Validating a tool to measure spiritual beliefs, needs and resources in serious illness: The I-SPIRIT.

BACKGROUND: Seriously ill patients rely on spiritual and existential beliefs to support coping and approach crucial treatment and healthcare decisions. Yet, we lack gold standard, validated approaches to gathering information on those spiritual beliefs. Therefore, we developed I-SPIRIT, a spiritual needs and beliefs inventory for those with serious illness (IIR-10-050). METHODS: In prior work to develop measure content, we interviewed a total of 74 participants: 20 patients (veterans with Stage IV cancer, CHF, COPD, ESRD), 19 caregivers, 14 chaplains, 10 social workers, 12 nurses, and 5 physicians. Using directed content analyses, we identified over 50 attributes of spiritual experience comprising five domains: overall importance of spirituality; affiliations and practices; impact on decisions; spiritual needs; and spiritual resources. We then translated these attributes into individual items with Likert response scales. In the quantitative validation of I-SPIRIT, we administered the instrument and a battery of comparison measures to 249 seriously ill veterans. The comparison measures captured general spiritual well-being, religious coping, and emotional functioning. Convergent and discriminant validity was examined with the FACIT-sp (faith, meaning, and purpose), BMMRS (religious/spirituality), POMS and PHQ-8 (emotional function), and FACT-G (quality of life). We administered the I-SPIRIT a week later, for test-retest reliability. RESULTS: Psychometric analyses yielded a final I-SPIRIT Tool including 30 items. Results demonstrated reliability and validity and yielded a tool with three main components: Spiritual Beliefs (seven items); Spiritual Needs (nine items); and Spiritual Resources (14 items). The Spiritual Beliefs items include key practices and affiliations, and impact of beliefs on healthcare. Higher levels of Spiritual Needs were associated with higher anxiety and depression. CONCLUSION: The I-Spirit measures relevance of spirituality, spiritual needs and spiritual resources and demonstrates validity, reliability, and acceptability for patients with serious illness.

Meaning-centered pain coping skills training for patients with metastatic cancer: Protocol for a randomized controlled efficacy trial.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with advanced cancer describe pain as a debilitating symptom that greatly interferes with daily activities and enjoyment of life. Psychosocial interventions can improve cancer-related pain but rarely address spiritual concerns (e.g., loss of meaning, peace), which can influence the pain experience for those facing life-threatening illness. To address these needs, we systematically developed and pilot tested a novel psychosocial intervention called Meaning-Centered Pain Coping Skills Training (MCPC). In this randomized controlled trial, we aim to determine MCPC's efficacy for reducing pain interference (primary outcome) and improving secondary outcomes. We will also estimate MCPC's cost-effectiveness. METHOD/DESIGN: Patients (target N = 210) with advanced solid tumor malignancies (Stage IV) and clinically-elevated pain interference will be enrolled and block randomized with equal allocation to MCPC + enhanced usual care or enhanced usual care alone. MCPC's four, videoconferenced, 45-60 min weekly sessions will be individually delivered by trained study therapists. Primary (pain interference) and secondary (pain severity, anxiety and depressive symptoms, pain self-efficacy, social support, spiritual well-being) patient-reported outcomes will be assessed at baseline, and 8-weeks (primary endpoint) and 12-weeks after baseline. CONCLUSION: Our MCPC intervention is the first to systematically address the biopsychosocial-spiritual aspects of pain in patients with advanced cancer. If MCPC demonstrates efficacy, next steps will involve hybrid efficacy-effectiveness and implementation work to broaden access to this brief, manualized, remotely-delivered intervention, with the goal of reducing suffering in patients with life-threatening illness.

Meaning-centered pain coping skills training for patients with metastatic cancer: Results of a randomized controlled pilot trial.

