unknown benefit at study entry (0.238 points, 95% CI = 0.047-0.429) or reported an unfavorable attitude toward palliative care (0.247 points, 95% CI = 0.047-0.450). A two-standard deviation difference in physician comfort with medical paternalism corresponded to standardized effects of 0.35 (95% CI = 0.03-0.66) for chemotherapy and 0.33 (95% CI = 0.04-0.61) for emergency department visits/inpatient admissions. There was no evidence of effect modification.ConclusionPatient treatment preferences and physician attitudes are independently associated with higher levels of treatment intensity before death. Greater research, clinical, and policy attention to patient treatment preferences and physician comfort with medical paternalism might lead to improvements in care of patients with advanced disease.

ObjectivesNearly half of all men who die by suicide visit a primary care clinician (PCC) in the month before death, yet few disclose suicide thoughts. We solicited stakeholders' views to guide development of a tailored multimedia program to activate middle-aged men experiencing suicide thoughts to engage with PCCs.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with 44 adults self-identifying as: suicide attempt survivor; family member/loved one of person(s) who attempted or died by suicide; PCC; non-PCC office staff; health administrator; and/or prevention advocate. We coded recorded interview transcripts and identified relevant themes using grounded theory.ResultsTwo thematic groupings emerged, informing program design: structure and delivery (including belief the program could be effective and desire for use of plain language and media over text); and informational and motivational content (including concerns about PCC preparedness; fear that disclosing suicide thoughts would necessitate hospitalization; and influence of male identity and masculinity, respectively, in care-seeking for and interpreting suicide thoughts).ConclusionStakeholder input informed the design of a primary care tailored multimedia suicide prevention tool.Practice implicationsIn revealing a previously unreported barrier to disclosing suicide thoughts to PCCs (fear of hospitalization), and underscoring known barriers, the findings may suggest additional suicide prevention approaches.

ContextLittle is known about the hopes patients with advanced (incurable) cancer have for their treatment.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to describe the treatment hopes of advanced cancer patients, factors associated with expressing specific hopes, and the persons with whom hopes are discussed.MethodsWe surveyed 265 advanced cancer patients in the U.S. about their hopes for treatment at the baseline and after three months. We developed a taxonomy of hopes for treatment, which two investigators used to independently code patient responses. We explored associations between hopes for cure and patient covariates.ResultsWe developed eight categories of hopes. We were able to apply these codes reliably, and 95% of the patient's responses fit at least one hope category. The hope categories in order of descending baseline prevalence were as follows: quality of life, life extension, tumor stabilization, remission, milestone, unqualified cure, control not otherwise specified, and cure tempered by realism. Most patients reported discussing hopes with partners, family/friends, and oncologists; a minority reported discussing hopes with nurses, primary care physicians, clergy, or support groups. In logistic regression analysis, unqualified hopes for cure were more likely in younger patients and in those who did not endorse discussing their hopes with primary care physicians.ConclusionAdvanced cancer patients harbor a range of treatment hopes. These hopes often are not discussed with key members of the health care team. Younger age and lack of discussion of hopes with primary care physicians may lead to less realistic hopes for cure.

ObjectiveTo identify predictors of participation of patients with advanced cancer in clinical encounters with oncologists and to assess the impact of patient and caregiver participation on perceptions of physician support.MethodsThis is a secondary data analysis from the Values and Options in Cancer Care study, a cluster randomized clinical trial of a patient-centered communication intervention. Patients and caregivers completed pre-visit and post-visit health and communication measures. Audio recorded patient-caregiver (when present)-physician encounters were coded for active patient/caregiver participation behaviors (eg, question asking, expressing concern) and for physicians' facilitative communication (eg, partnership-building, support). Mixed linear regression models were used to identify patient, physician, and situational factors predicting patient and patient plus caregiver communication behaviors and post-visit outcomes.ResultsPhysician partnership building predicted greater expressions of concern and more assertive responses from patients and patient-caregiver pairs. Patients' perceptions of greater connectedness with their physician predicted fewer patient expressions of concern. Patient perceptions of physician respect for their autonomy were lower among patients accompanied by caregivers. Caregiver perceptions of physician respect for patient autonomy decreased with increasing patient age and varied by site.ConclusionsIn advanced cancer care, patient and caregiver communication is affected by ecological factors within their consultations. Physicians can support greater patient participation in clinical encounters through facilitative communication such as partnership-building and supportive talk. The presence of a caregiver complicates this environment, but partnership building techniques may help promote patient and caregiver participation during these visits.

