Explore the vast range of titles available.

To inform future research, treatment, and policy decisions, this book traces the scientific and social developments that shaped the current treatment model for depression in primary care over the past half century. While new strategies for diagnosing and treating depression have improved millions of people’s lives, there is little evidence that the overall societal burden of depression has decreased. Most experts point to a gap between what psychiatrists know and what primary care doctors do to explain untreated depression. Callahan and Berrios argue, however, that the problem stems mainly from lack of a public health perspective, that prevailing etiologic models underestimate the roles of society and culture in causing depression and over-emphasize biological factors. The current conceptual model for depression is a scientific and social invention of the last quarter century. Such models are important because they shape how society views people with emotional symptoms, defines who is sick, and determines who should get care. Most parents who seek treatment for depression receive antidepressant medications in primary care. The authors show that although depressed patients’ help-seeking behaviour and primary care doctors’ clinical approach have changed little over the past half century, the field of primary care medicine has changed dramatically. They describe how the specific diagnoses and treatments developed by psychiatrists in the past 50 years have often collided with the non-specific approaches that dominate primary care practice. In examining the research seeking to close the gap between psychiatry and primary care, Callahan and Berrios offer public health models to explain the ongoing societal burden of depression. By exploring the history of depression in primary care, they open a pathway for improvements in the care of people with depression, where primary care physicians should play a greater leadership role in the future.

In the past 20 years, the number of hospitalists in the United States has grown from a few hundred to more than 50,000. Although challenges remain, many stars have aligned to enable the model to thrive and contribute to high-quality, efficient inpatient care. Twenty years ago, we described the emergence of a new type of specialist that we called a “hospitalist.” 1 Since then, the number of hospitalists has grown from a few hundred to more than 50,000 (see graph) — making this new field substantially larger than any subspecialty of internal medicine (the largest of which is cardiology, with 22,000 physicians), about the same size as pediatrics (55,000), and in fact larger than any specialty except general internal medicine (109,000) and family medicine (107,000). Approximately 75% of U.S. hospitals, including all highly ranked academic health centers, now have hospitalists. The field’s rapid growth . . .

H. Jack Geiger, who died in December, left an indelible imprint on health equity and social justice as paramount elements of a national health policy. Above all, this imprint is found in the community health centers program, where medicine is an entry point into health.

Medical practice redesign refers to the intentional efforts to improve practice processes and outcomes. Efforts to redesign office-based medical care go back some forty years. We divide the history of practice redesign into three overlapping phases: basic investigation, model development, and dissemination. The \"medical home\" movement in primary care has accelerated this dissemination phase. The acceleration and scaling up of efforts in practice redesign that have resulted from interest in the medical home present substantial opportunities and challenges for the medical profession and the U.S. health care system. We review the history and extract lessons to inform today's medical practice redesign efforts. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

The practice of surgical palliative care is not new. Dr Balfour M. M. Mount, a retired urologic surgeon is considered the father of North American Palliative Care and coined the term Palliative Care in 1975. Dr Geoffrey P. Dunn, a retired general surgeon and hospice and palliative medicine specialist along with other like minded surgical colleagues were instrumental in developing the field of surgical palliative care. Dr Olga Jonasson, championed the American Board of Surgery becoming one of the sponsoring boards of the Hospice and Palliative Medicine certifying exam. Dr Anne Mosenthal advocated for palliative care to be integrated as parallel clinical aims so espoused in the Trauma Quality and Improvement Program Palliative Care Best Practice Guidelines. Dr Mosenthal currently chairs the American College of Surgeons Committee on Surgical Palliative Care. This introductory article is a brief history about the origins of surgical palliative care and sheds light on the current landscape of surgeons integrating primary and specialty palliative care into surgical practice. The aim of this surgical palliative care symposium is to take everyday surgical problems and highlight the application and benefit of palliative care when treating surgical patients with serious illness. Integrating palliative care principles into standard clinical management is evidenced based patient-centered practice.

Multiple promising but unsustainable attempts have been made to maintain programs integrating primary care and public health since the middle of the last century. During the 1960s, social justice movements expanded access to primary care and began to integrate primary care with public health concepts both to meet community needs for medical care and to begin to address the social determinants of health. Two decades later, the managed care movement offered opportunities for integration of primary care and public health as many employers and government payers attempted to control health costs and bring disease prevention strategies in line with payment mechanisms. Today, we again have the opportunity to align primary care with public health to improve the community's health.

Tobacco addiction is a complex, multicomponent phenomenon stemming from nicotine's pharmacology and the user's biology, psychology, sociology, and environment. After decades of public denial, the tobacco industry now agrees with public health authorities that nicotine is addictive. In 2000, Philip Morris became the first major tobacco company to admit nicotine's addictiveness. Evolving definitions of addiction have historically affected subsequent policymaking. This article examines how Philip Morris internally conceptualized addiction immediately before and after this announcement. We analyzed previously secret, internal Philip Morris documents made available as a result of litigation against the tobacco industry. We compared these documents to public company statements and found that Philip Morris's move from public denial to public affirmation of nicotine's addictiveness coincided with pressure on the industry from poor public approval ratings, the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA), the United States government's filing of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) suit, and the Institute of Medicine's (IoM's) endorsement of potentially reduced risk products. Philip Morris continued to research the causes of addiction through the 2000s in order to create successful potentially reduced exposure products (PREPs). While Philip Morris's public statements reinforce the idea that nicotine's pharmacology principally drives smoking addiction, company scientists framed addiction as the result of interconnected biological, social, psychological, and environmental determinants, with nicotine as but one component. Due to the fragmentary nature of the industry document database, we may have missed relevant information that could have affected our analysis. Philip Morris's research suggests that tobacco industry activity influences addiction treatment outcomes. Beyond nicotine's pharmacology, the industry's continued aggressive advertising, lobbying, and litigation against effective tobacco control policies promotes various nonpharmacological determinants of addiction. To help tobacco users quit, policy makers should increase attention on the social and environmental dimensions of addiction alongside traditional cessation efforts.

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia in older persons [...]