OBJECTIVE: For patients with advanced cancer, pain is a common and debilitating symptom that can negatively impact physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being. This trial examined the feasibility and initial effects of Meaning-Centered Pain Coping Skills Training (MCPC), a cognitive-behavioral pain management intervention with an emphasis on enhancing meaning (i.e., a personal sense of purpose, worth, and significance) and peace. METHODS: We enrolled 60 adults with stage IV solid tumor cancers and moderate-severe pain between February 2021 and February 2022. Participants were randomized 1:1 to MCPC + usual care or usual care alone. Meaning-Centered Pain Coping Skills Training consisted of four weekly 60-min individual sessions via videoconference or telephone, delivered by a trained therapist using a manualized protocol. Participants completed validated measures of pain severity, pain interference, pain self-efficacy, spiritual well-being (i.e., meaning, peace, and faith), and psychological distress at baseline and 5-week and 10-week follow-ups. RESULTS: All feasibility metrics exceeded prespecified benchmarks. Fifty-eight percent of screened patients were eligible, and 69% of eligible patients consented. Of those assigned to MCPC, 93% completed all sessions and 100% of those who completed follow-ups reported using coping skills weekly. Retention was strong at 5-week (85%) and 10-week (78%) follow-ups. Meaning-Centered Pain Coping Skills Training participants reported better scores than control participants across outcome measures, including moderate-to-large sized differences at 10-week follow-up in pain severity (Cohen's d = -0.75 [95% confidence interval: -1.36, -0.14]), pain interference (d = -0.82 [-1.45, -0.20]), and pain self-efficacy (d = 0.74 [0.13, 1.35]). CONCLUSIONS: MCPC is a highly feasible, engaging, and promising approach for improving pain management in advanced cancer. Future efficacy testing is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04431830, registered 16 June 2020.

"Between Wings of Hope and Fear": Muslim Parents' Experiences with the American Health Care System.

Background and Objectives: Historically marginalized religious and cultural groups are at risk for lower quality of care than majority groups. No study to date specifically queries Muslim experiences with the American health care system (AHCS). We performed a thematic analysis of Muslim parents' interactions with the AHCS and how their background informs their approach to care. Methods: This was a qualitative study of Muslim parents of children with life-limiting conditions in the Research Triangle Area from December 2019 to March 2019. We conducted semistructured interviews with parents to assess their experiences with the AHCS. We probed interview transcripts using descriptive content analysis with NVivo10. Results: We interviewed 10 parents in the Research Triangle Area. All patients were female, most were married, most spoke at least one other language in addition to English, and most were not born in the United States. Several themes emerged highlighting open communication with care teams, willingness to share religious affiliations, and the importance of leaning into faith and accepting God's will. Conclusions: A thematic analysis of Muslim parents' interactions with the AHCS describes value in honest communication, mixed concerns about how providers will react to their religious affiliation, and emphasizes the importance of leaning heavily into faith and accepting God's plan. Future studies evaluating needs of Muslim patients, especially those with different diagnoses, language barriers, and a larger sample size will further delineate needs to minimize inequalities in care.

How Does Spiritual Well-Being Change Over Time Among US Patients with Heart Failure and What Predicts Change?

Few studies have examined how spiritual well-being changes over time in patients with heart failure. We conducted a secondary analysis of data from the Collaborative Care to Alleviate Symptoms and Adjust to Illness (CASA) trial (N = 314). Spiritual well-being was measured using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being Scale (FACIT-Sp) at baseline and 12-month follow-up. Of the 165 patients with spiritual well-being data at follow-up, 65 (39%) experienced probable clinically meaningful changes (> 0.5 SD) in spiritual well-being (35 improved, 30 declined). Increased pain (p = 0.04), decreased dyspnea (p < 0.01), and increased life completion (p = 0.02) were associated with improvement in overall spiritual well-being. Exploratory analyses found different predictors for FACIT-Sp subscales.

Spirituality in Serious Illness and Health.