Purpose Some research has suggested that discussion of prognosis can disrupt the patient-physician relationship. This study assessed whether physician discussion of prognosis is associated with detrimental changes in measures of the strength of the patient-physician relationship. Methods This was a longitudinal cohort study of 265 adult patients with advanced cancer who visited 38 oncologists within community- and hospital-based cancer clinics in Western New York and Northern California. Prognostic discussion was assessed by coding transcribed audio-recorded visits using the Prognostic and Treatment Choices (PTCC) scale and by patient survey at 3 months after the clinic visit. Changes in the strength of the patient-physician relationship were computed as differences in patient responses to The Human Connection and the Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions scales from baseline to 2 to 7 days and 3 months after the clinic visit. Results Prognostic discussion was not associated with a temporal decline in either measure. Indeed, a one-unit increase in PTCC during the audio-recorded visit was associated with improvement in The Human Connection scale at 2 to 7 days after the visit (parameter estimate, 0.10; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.23) and 3 months after the visit (parameter estimate, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.35) relative to baseline. Standardized effect sizes (SES) associated with an increase of two standard deviations in the PTCC at each time point were consistent with small beneficial effects (SES, 0.14 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.29] at 2 to 7 days; SES, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.02 to 0.45] at 3 months), and lower bounds of CIs indicated that substantial detrimental effects of prognostic discussion were unlikely. Conclusion Prognostic discussion is not intrinsically harmful to the patient-physician relationship and may even strengthen the therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists.

Purpose To build on results of a cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a combined patient-oncologist intervention to improve communication in advanced cancer, we conducted a post hoc analysis of the patient intervention component, a previsit patient coaching session that used a question prompt list (QPL). We hypothesized that intervention-group participants would bring up more QPL-related topics, particularly prognosis-related topics, during the subsequent oncologist visit. Patients and Methods This cluster RCT with 170 patients who had advanced nonhematologic cancer (and their caregivers) recruited from practices of 24 participating oncologists in western New York. Intervention-group oncologists (n = 12) received individualized communication training; up to 10 of their patients (n = 84) received a previsit individualized communication coaching session that incorporated a QPL. Control-group oncologists (n = 12) and patients (n = 86) received no interventions. Topics of interest identified by patients during the coaching session were summarized from coaching notes; one office visit after the coaching session was audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by using linear regression modeling for group differences. Results Compared with controls, more than twice as many intervention-group participants brought up QPL-related topics during their office visits (70.2% v 32.6%; P < .001). Patients in the intervention group were nearly three times more likely to ask about prognosis (16.7% v 5.8%; P =.03). Of 262 topics of interest identified during coaching, 158 (60.3%) were QPL related; 20 (12.7%) addressed prognosis. Overall, patients in the intervention group brought up 82.4% of topics of interest during the office visit. Conclusion A combined coaching and QPL intervention was effective to help patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers identify and bring up topics of concern, including prognosis, during their subsequent oncologist visits. Considering that most patients are misinformed about prognosis, more intensive steps are needed to better promote such discussions.

ImportanceObservational studies demonstrate links between patient-centered communication, quality of life (QOL), and aggressive treatments in advanced cancer, yet few randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of communication interventions have been reported.ObjectiveTo determine whether a combined intervention involving oncologists, patients with advanced cancer, and caregivers would promote patient-centered communication, and to estimate intervention effects on shared understanding, patient-physician relationships, QOL, and aggressive treatments in the last 30 days of life.Design, setting, and participantsCluster RCT at community- and hospital-based cancer clinics in Western New York and Northern California; 38 medical oncologists (mean age 44.6 years; 11 (29%) female) and 265 community-dwelling adult patients with advanced nonhematologic cancer participated (mean age, 64.4 years, 146 [55.0%] female, 235 [89%] white; enrolled August 2012 to June 2014; followed for 3 years); 194 patients had participating caregivers.InterventionsOncologists received individualized communication training using standardized patient instructors while patients received question prompt lists and individualized communication coaching to identify issues to address during an upcoming oncologist visit. Both interventions focused on engaging patients in consultations, responding to emotions, informing patients about prognosis and treatment choices, and balanced framing of information. Control participants received no training.Main outcomes and measuresThe prespecified primary outcome was a composite measure of patient-centered communication coded from audio recordings of the first oncologist visit following patient coaching (intervention group) or enrollment (control). Secondary outcomes included the patient-physician relationship, shared understanding of prognosis, QOL, and aggressive treatments and hospice use in the last 30 days of life.ResultsData from 38 oncologists (19 randomized to intervention) and 265 patients (130 intervention) were analyzed. In fully adjusted models, the intervention resulted in clinically and statistically significant improvements in the primary physician-patient communication end point (adjusted intervention effect, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.06-0.62; P = .02). Differences in secondary outcomes were not statistically significant.Conclusions and relevanceA combined intervention that included oncologist communication training and coaching for patients with advanced cancer was effective in improving patient-centered communication but did not affect secondary outcomes.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01485627.

