Systemic treatments for advanced prostate cancer: relationship between health insurance plan and treatment costs.

OBJECTIVES: The high costs of cancer care can cause significant harm to patients and society. Prostate cancer, the leading nonskin malignancy in men, is responsible for the second-highest out-of-pocket (OOP) payments among all malignancies. Multiple first-line treatment options exist for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC); although their costs vary substantially, comparative effectiveness data are limited. There is little evidence of how gross payments made by insurers and OOP payments made by patients differ by treatment and health plan type and how these payment differences relate to utilization. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: We used IBM MarketScan databases from 2013-2019 to identify men with prostate cancer who initiated treatment with 1 of 6 drugs approved for first-line treatment of mCRPC. We calculated and compared gross and OOP payments and drug utilization across drug and insurance plan types. RESULTS: We identified 4298 patients who met our inclusion criteria. Insurer payments varied substantially by first-line therapy but were similar across different health plan types, except for docetaxel. OOP payments for a given first-line therapy, in contrast, varied by health plan type. Utilization of first-line therapies varied by plan type in unadjusted analyses, but not after adjusting for patient characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The extent to which patient OOP payments for drugs reflect differences in gross payments made by insurers varies across health insurance plan types. However, even though OOP payments for the same treatment differ across plan types, treatment choice is not significantly different across type of health insurance after controlling for patient characteristics.

Physician Perspectives on the Nonclinical Factors That Contribute to Decision-Making for Advanced Prostate Cancer Care: A Qualitative Study.

Introduction: Promising new treatments exist for advanced prostate cancer. Decision-making is complicated: there is minimal comparative effectiveness data; differing routes of administration, drug mechanisms-of-action and side effects; and significant price differences. These challenges contribute to variations in care and quality, treatment disparities, and lack of concordance with patient values. The aim of this study was to examine physician perspectives of factors influencing decision-making for first-line advanced prostate cancer treatments. Methods: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study of physicians who treat patients with advanced prostate cancer from 09/2021-06/2022. Participants were purposively sampled from across the United States. Results: Twenty-seven physicians participated. We identified seventeen domains and three overarching themes affecting physician decision-making for advanced prostate cancer care. The themes were: 1) physician and practice factors impact prescribing decisions, 2) health practice resource availability affects the likelihood patients will receive the recommended treatment, and that the treatment will be in-line with patients' values and 3) patient non-clinical factors influence physician decision-making, but patient values could be better incorporated into prescribing decisions. Based upon the analyses, we constructed a preliminary framework of clinician decision-making for advanced prostate cancer. Conclusions: Physicians perceive non-clinical patient, physician, and practice factors impact decision-making. These factors, therefore, must be considered when implementing programs to optimize a physician's ability to provide quality cancer care, reduce health care disparities and patient financial burden and provide patient goal-concordant care. The preliminary theoretical model of clinician decision-making for advanced prostate cancer care may also be used to inform these efforts.

Talking About Suffering in the Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Some have hypothesized that talk about suffering can be used by clinicians to motivate difficult decisions, especially to argue for reducing treatment at the end of life. We examined how talk about suffering is related to decision-making for critically ill patients, by evaluating transcripts of conversations between clinicians and patients' families. METHODS: We conducted a secondary qualitative content analysis of audio-recorded family meetings from a multicenter trial conducted in the adult intensive care units of five hospitals from 2012-2017 to look at how the term "suffering" and its variants were used. A coding guide was developed by consensus-oriented discussion by four members of the research team. Two coders independently evaluated each transcript. We followed an inductive approach to data analysis in reviewing transcripts; findings were iteratively discussed among study authors until consensus on key themes was reached. RESULTS: Of 146 available transcripts, 34 (23%) contained the word "suffer" or "suffering" at least once, with 58 distinct uses. Clinicians contributed 62% of first uses. Among uses describing the suffering of persons, 57% (n = 24) were related to a decision, but only 42% (n = 10) of decision-relevant uses accompanied a proposal to limit treatment, and only half of treatment-limiting uses (n = 5) were initiated by clinicians. The target terms had a variety of implicit meanings, including poor prognosis, reduced functioning, pain, discomfort, low quality of life, and emotional distress. Suffering was frequently attributed to persons who were unconscious. CONCLUSIONS: Our results did not support the claim that the term "suffering" and its variants are used primarily by clinicians to justify limiting treatment, and the terms were not commonly used in our sample when decisions were requested. Still, when these terms were used, they were often used in a decision-relevant fashion.