Importance: Despite growing evidence, the role of spirituality in serious illness and health has not been systematically assessed. Objective: To review evidence concerning spirituality in serious illness and health and to identify implications for patient care and health outcomes. Evidence Review: Searches of PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science identified articles with evidence addressing spirituality in serious illness or health, published January 2000 to April 2022. Independent reviewers screened, summarized, and graded articles that met eligibility criteria. Eligible serious illness studies included 100 or more participants; were prospective cohort studies, cross-sectional descriptive studies, meta-analyses, or randomized clinical trials; and included validated spirituality measures. Eligible health outcome studies prospectively examined associations with spirituality as cohort studies, case-control studies, or meta-analyses with samples of at least 1000 or were randomized trials with samples of at least 100 and used validated spirituality measures. Applying Cochrane criteria, studies were graded as having low, moderate, serious, or critical risk of bias, and studies with serious and critical risk of bias were excluded. Multidisciplinary Delphi panels consisting of clinicians, public health personnel, researchers, health systems leaders, and medical ethicists qualitatively synthesized and assessed the evidence and offered implications for health care. Evidence-synthesis statements and implications were derived from panelists' qualitative input; panelists rated the former on a 9-point scale (from "inconclusive" to "strongest evidence") and ranked the latter by order of priority. Findings: Of 8946 articles identified, 371 articles met inclusion criteria for serious illness; of these, 76.9% had low to moderate risk of bias. The Delphi panel review yielded 8 evidence statements supported by evidence categorized as strong and proposed 3 top-ranked implications of this evidence for serious illness: (1) incorporate spiritual care into care for patients with serious illness; (2) incorporate spiritual care education into training of interdisciplinary teams caring for persons with serious illness; and (3) include specialty practitioners of spiritual care in care of patients with serious illness. Of 6485 health outcomes articles, 215 met inclusion criteria; of these, 66.0% had low to moderate risk of bias. The Delphi panel review yielded 8 evidence statements supported by evidence categorized as strong and proposed 3 top-ranked implications of this evidence for health outcomes: (1) incorporate patient-centered and evidence-based approaches regarding associations of spiritual community with improved patient and population health outcomes; (2) increase awareness among health professionals of evidence for protective health associations of spiritual community; and (3) recognize spirituality as a social factor associated with health in research, community assessments, and program implementation. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review, analysis, and process, based on highest-quality evidence available and expert consensus, provided suggested implications for addressing spirituality in serious illness and health outcomes as part of person-centered, value-sensitive care.

Spirituality in Patients With Heart Failure.

With advances in heart failure (HF) treatment, patients are living longer, putting further emphasis on quality of life (QOL) and the role of palliative care principles in their care. Spirituality is a core domain of palliative care, best defined as a dynamic, multidimensional aspect of oneself for which 1 dimension is that of finding meaning and purpose. There are substantial data describing the role of spirituality in patients with cancer but a relative paucity of studies in HF. In this review article, we explore the current knowledge of spirituality in patients with HF; describe associations among spirituality, QOL, and HF outcomes; and propose clinical applications and future directions regarding spiritual care in this population. Studies suggest that spirituality serves as a potential target for palliative care interventions to improve QOL, caregiver support, and patient outcomes including rehospitalization and mortality. We suggest the development of a spirituality-screening tool, similar to the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 used to screen for depression, to identify patients with HF at risk for spiritual distress. Novel tools are soon to be validated by members of our group. Given spirituality in HF remains less well studied compared with other patient populations, further controlled trials and uniform measures of spirituality are needed to understand its impact better.

Needs of care partners of older Veterans with serious illness.

BACKGROUND: The quality of life of care partners and care recipients may be improved by programs that address unmet needs. The aim of this qualitative study was to identify care partners' social and practical needs as they care for Veterans (65 yo+) with serious illness. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with Veterans with serious illness and care partners of Veterans with serious illness. Interview question domains examined through care partner and Veteran perspectives included: types of support/services currently used, still needed, and anticipated as well as barriers to obtaining those supports/services. Qualitative analyses used an inductive descriptive content approach. RESULTS: Seventeen care partners and 11 Veterans participated. Three main themes emerged from the data: (I) care partners' and Veterans' identified barriers to support (e.g., technology, rurality, awareness of services); (II) care partners' and Veterans' understanding of available supports and services (e.g., misunderstandings regarding VA role and services, heavy reliance on VA, identified sources of support); and (III) care partners' understanding of their caregiving roles (e.g., by tasks and self-identification). CONCLUSION: Results indicate that care partners experience barriers to supporting seriously ill Veterans including awareness, information, and access obstacles that can be addressed to improve access and utilization of available services and supports.

Clinician End-of-Life Experiences With Pediatric Muslim Patients at a US Quaternary Care Center.