ImportancePatients with advanced cancer often report expectations for survival that differ from their oncologists' expectations. Whether patients know that their survival expectations differ from those of their oncologists remains unknown. This distinction is important because knowingly expressing differences of opinion is important for shared decision making, whereas patients not knowing that their understanding differs from that of their treating physician is a potential marker of inadequate communication.ObjectiveTo describe the prevalence, distribution, and proportion of prognostic discordance that is due to patients' knowingly vs unknowingly expressing an opinion that differs from that of their oncologist.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional study conducted at academic and community oncology practices in Rochester, New York, and Sacramento, California. The sample comprises 236 patients with advanced cancer and their 38 oncologists who participated in a randomized trial of an intervention to improve clinical communication. Participants were enrolled from August 2012 to June 2014 and followed up until October 2015.Main outcomes and measuresWe ascertained discordance by comparing patient and oncologist ratings of 2-year survival probability. For discordant pairs, we determined whether patients knew that their opinions differed from those of their oncologists by asking the patients to report how they believed their oncologists rated their 2-year survival.ResultsAmong the 236 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.5 [11.4] years; 54% female), 161 patient-oncologist survival prognosis ratings (68%; 95% CI, 62%-75%) were discordant. Discordance was substantially more common among nonwhite patients compared with white patients (95% [95% CI, 86%-100%] vs 65% [95% CI, 58%-73%], respectively; P = .03). Among 161 discordant patients, 144 (89%) did not know that their opinions differed from that of their oncologists and nearly all of them (155 of 161 [96%]) were more optimistic than their oncologists.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, patient-oncologist discordance about survival prognosis was common and patients rarely knew that their opinions differed from those of their oncologists.

BackgroundDespite improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of depression, primary care provider (PCP) discussion regarding suicidal thoughts among patients with depressive symptoms remains low.ObjectiveTo determine whether a targeted depression public service announcement (PSA) video or an individually tailored interactive multimedia computer program (IMCP) leads to increased primary care provider (PCP) discussion of suicidal thoughts in patients with elevated risk for clinical depression when compared to an attention control.DesignRandomized control trial at five different healthcare systems in Northern California; two academic, two Veterans Affairs (VA), and one group-model health maintenance organization (HMO).ParticipantsEight-hundred sixty-seven participants, with mean age 51.7; 43.9% women, 43.4% from a racial/ethnic minority group.InterventionThe PSA was targeted to gender and socio-economic status, and designed to encourage patients to seek depression care or request information regarding depression. The IMCP was an individually tailored interactive health message designed to activate patients to discuss possible depressive symptoms. The attention control was a sleep hygiene video.Main measuresClinician reported discussion of suicidal thoughts. Analyses were stratified by depressive symptom level (Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9] score

ImportanceEncouraging primary care patients to address depression symptoms and care with clinicians could improve outcomes but may also result in unnecessary treatment.ObjectiveTo determine whether a depression engagement video (DEV) or a tailored interactive multimedia computer program (IMCP) improves initial depression care compared with a control without increasing unnecessary antidepressant prescribing.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized clinical trial comparing DEV, IMCP, and control among 925 adult patients treated by 135 primary care clinicians (603 patients with depression and 322 patients without depression, defined by Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9] score) conducted from June 2010 through March 2012 at 7 primary care clinical sites in California.InterventionsDEV targeted to sex and income, an IMCP tailored to individual patient characteristics, and a sleep hygiene video (control).Main outcomes and measuresAmong depressed patients, superiority assessment of the composite measure of patient-reported antidepressant drug recommendation, mental health referral, or both (primary outcome); depression at 12-week follow-up, measured by the PHQ-8 (secondary outcome). Among nondepressed patients, noninferiority assessment of clinician- and patient-reported antidepressant drug recommendation (primary outcomes) with a noninferiority margin of 3.5%. Analyses were cluster adjusted.ResultsOf the 925 eligible patients, 867 were included in the primary analysis (depressed, 559; nondepressed, 308). Among depressed patients, rates of achieving the primary outcome were 17.5% for DEV, 26% for IMCP, and 16.3% for control (DEV vs control, 1.1 [95% CI, -6.7 to 8.9], P = .79; IMCP vs control, 9.9 [95% CI, 1.6 to 18.2], P = .02). There were no effects on PHQ-8 measured depression score at the 12-week follow-up: DEV vs control, -0.2 (95% CI, -1.2 to 0.8); IMCP vs control,  0.9 (95% CI, -0.1 to 1.9). Among nondepressed patients, clinician-reported antidepressant prescribing in the DEV and IMCP groups was noninferior to control (mean percentage point difference [PPD]: DEV vs control, -2.2 [90% CI, -8.0 to 3.49], P = .0499 for noninferiority; IMCP vs control, -3.3 [90% CI, -9.1 to 2.4], P = .02 for noninferiority); patient-reported antidepressant recommendation did not achieve noninferiority (mean PPD: DEV vs control,  0.9 [90% CI, -4.9 to 6.7], P = .23 for noninferiority; IMCP vs control,  0.3 [90% CI, -5.1 to 5.7], P = .16 for noninferiority).Conclusions and relevanceA tailored IMCP increased clinician recommendations for antidepressant drugs, a mental health referral, or both among depressed patients but had no effect on mental health at the 12-week follow-up. The possibility that the IMCP and DEV increased patient-reported clinician recommendations for an antidepressant drug among nondepressed patients could not be excluded.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01144104.