Private Equity Acquisition of Physician Practices-Looking for Ethical Guidance From Professional Societies.

This Viewpoint recommends that professional medical societies provide ethical guidance on private equity acquisitions of physician practices.

Willingness to trade-off years of life for an HIV cure - an experimental exploration of affective forecasting.

BACKGROUND: In the US, 1.2 million people live with HIV (PWH). Despite having near-normal life expectancies due to antiretroviral therapy (ART), many PWH seek an HIV cure, even if it means risking their lives. This willingness to take risks for a cure raises questions about "affective forecasting biases," where people tend to overestimate the positive impact of future events on their well-being. We conducted a study to test two interventions to mitigate affective forecasting in the decisions of PWH about taking HIV cure medication. METHODS: We recruited PWH to complete a 30-minute survey about their current quality of life (QoL) and the QoL they anticipate after being cured of HIV, and assigned them to either no additional intervention, to one of two interventions intended to reduce affective forecasting bias, or to both interventions: (1) a defocusing intervention designed to broaden the number of life domains people consider when imagining life changes associated with new circumstances (e.g. HIV cure); and (2) an adaptation intervention to help them gauge fading of strong emotions over time. The study design included a 2 × 2 design: defocusing (yes/no) x adaptation (yes/no) intervention. We assessed PWH's willingness to take hypothetical HIV sterilizing cure medication using the Time Trade-Off (TTO) and their quality of life predictions with WHOQOL-HIV. RESULTS: 296 PWH participated. Counter to what we had hypothesized, neither intervention significantly reduced PWH's willingness to trade time for a cure. Instead, the defocusing intervention increased their willingness to trade time (IRR 1.77, p = 0.03). Exploratory analysis revealed that PWH with lower current quality of life who received the defocusing intervention were more willing to trade time for a cure. CONCLUSION: These negative findings suggest that either these biases are difficult to overcome in the settings of HIV curative medication or other factors beyond affective forecasting biases influence willingness to participate in HIV curative studies, such as respondents' current quality of life.

Classification of Patients' Judgments of Their Physicians in Web-Based Written Reviews Using Natural Language Processing: Algorithm Development and Validation.

BACKGROUND: Patients increasingly rely on web-based physician reviews to choose a physician and share their experiences. However, the unstructured text of these written reviews presents a challenge for researchers seeking to make inferences about patients' judgments. Methods previously used to identify patient judgments within reviews, such as hand-coding and dictionary-based approaches, have posed limitations to sample size and classification accuracy. Advanced natural language processing methods can help overcome these limitations and promote further analysis of physician reviews on these popular platforms. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to train, test, and validate an advanced natural language processing algorithm for classifying the presence and valence of 2 dimensions of patient judgments in web-based physician reviews: interpersonal manner and technical competence. METHODS: We sampled 345,053 reviews for 167,150 physicians across the United States from Healthgrades.com, a commercial web-based physician rating and review website. We hand-coded 2000 written reviews and used those reviews to train and test a transformer classification algorithm called the Robustly Optimized BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) Pretraining Approach (RoBERTa). The 2 fine-tuned models coded the reviews for the presence and positive or negative valence of patients' interpersonal manner or technical competence judgments of their physicians. We evaluated the performance of the 2 models against 200 hand-coded reviews and validated the models using the full sample of 345,053 RoBERTa-coded reviews. RESULTS: The interpersonal manner model was 90% accurate with precision of 0.89, recall of 0.90, and weighted F1-score of 0.89. The technical competence model was 90% accurate with precision of 0.91, recall of 0.90, and weighted F1-score of 0.90. Positive-valence judgments were associated with higher review star ratings whereas negative-valence judgments were associated with lower star ratings. Analysis of the data by review rating and physician gender corresponded with findings in prior literature. CONCLUSIONS: Our 2 classification models coded interpersonal manner and technical competence judgments with high precision, recall, and accuracy. These models were validated using review star ratings and results from previous research. RoBERTa can accurately classify unstructured, web-based review text at scale. Future work could explore the use of this algorithm with other textual data, such as social media posts and electronic health records.