CONTEXT: A small, growing body of data exist discussing the experiences of Muslim patients with the palliative care system, both in the United States and abroad, as well as providers' experiences with Muslim patients. However, no studies evaluate clinician experiences with Muslim patients in the United States, and none address the unique dynamics of pediatric clinician experiences with Muslim patients and their families in the EOL setting. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to perform a thematic analysis of clinician experiences with pediatric Muslim patients and families at the end of life. METHODS: This was a qualitative study of pediatric clinicians at Duke University Medical Center in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Pediatric Cardiac Intensive Care Unit, and Pediatric Bone Marrow Unit from August 2018 to February 2019. We conducted semistructured interviews with nurses, attending physicians, and social workers to assess participants' experiences caring for Muslim patients and families. We analyzed interview transcripts using descriptive content analysis with NVivo10. RESULTS: We interviewed 16 clinicians at Duke University Medical Center Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Pediatric Cardiac Intensive Care Unit, and Pediatric Bone Marrow Unit. Five physicians, five social workers, and six nurses were interviewed. The majority of providers were female, Caucasian, and Christian in an institution where Muslim patients are a significant minority. Several themes emerged highlighting language barriers, difficulty engaging with Muslim families, variations in approach to care and communication, discomfort with gender roles, moral distress with unrelatable decision-making, and external pressures on patient decision-making. CONCLUSION: A thematic analysis of pediatric clinicians at a quaternary care center in the Southern United States yielded several prominent themes. Many clinicians recognize they likely provide disparate care to minority patients for a variety of reasons encompassing the above barriers. As we work to care for an increasingly diverse patient population, more research into barriers to care and effective educational methods is needed.

Triadic agreement about advanced cancer treatment decisions: Perceptions among patients, families, and oncologists.

OBJECTIVES: When patients make cancer treatment decisions, they consider the needs and preferences of family caregivers and clinicians. We examined how much all three triad members agreed about goals of treatment and caregivers' influence on decision-making. METHODS: We surveyed 70 triads of patients, caregivers, and oncologists who had recently made an advanced cancer treatment decision. We assessed each triad member's perception of the goal of treatment and the caregiver's influence on the decision. Participants also completed scales related to decisional conflict, satisfaction, and regret. RESULTS: In only 28/70 triads (40%), all three agreed on the goal of treatment with the most common goal being to live longer (n = 22). Whereas patients and caregivers tended to think the goal was to cure or live longer, oncologists were less optimistic. In only 22 triads (31%), all three agreed on how much influence the caregiver had on decision-making. Oncologists tended to underestimate caregiver influence. Patients and caregivers had low decisional conflict (M=15.40, SD=4.51; M=17.09, SD=6.34, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Advanced cancer treatment decision-making occurs amid incomplete understanding among patients, caregivers, and oncologists. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Confirming agreement about goals of care and influence on treatment decision-making may increase the likelihood of goal-concordant care throughout the illness trajectory.

Meaning-Centered Pain Coping Skills Training: A Pilot Feasibility Trial of a Psychosocial Pain Management Intervention for Patients with Advanced Cancer.

Background: Pain from advanced cancer can greatly reduce patients' physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being. Objective: To examine the feasibility and acceptability of a behavioral pain management intervention, Meaning-Centered Pain Coping Skills Training (MCPC). Design: This trial used a single-arm feasibility design. Setting/Subjects: Thirty participants with stage IV solid tumor cancer, moderate-to-severe pain, and clinically elevated distress were enrolled from a tertiary cancer center in the United States. The manualized protocol was delivered across four 45- to 60-minute videoconference sessions. Measurements: Feasibility and acceptability were assessed through accrual, session/assessment completion, intervention satisfaction, and coping skills usage. Participants completed validated measures of primary outcomes (i.e., pain severity, pain interference, and spiritual well-being) and secondary outcomes at baseline, post-intervention, and four-week follow-up. Results: Eighty-eight percent (38/43) of patients who completed screening met inclusion criteria, and 79% (30/38) consented and completed baseline assessment. Sixty-seven percent (20/30) of participants were female (mean age = 57). Most participants were White/Caucasian (77%; 23/30) or Black/African American (17%; 5/30) with at least some college education (90%; 27/30). Completion rates for intervention sessions and both post-intervention assessments were 90% (27/30), 87% (26/30), and 77% (23/30), respectively. At the post-intervention assessment, participants reported a high degree of intervention satisfaction (mean = 3.53/4.00; SD = 0.46), and 81% (21/26) reported weekly use of coping skills that they learned. Participants also showed improvement from baseline on all primary outcomes and nearly all secondary outcomes at both post-intervention assessments. Conclusions: MCPC demonstrated strong feasibility and acceptability. Findings warrant further evaluation of MCPC in a randomized controlled trial. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03207360.

Coordinating assessment of spiritual needs: a cross-walk of narrative and psychometric assessment tools used in palliative care.