Abstract Background Communication about prognosis and treatment choices is essential for informed decision making in advanced cancer. This article describes an investigation designed to facilitate communication and decision making among oncologists, patients with advanced cancer, and their caregivers. Methods/design The Values and Options in Cancer Care (VOICE) Study is a National Cancer Institute sponsored randomized controlled trial conducted in the Rochester/Buffalo, NY and Sacramento, CA regions. A total of 40 oncologists, approximately 400 patients with advanced cancer, and their family/friend caregivers (one per patient, when available) are expected to enroll in the study. Drawing upon ecological theory, the intervention uses a two-pronged approach: oncologists complete a multifaceted tailored educational intervention involving standardized patient instructors (SPIs), and patients and caregivers complete a coaching intervention to facilitate prioritizing and discussing questions and concerns. Follow-up data will be collected approximately quarterly for up to three years. Discussion The intervention is hypothesized to enhance patient-centered communication, quality of care, and patient outcomes. Analyses will examine the effects of the intervention on key elements of physician-patient-caregiver communication (primary outcomes), the physician-patient relationship, shared understanding of prognosis, patient well-being, and health service utilization (secondary outcomes). Trial registration Clinical Trials Identifier: NCT01485627

Abstract Background Family and friends may help patients seek out and engage in depression care. However, patients’ social networks can also undermine depression treatment and recovery. In an effort to improve depression care in primary care settings, we sought to identify, categorize, and alert primary care clinicians to depression-related messages that patients hear from friends and family that patients perceive as unhelpful or detrimental. Methods We conducted 15 focus groups in 3 cities. Participants (n = 116) with a personal history or knowledge of depression responded to open-ended questions about depression, including self-perceived barriers to care-seeking. Focus group conversations were audio-recorded and analyzed using iterative qualitative analysis. Results Four themes emerged related to negatively-received depression messages delivered by family and friends. Specifically, participants perceived these messages as making them feel labeled, judged, lectured to, and rejected by family and friends when discussing depression. Some participants also expressed their interpretation of their families’ motivations for delivering the messages and described how hearing these messages affected depression care. Conclusions The richness of our results reflects the complexity of communication within depression sufferers’ social networks around this stigmatized issue. To leverage patients’ social support networks effectively in depression care, primary care clinicians should be aware of both the potentially beneficial and detrimental aspects of social support. Specifically, clinicians should consider using open-ended queries into patients’ experiences with discussing depression with family and friends as an initial step in the process. An open-ended approach may avoid future emotional trauma or stigmatization and assist patients in overcoming self-imposed barriers to depression discussion, symptom disclosure, treatment adherence and follow-up care.

Author(s): Sheri A. Nsamenang[sup.1] , Jameson K. Hirsch[sup.2] , Raluca Topciu[sup.3] , Andrew D. Goodman[sup.4] , Paul R. Duberstein[sup.5] Author Affiliations: (1) McMaster Childrens Hospital, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Canada [...], Depressive symptoms are common in individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS), and are frequently exacerbated by pain; however, spiritual well-being may allow persons with MS to more effectively cope with pain-related deficits in physical and role functioning. We explored the associations between spiritual well-being, pain interference and depressive symptoms, assessing each as a potential mediator, in eighty-one patients being treated for MS, who completed self-report measures: Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being Scale, Pain Effects Scale, and Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale Revised. At the bivariate level, spiritual well-being and its subscale of meaning and peace were negatively associated with depression and pain interference. In mediation models, depression was not related to pain interference via spiritual well-being, or to spiritual well-being via pain interference. Pain interference was related to depression via spiritual well-being and meaning/peace, and to spiritual well-being and meaning/peace via depressive symptoms. Finally, spiritual well-being and meaning/peace were related to depression via pain interference, and to pain interference via depressive symptoms. For patients with MS, a multi-faceted approach to treatment that includes pain reduction and promotion of spiritual well-being may be beneficial, although amelioration of depression remains a critical task.