Leadership Experiences and Perceptions of Mid-Career to Senior Clinician-Scientists: A Qualitative Exploration.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to elucidate the experiences and perceptions of mid-career to senior clinician-scientists in academic medicine regarding pursuing, attaining, or rejecting leadership roles as well as their conceptualization of the influence of leadership in their broader career trajectories. METHOD: The authors conducted a qualitative analysis of in-depth, semistructured interviews conducted in 2022 with a diverse sample of clinician-scientists who received new National Institutes of Health K08 or K23 Career Development Awards between 2006 and 2009. A total of 859 of the 915 survey respondents (94%) were eligible to be recruited for the qualitative study. Qualitative analysis was informed by thematic analysis and used a social constructionist approach to understanding participants' conceptualizations of their experiences. Interview transcripts were coded using an iterative, inductive coding process. Themes were generated by reviewing coded data and identifying common patterns in participant narratives, affording particular attention to participants' discussion of the effect of race and/or gender on their leadership experiences. RESULTS: Sixty clinician-scientists participated in individual interviews. Five themes were generated surrounding participants' conceptualizations of their leadership experiences. Themes were (1) feeling unprepared for leadership roles, (2) reluctance and lack of intention in attaining leadership positions, (3) influence of networks on leadership access and decision-making, (4) impact-related benefits and downsides of leadership, and (5) confining ideas of who leaders are. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlighted the need for formal leadership training in academic medicine and the importance of mentorship and sponsorship in attaining and succeeding in leadership positions. Individuals from communities underrepresented in leadership positions faced additional challenges internalizing a leadership identity. Efforts to encourage current leaders to engage in intentional succession planning and development of faculty towards leadership roles, including expansion of institutional leadership development programs, are needed to promote equitable distribution of leadership opportunities.

Burnout Among Mid-Career Academic Medical Faculty.

Importance: Studies reveal that most physicians report symptoms of burnout. Less is known about burnout in mid-career medical faculty specifically. Objective: To characterize burnout and its risk factors, particularly differences by gender, among mid-career medical faculty. Design, Setting, and Participants: Between August 2021 and August 2022, a survey was sent to 1430 individuals who received new National Institutes of Health K08 and K23 career development awards from 2006 to 2009. Data were analyzed between June and October 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Personal and work-related burnout as evaluated using the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI). The CBI score ranges from 0 to 100, with a score of 50 or higher indicating a high degree of burnout. Multivariable models were used to investigate associations between burnout and participant characteristics, including race and ethnicity, sexual orientation and gender identity, academic rank, work climate, experiences of workplace sexual harassment, sleep hours, work and domestic caregiving time, and time allocation changes in work and domestic work hours compared with before the COVID-19 pandemic. Work climate was evaluated by a general climate elements scale assessing elements such as friendliness, respect, and collegiality, and a diversity, equity, and inclusion climate elements scale assessing elements such as homogeneity, sexism, and homophobia; higher scores indicated a more favorable view of the climate. Results: In all, 1430 surveys were sent, 926 candidates responded (65% response rate), and the analytic cohort was limited to the 841 respondents who were still in academic medicine (50.7% men). Burnout was significantly more common for women than men (mean [SD] CBI personal scores, 46.6 [19.4] vs 37.5 [17.2]; P < .001; mean [SD] CBI work-related scores, 43.7 [20.4] vs 34.6 [19.7]; P < .001). In multivariable models, personal burnout was significantly more likely for women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.29 [95% CI, 1.54-3.41]; P < .001) and with more weekly hours of patient care (AOR, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.00-1.15] for each 5-hour increase; P = .04). Personal burnout was less likely with more nightly sleep hours (AOR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.56-0.81] for each 1-hour increase; P < .001) and with an improved general work climate rating (AOR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.48-0.85] for each 1-point increase in general work climate scale score; P = .002). Work-related burnout was also significantly more likely for women than men (AOR, 1.77 [95% CI, 1.17-2.69]; P = .007). Greater work-related burnout was associated with an increase of 8 or more work hours per week compared with before the COVID-19 pandemic (AOR, 1.87 [95% CI, 1.13-3.08]; P = .01), more weekly hours of patient care (AOR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.03-1.19] for each 5-hour increase; P = .007), and a workplace sexual harassment experience in the past 2 years (AOR, 1.71 [95% CI, 1.11-2.62]; P = .01). Work-related burnout was significantly less likely with more nightly sleep hours (AOR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.66-0.96] for each 1-hour increase; P = .02) and with an improved general work climate rating (AOR, 0.49; [95% CI, 0.36-0.65] for each 1-point increase in general work climate scale score; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This survey study of K grant awardees revealed substantial rates of burnout among mid-career medical faculty, and burnout rates differed by gender. Evidence-based interventions are needed to realize the benefits of workforce diversity and vitality.