Addressing spiritual needs of patients in healthcare settings improves patient experiences and clinical outcomes; however, non-chaplain providers typically assess spiritual needs differently (quantitative psychometric) than healthcare chaplains (long form narrative) and thus there is little shared language or cross-disciplinary evaluation frameworks across disciplines. This discrepancy impedes the provision of both team-based and patient-centered care. This paper used scoping review methodology to illustrate the overlap between narrative and psychometric assessment tools, comparing four narrative tools against eight psychometric tools. The SpNQ-120 and Brief RCOPE demonstrated consistent domain coverage across the four chaplain narrative tools. This work provides preliminary resources to aid clinicians and researchers in choosing an appropriate tool. Additionally, for those who do not work closely with chaplains, it provides a sense of what domains chaplains prioritize, from their professional and lived experience, in assessing the spiritual life of the patient. This improves interdisciplinary communication, and therefore, patient care.

A novel decision aid for acute myeloid leukemia: a feasibility and preliminary efficacy trial.

PURPOSE: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a hematologic malignancy characterized by a poor prognosis but also a paradoxical possibility of cure. This renders decision-making complex and imminent. Unfortunately, many patients with AML misestimate their prognosis and treatment risk. While decision aids can improve illness understanding and reduce decisional conflict, there are no validated decision aids for AML. We developed and tested a novel AML decision aid (NCT03442452). METHODS: Patients (n = 20) were recruited at Duke University from May 2018 to February 2019. Participants completed assessments of AML knowledge and decisional conflict, before and after using the electronic decision aid. The primary endpoint was feasibility (endpoint met if > 80% of study participants completed all study components). Secondary analyses of efficacy were conducted using paired t tests for dependent pre-/post-samples. RESULTS: The primary endpoint of feasibility was met (100% of participants completed all study components). Secondary analyses showed improved knowledge and reduced decisional conflict after using the decision aid. Knowledge scores improved from a mean of 11.8 (out of 18) correct items at baseline to 15.1 correct items after using the decision aid (mean difference 3.35; p < 0.0001). Decisional conflict scores reduced significantly from baseline to post-test as well (mean difference - 6.5; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that our AML decision aid is a useful tool to improve the patient experience and promote shared decision-making in AML. A randomized efficacy trial is planned.

Current measures of distress may not account for what's most important in existential care interventions: Results of the outlook trial.

OBJECTIVE: Compare the efficacy of two interventions addressing emotional and existential well-being in early life-limiting illness. METHOD: Primary trial analysis (n = 135) included patients with advanced cancer, congestive heart failure, or end-stage renal disease; Arm 1 received the Outlook intervention, addressing issues of life completion and preparation, and Arm 2 received relaxation meditation (RM). Primary outcomes at five weeks (primary endpoint) and seven weeks (secondary): completion and preparation (QUAL-E); secondary outcomes: anxiety (POMS) quality of life (FACT-G) and spiritual well-being (FACIT-Sp) subscales of faith, meaning, and peace. RESULTS: Average age was 62; 56% were post-high school-educated, 54% were married, 52% white, 44% female, and 70% had a cancer diagnosis. At baseline, participants demonstrated low levels of anxiety (<5 on POMS subscale) and depression (<10 on CESD) relative to population norms. Results of the primary analysis revealed no significant differences in mean Preparation by treatment arm at five weeks (14.4 Outlook vs. 14.8 RM; between-group difference -0.4 [95% CI, -1.6, 0.8], p = 0.49) or seven weeks (15.2 vs.15.4; between-group difference -0.2 [95% CI, -1.5, 1.0], p = 0.73). There were also no significant differences in mean Life Completion by treatment arm between five weeks (26.6 Outlook vs. 26.3 RM; between-group difference 0.2 [95% CI, -1.2, 1.7], p = 0.76) or seven weeks (26.5 vs. 27.5; between-group difference -1.0 [95% CI, -2.7, 0.7], p = 0.23). Compared to RM, Outlook participants did not have significant differences over time in the secondary outcomes of overall quality of life, anxiety, depression, FACT-G subscales, and FACIT-Sp subscales. DISCUSSION: In early-stage life-limiting illness, Outlook did not demonstrate a significant difference in primary or secondary outcomes relative to RM. Results underscore the importance of pre-screening for distress. Qualitatively, Outlook participants were able to express suppressed emotions, place illness context, reflect on adaptations, and strengthen identity. Screening for distress and identifying specified measures of distress, beyond anxiety and depression, is essential in our ability to adequately assess the multi-dimensional mechanisms that decrease existential suffering.

