Objective: To review the evidence for an association between depression and anxiety and the National Health Priority Area conditions — heart disease, stroke, diabetes mellitus, asthma, cancer, arthritis and osteoporosis — and for the effectiveness of treatments for depression and anxiety in these settings. Data sources: Systematic literature search of systematic reviews, meta‐analyses and evidence‐based clinical practice guidelines published between 1995 and 2007, inclusive. Data extraction: Each review was examined and summarised by two people before compilation. Data synthesis: Depression is more common in all disease groups than in the general population; anxiety is more common in people with heart disease, stroke and cancer than in the general population. Heterogeneity of studies makes determination of risk and the direction of causal relationships difficult to determine, but there is consistent evidence that depression is a risk factor for heart disease, stroke and diabetes mellitus. Antidepressants appear to be effective for treating depression and/or anxiety in patients with heart disease, stroke, cancer and arthritis, although the number of studies in this area is small. A range of psychological and behavioural treatments are also effective in improving mood in patients with cancer and arthritis but, again, the number of studies is small. Conclusion: The evidence for the association of physical illness and depression and anxiety, and their effects on outcome, is very strong. Further research to establish the effectiveness of interventions is required. Despite the limits of current research, policy and practice still lags significantly behind best evidence‐based practice. Models of integrated care need to be developed and trialled.

Objective: Demoralization, as described by Jerome Frank, is experienced as a persistent inability to cope, together with associated feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, meaninglessness, subjective incompetence and diminished self-esteem. It is arguably the main reason people seek psychiatric treatment, yet is a concept largely ignored in psychiatry. The aim here is to review and summarize the literature pertaining to demoralization in order to examine the validity of the construct. Method: A narrative review of demoralization and the related concepts of hope, hopelessness, and meaning is presented, drawing on a range of empirical and observational studies in the medical and psychiatric literature. Results: An examination of the concepts of the ‘Giving Up–Given Up’ syndrome (George Engel), ‘suffering’ (Eric Cassell), and demoralization (Jerome Frank), demonstrate considerable convergence of ideas. Demoralization has been commonly observed in the medically and psychiatrically ill and is experienced as existential despair, hopelessness, helplessness, and loss of meaning and purpose in life. Although sharing symptoms of distress, demoralization is distinguished from depression by subjective incompetence in the former and anhedonia in the latter. Demoralization can occur in people who are depressed, cancer patients who are not depressed and those with schizophrenia. Hopelessness, the hallmark of demoralization, is associated with poor outcomes in physical and psychiatric illness, and importantly, with suicidal ideation and the wish to die. Conclusions: Demoralization is an important construct with established descriptive and predictive validity. A place needs to be found for it in psychiatric nomenclature.

Objective: To measure the prevalence of somatisation (multiple somatic symptoms and hypochondriasis) among Australian general practice attendees, its recognition by general practitioners, and its rel...

Background: Despite evidence that up to 35% of patients with cancer experience significant distress, access to effective psychosocial care is limited by lack of systematic approaches to assessment, a paucity of psychosocial services, and patient reluctance to accept treatment either because of perceived stigma or difficulties with access to specialist psycho-oncology services due to isolation or disease burden. This paper presents an overview of a randomised study to evaluate the effectiveness of a brief tailored psychosocial Intervention delivered by health professionals in cancer care who undergo focused training and participate in clinical supervision. Methods/design: Health professionals from the disciplines of nursing, occupational therapy, speech pathology, dietetics, physiotherapy or radiation therapy will participate in training to deliver the psychosocial Intervention focusing on core concepts of supportive-expressive, cognitive and dignity-conserving care. Health professional training will consist of completion of a self-directed manual and participation in a skills development session. Participating health professionals will be supported through structured clinical supervision whilst delivering the Intervention. In the stepped wedge design each of the 5 participating clinical sites will be allocated in random order from Control condition to Training then delivery of the Intervention. A total of 600 patients will be recruited across all sites. Based on level of distress or risk factors eligible patients will receive up to 4 sessions, each of up to 30 minutes in length, delivered face-to-face or by telephone. Participants will be assessed at baseline and 10-week follow-up. Patient outcome measures include anxiety and depression, quality of life, unmet psychological and supportive care needs. Health professional measures include psychological morbidity, stress and burnout. Process evaluation will be conducted to assess perceptions of participation in the study and the factors that may promote translation of learning into practice. Discussion: This study will provide important information about the effectiveness of a brief tailored psychological Intervention for patients with cancer and the potential to prevent development of significant distress in patients considered at risk. It will yield data about the feasibility of this model of care in routine clinical practice and identify enablers and barriers to its systematic implementation in cancer settings. Trial registration: ACTRN12610000448044