Professional Experiences and Career Trajectories of Mid- to Senior-Career Women Clinician-Scientists: A Qualitative Study.

Importance: Despite increasing evidence and recognition of persistent gender disparities in academic medicine, qualitative data detailing the association of gender-based experiences with career progression remain sparse, particularly at the mid- to senior-career stage. Objective: To investigate the role gender has played in everyday professional experiences of mid- to senior-career women clinician-scientists and their perceptions of gender-related barriers experienced across their careers. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this qualitative study, a total of 60 of 159 invited clinician-scientists who received National Institutes of Health K08 or K23 awards between 2006 and 2009 and responded to a survey in 2021 agreed to participate. Invitees were selected using random, purposive sampling to support sample heterogeneity. Semistructured in-depth interviews were conducted January to May 2022. For this study, interviews from 31 women were analyzed using the framework approach to thematic analysis. Data analyses were performed between August and October 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive themes of participant experiences of gender and gender-based barriers in academic medicine. Results: A total of 31 women clinician-scientists (8 identifying as Asian [25.8%], 14 identifying as White [45.2%], and 9 identifying as members of a minority group underrepresented in medicine [29.0%]; 14 aged 40-49 years [45.2%] and 14 aged 50-59 years [45.2%]) were included. Among them, 17 participants (54.8%) had children who required adult supervision or care, 7 participants (22.6%) had children who did not require supervision or care, and 6 participants (19.4%) did not have children. There were 4 dominant themes identified within participant experiences in academic medicine: the mental burden of gendered expectations at work and home, inequitable treatment of women in bureaucratic processes, subtle and less subtle professional exclusion of women, and value of communities built on shared identities, experiences, and solidarity. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that women perceived the institution of academic medicine as a male-centric system misaligned with the needs of women, with associated feelings of exclusion, disillusionment, and loss of trust in their institutions. Findings suggest that the confluence of domestic obligations and unaccommodating institutional environments may make it difficult for women clinician-scientists to achieve established timelines of career progression and productivity; these findings may have long-term implications for the well-being and retention of women in academic medicine.

The Disproportionate Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Time Allocation of Recipients of NIH Career Development Awards Who Are Women or Caregivers of Dependents.