Enhancing meaning in the face of advanced cancer and pain: Qualitative evaluation of a meaning-centered psychosocial pain management intervention.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to obtain patient evaluations of the content, structure, and delivery modality of Meaning-Centered Pain Coping Skills Training (MCPC), a novel psychosocial intervention for patients with advanced cancer and pain. MCPC aims to help patients connect with valued sources of meaning in their lives (e.g., family relationships), while providing training in evidence-based cognitive and behavioral skills (e.g., guided imagery) to reduce pain. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 patients with stage IV solid tumor cancers and persistent pain. Transcripts were analyzed using methods from applied thematic analysis. RESULTS: When evaluating MCPC's educational information and skills training descriptions, participants described ways in which this content resonated with their experience. Many coped with their pain and poor prognosis by relying on frameworks that provided them with a sense of meaning, often involving their personally held religious or spiritual beliefs. They also expressed a need for learning ways to cope with pain in addition to taking medication. A few participants offered helpful suggestions for refining MCPC's content, such as addressing common co-occurring symptoms of sleep disturbance and fatigue. Concerning MCPC's structure and delivery modality, most participants preferred that sessions include their family caregiver and described remote delivery (i.e., telephone or videoconference) as being more feasible than attending in-person sessions. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Participants were interested in an intervention that concurrently focuses on learning pain coping skills and enhancing a sense of meaning. Using remote delivery modalities may reduce access barriers (e.g., travel) that would otherwise prevent many patients from utilizing psychosocial services.

Comparing internal and external validation in the discovery of qualitative treatment-subgroup effects using two small clinical trials.

In a two-arm randomized trial where both arms receive active treatment (i.e., treatments A and B), often the primary goal is to determine which of the treatments, on average, is more effective. A supplementary objective is to understand possible heterogeneity in the treatment effect by identifying multivariable subgroups of patients for whom A is more effective than B and, conversely, patients for whom B is more effective than A, known as a qualitative interaction. This is the objective of the qualitative interaction trees (QUINT) algorithm developed by Dusseldorp et al (Statistics in Medicine, 2014). We apply QUINT to a small randomized trial comparing facilitated relaxation meditation to facilitated life completion and preparation among patients with life-limiting illness (n = 135). We then conduct an internal validation of the QUINT solution using bootstrap resampling and compare it to an external validation with another, similarly conducted small randomized trial. Internal and external validation showed the apparent range in effect sizes was over-estimated, and subgroups identified were not consistent between the two trials. While the qualitative interaction trees algorithm is a promising area of data-driven multivariable subgroup discovery, our analyses illustrate the importance of validating the solution, particularly for trials with smaller numbers of participants.

Identifying core curricular components for behavioral health training in internal medicine residency: Qualitative interviews with residents, faculty, and behavioral health clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: Behavioral health services frequently delivered by primary care providers include care for mental health and substance abuse disorders and assistance with behavioral risk factor reduction. Internal medicine residencies in the United States lack formal expectations regarding training in behavioral health for residents. This qualitative study aimed to determine learners' and teachers' perceptions about appropriate behavioral health curricular components for internal medicine residents. METHOD: Focus groups and interviews were conducted with the following individuals from the Duke Outpatient Clinic: residents with continuity practice (n = 27), advanced practice providers (n = 2), internal medicine attending physicians (n = 4), internal medicine/psychiatry attending physicians (n = 2), and behavioral health clinicians (n = 4). A focus group leader asked regarding residents' successes and challenges in managing behavioral health issues and about specific learning components considered necessary to understand and manage these behavioral health conditions. Transcripts were coded using an editing analysis style to identify central themes and concordance/discordance between groups. RESULTS: Regarding mental health management (Theme 1), residents emphasized a need for better care coordination with specialty mental health, while attendings and behavioral health clinicians gave priority to residents' skills in primary management of mental health. Residents, attendings, and behavioral health clinicians all emphasized advanced interviewing skills (Theme 2) with subthemes: eliciting the patient's perspective, managing time in encounters, improving patients' understanding, and patient counseling. CONCLUSIONS: Internal medicine residents, attendings, and behavioral health clinicians may differ significantly in their perceptions of primary care's role in mental health care. Future internal medicine behavioral health curricula should specifically address these attitudinal differences. Curricula should also emphasize interview skills training as an essential component of behavioral health learning.