There is a widespread belief by some health care providers and the wider community that medications used to alleviate symptoms may hasten death in hospice patients. Conversely, there is a clinical impression among hospice providers that hospice might extend some patients' lives. We studied the difference of survival periods of terminally ill patients between those using hospices and not using hospices. We performed retrospective statistical analysis on selected cohorts from large paid claim databases of Medicare beneficiaries for five types of cancer and congestive heart failure (CHF) patients. We analyzed the survival of 4493 patients from a sample of 5% of the entire Medicare beneficiary population for 1998-2002 associated with six narrowly defined indicative markers. For the six patient populations combined, the mean survival was 29 days longer for hospice patients than for nonhospice patients. The mean survival period was also significantly longer for the hospice patients with CHF, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, and marginally significant for colon cancer (P=0.08). Mean survival was not significantly different (statistically) for hospice vs. nonhospice patients with breast or prostate cancer. Across groups studied, hospice enrollment is not significantly associated with shorter survival, but for certain terminally ill patients, hospice is associated with longer survival times. The claims-based method used death within three years as a surrogate for a clinical judgment to recommend hospice, which means our findings apply to cases where a clinician is very sure the patient will die within three years, and it points to the need to validate these findings.

BackgroundStigmatization among healthcare providers towards mental illnesses can present obstacles to effective caregiving. This may be especially the case for borderline personality disorder (BPD). Our study measured the impact of a three hour workshop on BPD and dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) on attitudes and behavioral intentions of healthcare providers towards persons with BPD as well as mental illness more generally. The intervention involved educational and social contact elements, all focused on BPD.MethodsThe study employed a pre-post design. We adopted the approach of measuring stigmatization towards persons with BPD in one half of the attendees and stigmatization towards persons with a mental illness in the other half. The stigma-assessment tool was the Opening Minds Scale for Healthcare Providers (OMS-HC). Two versions of the scale were employed – the original version and a ‘BPD-specific’ version. A 2x2 mixed model factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the dependent variable, stigma score. The between-subject factor was survey type. The within-subject factor was time.ResultsThe mixed-model ANOVA produced a significant between-subject main effect for survey type, with stigma towards persons with BPD being greater than that towards persons with a mental illness more generally. A significant within-subject main effect for time was also observed, with participants showing significant improvement in stigma scores at Time 2. The main effects were subsumed by a significant interaction between time and survey type. Bonferroni post hoc tests indicated significant improvement in attitudes towards BPD and mental illness more generally, although there was a greater improvement in attitudes towards BPD.ConclusionsAlthough effectiveness cannot be conclusively demonstrated with the current research design, results are encouraging that the intervention was successful at improving healthcare provider attitudes and behavioral intentions towards persons with BPD. The results further suggest that anti stigma interventions effective at combating stigma against a specific disorder may also have positive generalizable effects towards a broader set of mental illnesses, albeit to a lessened degree.