PURPOSE: To understand time allocation of a national medical faculty cohort 1.5-2 years after the COVID-19 pandemic began, compared to before. METHOD: From August 2021-April 2022, the authors conducted a retrospective survey of 1,430 clinician-researchers who received National Institutes of Health career-development awards between 2006-2009 asking about domestic and professional time allocation pre-pandemic and at the time of surveys (TOS). Of 915 respondents (64%), the 830 who remained in academic positions constituted the analytic sample. Multivariable regression models identified demographic factors associated with each time outcome and change in time between pre-pandemic and TOS, and having experienced ≥8-hour increase of total self-reported weekly professional work hours and domestic labor hours. RESULTS: Median self-reported weekly professional work hours were 55 hours/week pre- pandemic and 60 at TOS. On multivariable analysis, significant predictors of self-reported weekly professional work hours at TOS were having a non-child other dependent (+2.6 hours, P = .03), academic rank (associate -3.1 hours, assistant -9.0 hours; P < .001), and specialty (P < .001). Average self-reported TOS weekly domestic-labor hours were 23.1 among men and 30.2 among women (P < .001). Predictors of total self-reported TOS weekly domestic hours were being a woman (+5.6 hours; P < .001) and having children requiring supervision (+10.2 hours; P < .001). Overall, 9.3% of men (42/450) and 21.6% of women (88/407) experienced a ≥ 8 hour increase in domestic labor (P < .001). On multivariable analysis, women had higher odds of substantial domestic-labor increase (OR = 2.33, 95% CI: 1.47, 3.68), as did those with children requiring supervision (OR = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.25, 2.98) or other dependents (OR = 1.83, 95% CI: 1.13, 2.98). CONCLUSIONS: This study illuminates demands on women and faculty with dependents during the COVID-19 pandemic and suggests increased flexibility and resources are of heightened importance.

What Do Psychiatrists Think About Caring for Patients Who Have Extremely Treatment-Refractory Illness?

Questions about when to limit unhelpful treatments are often raised in general medicine but are less commonly considered in psychiatry. Here we describe a survey of U.S. psychiatrists intended to characterize their attitudes about the management of suicidal ideation in patients with severely treatment-refractory illness. Respondents (n = 212) received one of two cases describing a patient with suicidal ideation due to either borderline personality disorder or major depressive disorder. Both patients were described as receiving all guideline-based and plausible emerging treatments. Respondents rated the expected helpfulness and likelihood of recommending each of four types of intervention: hospitalization, additional medication changes, additional neurostimulation, and additional psychotherapy. Across both cases, most respondents said they were likely to provide each intervention, except for additional neurostimulation in borderline personality disorder, while fewer thought each intervention would be helpful. Substantial minorities of respondents indicated that they would provide an intervention they did not think was likely to be helpful. Our results suggest that while most psychiatrists recognize the possibility that some patients are unlikely to be helped by available treatments, many would continue to offer such treatments.

Cancer Treatment Decision-Making for People Living With HIV: Physician-Reported Barriers, Facilitators, and Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Compared with the general cancer population, people living with HIV (PLWH) and cancer are less likely to receive treatment and have significantly elevated cancer-specific mortality for many common cancer types. Physician recommendations drive the cancer therapy that patients receive, yet there is limited information assessing how cancer treatment decisions are made for people living with HIV and cancer. We sought to understand oncologist decision-making in PLWH and cancer by eliciting barriers, facilitators, and recommendations for enhancing care delivery. SETTING: Participants were recruited between May 2019 and May 2021 from one academic medical center in the western United States (n = 13), another in the southeastern United States (n = 7), and community practices nationwide (n = 5). METHODS: Using an inductive qualitative approach, we conducted in-depth interviews with 25 oncologists from two academic medical centers and community practices. RESULTS: Facilitators of cancer care delivery included readily available information regarding HIV status and stage, interdepartmental communication, and antiviral therapy adherence. Barriers included a lack of formal education on HIV malignancies, perceptions of decreased life expectancy, fear of inadvertent disclosure, and drug-drug interactions. Recommendations included improved provider communication, patient social and mental health resources, and continuing education opportunities. CONCLUSION: The study revealed drivers of cancer treatment decision-making, highlighting physician-reported barriers and facilitators, and recommendations to support treatment decision-making. This is the first known study examining oncologists' perceptions of caring for PLWH. Given that cancer is a leading cause of death among PLWH, there is an urgent need to improve care and outcomes.

