This paper argues for a substantial re-conceptualization of coping. The strong focus on emotional distress as the marker of coping efforts has masked the importance of social functions, processes and outcomes in coping with life stress, particularly the role of communal coping. Communal coping is a cooperative problem-solving process salient in coping with both individual and collective stressors. It involves the appraisal of a stressor as `our' issue and cooperative action to address it. Beyond its important role in coping, communal coping is endemic to notions of social integration, interdependence and close relationships, and may underlie the resilience of families and other social units dealing with stressful life events. The authors present a framework that distinguishes communal coping from other individual and social coping processes. We also provide an analysis of benefits and costs of communal coping, a discussion of key factors in its utilization, and suggestions for further research on the functioning of communal coping in contemporary society.

The path to improving healthcare quality for individuals with complex health conditions is complicated by a lack of common understanding of complexity. Modern medicine, together with social and environmental factors, has extended life, leading to a growing population of patients with chronic conditions. In many cases, there are social and psychological factors that impact treatment, health outcomes, and quality of life. This is the face of complexity. Care challenges, burden, and cost have positioned complexity as an important health issue. Complex chronic conditions are now being discussed by clinicians, researchers, and policy-makers around such issues as quantification, payment schemes, transitions, management models, clinical practice, and improved patient experience. We conducted a scoping review of the literature for definitions and descriptions of complexity. We provide an overview of complex chronic conditions, and what is known about complexity, and describe variations in how it is understood. We developed a Complexity Framework from these findings to guide our approach to understanding patient complexity. It is critical to use common vernacular and conceptualization of complexity to improve service and outcomes for patients with complex chronic conditions. Many questions still persist about how to develop this work with a health and social care lens; our framework offers a foundation to structure thinking about complex patients. Further insight into patient complexity can inform treatment models and goals of care, and identify required services and barriers to the management of complexity.Journal of Comorbidity 2012;2:1–9

BackgroundHealth systems face challenges in using research evidence to improve policy and practice. These challenges are particularly evident in small and poorly resourced health systems, which are often in locations (in Canada and globally) with poorer health status. Although organizational resources have been acknowledged as important in understanding research use resource theories have not been a focus of knowledge translation (KT) research. What resources, broadly defined, are required for KT and how does their presence or absence influence research use?In this paper, we consider conservation of resources (COR) theory as a theoretical basis for understanding the capacity to use research evidence in health systems. Three components of COR theory are examined in the context of KT. First, resources are required for research uptake. Second, threat of resource loss fosters resistance to research use. Third, resources can be optimized, even in resource-challenged environments, to build capacity for KT.MethodsA scan of the KT literature examined organizational resources needed for research use. A multiple case study approach examined the three components of COR theory outlined above. The multiple case study consisted of a document review and key informant interviews with research team members, including government decision-makers and health practitioners through a retrospective analysis of four previously conducted applied health research studies in a resource-challenged region.ResultsThe literature scan identified organizational resources that influence research use. The multiple case study supported these findings, contributed to the development of a taxonomy of organizational resources, and revealed how fears concerning resource loss can affect research use. Some resources were found to compensate for other resource deficits. Resource needs differed at various stages in the research use process.ConclusionsCOR theory contributes to understanding the role of resources in research use, resistance to research use, and potential strategies to enhance research use. Resources (and a lack of them) may account for the observed disparities in research uptake across health systems. This paper offers a theoretical foundation to guide further examination of the COR-KT ideas and necessary supports for research use in resource-challenged environments.