Prognostic Discordance Among Parents and Physicians Caring for Infants with Neurologic Conditions.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency, degree, and nature of prognostic discordance between parents and physicians caring for infants with neurologic conditions. STUDY DESIGN: In this observational cohort study, we enrolled parents and physicians caring for infants with neurologic conditions in advance of a family conference. Parent-physician dyads completed a postconference survey targeting expected neurologic outcomes across 3 domains (motor, speech, and cognition) using a 6-point scale. Prognostic discordance was defined as a difference of ≥2 response options and was considered moderate (difference of 2-3 response options) or high (difference of 4-5 response options). Responses were categorized as differences in belief and/or differences in understanding using an existing paradigm. RESULTS: Forty parent-physician dyads of 28 infants completed surveys. Parent-physician discordance about prognosis occurred in ≥1 domain in the majority of dyads (n = 28/40, 70%). Discordance was generally moderate in degree (n = 23/28, 82%) and occurred with similar frequency across all domains. Of parent-physician dyads with discordance, the majority contained a difference in understanding in at least 1 domain (n = 25/28, 89%), while a minority contained a difference of belief (n = 6/28, 21%). When discordance was present, parents were typically more optimistic in their predictions compared with physicians (n = 25/28, 89%). CONCLUSIONS: Differing perceptions about the prognosis of critically ill infants are common and due to differences in both understanding and belief. These findings can be used to develop targeted interventions to improve prognostic communication.

Workplace Harassment, Cyber Incivility, and Climate in Academic Medicine.

Importance: The culture of academic medicine may foster mistreatment that disproportionately affects individuals who have been marginalized within a given society (minoritized groups) and compromises workforce vitality. Existing research has been limited by a lack of comprehensive, validated measures, low response rates, and narrow samples as well as comparisons limited to the binary gender categories of male or female assigned at birth (cisgender). Objective: To evaluate academic medical culture, faculty mental health, and their relationship. Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 830 faculty members in the US received National Institutes of Health career development awards from 2006-2009, remained in academia, and responded to a 2021 survey that had a response rate of 64%. Experiences were compared by gender, race and ethnicity (using the categories of Asian, underrepresented in medicine [defined as race and ethnicity other than Asian or non-Hispanic White], and White), and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ+) status. Multivariable models were used to explore associations between experiences of culture (climate, sexual harassment, and cyber incivility) with mental health. Exposures: Minoritized identity based on gender, race and ethnicity, and LGBTQ+ status. Main Outcomes and Measures: Three aspects of culture were measured as the primary outcomes: organizational climate, sexual harassment, and cyber incivility using previously developed instruments. The 5-item Mental Health Inventory (scored from 0 to 100 points with higher values indicating better mental health) was used to evaluate the secondary outcome of mental health. Results: Of the 830 faculty members, there were 422 men, 385 women, 2 in nonbinary gender category, and 21 who did not identify gender; there were 169 Asian respondents, 66 respondents underrepresented in medicine, 572 White respondents, and 23 respondents who did not report their race and ethnicity; and there were 774 respondents who identified as cisgender and heterosexual, 31 as having LGBTQ+ status, and 25 who did not identify status. Women rated general climate (5-point scale) more negatively than men (mean, 3.68 [95% CI, 3.59-3.77] vs 3.96 [95% CI, 3.88-4.04], respectively, P < .001). Diversity climate ratings differed significantly by gender (mean, 3.72 [95% CI, 3.64-3.80] for women vs 4.16 [95% CI, 4.09-4.23] for men, P < .001) and by race and ethnicity (mean, 4.0 [95% CI, 3.88-4.12] for Asian respondents, 3.71 [95% CI, 3.50-3.92] for respondents underrepresented in medicine, and 3.96 [95% CI, 3.90-4.02] for White respondents, P = .04). Women were more likely than men to report experiencing gender harassment (sexist remarks and crude behaviors) (71.9% [95% CI, 67.1%-76.4%] vs 44.9% [95% CI, 40.1%-49.8%], respectively, P < .001). Respondents with LGBTQ+ status were more likely to report experiencing sexual harassment than cisgender and heterosexual respondents when using social media professionally (13.3% [95% CI, 1.7%-40.5%] vs 2.5% [95% CI, 1.2%-4.6%], respectively, P = .01). Each of the 3 aspects of culture and gender were significantly associated with the secondary outcome of mental health in the multivariable analysis. Conclusions and Relevance: High rates of sexual harassment, cyber incivility, and negative organizational climate exist in academic medicine, disproportionately affecting minoritized groups and affecting mental health. Ongoing efforts to transform culture are necessary.

Definitely, Maybe: Helping Patients Make Decisions about Surgery When Prognosis Is Uncertain.

AbstractThe sudden onset of severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) is an event suffered by millions of individuals each year. Regardless of this frequency in occurrence, accurate prognostication remains difficult to achieve among physicians. There are many variables that affect this prognosis. Physicians are expected to assess the clinical indications of the brain injury while considering other factors such as patient quality of life, patient preferences, and environmental context. However, this lack of certainty in prognosis can ultimately affect treatment recommendations and prompt clinical ethical issues at the bedside, as it leaves room for physician bias and interpretation. In this article, we introduce data on neurosurgeon values that may shed light on the process physicians and patients involved in sTBI undergo. In doing so, we highlight the many nuances in decision-making for patients suffering from sTBI and discuss potential solutions to better patient-physician or surrogate-physician interactions.

Deciding Whether to Take Sacubitril/Valsartan: How Cardiologists and Patients Discuss Out-of-Pocket Costs.

Background Out-of-pocket costs have significant implications for patients with heart failure and should ideally be incorporated into shared decision-making for clinical care. High out-of-pocket cost is one potential reason for the slow uptake of newer guideline-directed medical therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. This study aims to characterize patient-cardiologist discussions involving out-of-pocket costs associated with sacubitril/valsartan during the early postapproval period. Methods and Results We conducted content analysis on 222 deidentified transcripts of audio-recorded outpatient encounters taking place between 2015 and 2018 in which cardiologists (n=16) and their patients discussed whether to initiate, continue, or discontinue sacubitril/valsartan. In the 222 included encounters, 100 (45%) contained discussions about cost. Cost was discussed in a variety of contexts: when sacubitril/valsartan was initiated, not initiated, continued, and discontinued. Of the 97 cost conversations analyzed, the majority involved isolated discussions about insurance coverage (64/97 encounters; 66%) and few addressed specific out-of-pocket costs or affordability (28/97 encounters; 29%). Discussion of free samples of sacubitril/valsartan was common (52/97 encounters; 54%), often with no discussion of a longer-term plan for addressing cost. Conclusions Although cost conversations were somewhat common in patient-cardiologist encounters in which sacubitril/valsartan was discussed, these conversations were generally superficial, rarely addressing affordability or cost-value judgments. Cardiologists frequently provided patients with a course of free sacubitril/valsartan samples without a plan to address the cost after the samples ran out.

Improving Cancer Care for People Living With HIV: A Qualitative Study of Provider Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice.

PURPOSE: Cancer is now the leading cause of non-AIDS death in the US population with HIV. People living with HIV (PLWH) are known to have lower cancer treatment rates and worse cancer outcomes. Disparate cancer treatment is driven by health system, patient, and clinician factors. Little attention has been given to the factors oncologists consider when making cancer treatment recommendations to PLWH. This study sought to examine oncologists' knowledge, attitudes, and practices that influence cancer treatment decision-making. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This study used qualitative methods to explore oncologists' treatment decision-making processes for PLWH and cancer. The sample included 25 radiation, medical, and surgical oncologists from 2 academic centers and 5 community practices. The interview domains were developed from the Andersen Healthcare Utilization Model, the Health Belief Model, and the PEN-3 Model, as well as our prior survey research. RESULTS: This study describes elements of cancer treatment decision-making for PLWH. Oncologists highlighted the need for formal HIV education to support cancer treatment. One main concern with patient-provider interactions pertained to maintaining patient confidentiality during clinical encounters. Lastly, the importance of multidisciplinary care among health care providers allowed oncologists to facilitate both cancer care and logistical support. CONCLUSIONS: As cancer becomes an increasingly common cause of death among PLWH, it is critical to understand the drivers of the observed disparities in cancer treatment. To our knowledge, this is the first qualitative study to describe oncologists' knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward patients who have a comorbid diagnosis of HIV and cancer. Several themes for future interventions emerge, including HIV training for cancer care providers, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, enhancing HIV education for oncology learners and clinicians, and minimizing implicit bias.