Associations of clinical personnel characteristics and controlled substance prescribing practices.

CONTEXT: Over 68,000 deaths were attributed to opioid-related overdose in 2020. Evaluative studies have shown that states that utilized Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) systems have decreased opioid-related deaths. With the growing use of PDMPs and an ongoing opioid epidemic, determining the demographics of physicians at risk of overprescribing can elucidate prescribing practices and inform recommendations to change prescribing behaviors. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess prescribing behaviors by physicians in 2021 based on four demographics utilizing the National Electronic Health Record System (NEHRS): physician's age, sex, specialty, and degree (MD or Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine [DO]). METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of the 2021 NEHRS to determine the relationship between physician characteristics and PDMP use on opioid-prescribing behaviors. Differences between groups were measured via design-based chi-square tests. We constructed multivariable logistic regression models to assess the relationships, via adjusted odds ratios (AOR), between physician characteristics and alternate prescribing patterns. RESULTS: Compared to female physicians, male physicians were more likely to alter their original prescription to reduce morphine milligram equivalents (MMWs) prescribed for a patient (AOR: 1.60; CI: 1.06-2.39; p=0.02), to change to a nonopioid/nonpharmacologic option (AOR: 1.91; 95 % CI: 1.28-2.86; p=0.002), to prescribe naloxone (AOR=2.06; p=0.039), or to refer for additional treatment (AOR=2.07; CI: 1.36-3.16; p<0.001). Compared to younger physicians, those over the age of 50 were less likely to change their prescription to a nonopioid/nonpharmacologic option (AOR=0.63; CI: 0.44-0.90; p=0.01) or prescribe naloxone (AOR=0.56, CI: 0.33-0.92; p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed a statistically significant difference between specialty category and frequency of prescribing controlled substances. After checking the PDMP, male physicians were more likely to alter their original prescription to include harm-reduction strategies. Optimizing the use of PDMP systems may serve to improve prescribing among US physicians.

Asthma medications in schools: a cross-sectional analysis of the Asthma Call-back Survey 2017-2018.

CONTEXT: Asthma is the most common chronic disease affecting children in the United States. Goals for asthma management include symptom control, the ability to maintain a normal activity level, and minimizing adverse events. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to analyze the number of children with asthma that are permitted to carry medications at school and without an asthma action plan. METHODS: In this study, we analyzed the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Asthma Call-back Survey (ACBS) to assess the prevalence of children in school allowed to carry medication and with asthma action plans. Utilizing the sampling weights provided, we estimated population prevalence by age group and urbanicity. RESULTS: Results showed that, overall, 34.8% of students reported they were not allowed to carry asthma medications in school. Specifically, nearly 51% of children ages 5 to 9 and 33% of children ages 10 to 14 were reported not to be allowed to carry medications at school. Further, 58.2% of children did not have a written asthma action plan. Reported urbanicity was not significantly associated with access to medication at school (p=0.46) or having an asthma action plan (p=0.57). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, more than one-third of students were not permitted to carry asthma medications and nearly three-fifths did not have a written asthma action plan. Therefore, we recommend partnerships between schools, healthcare professionals, students, and osteopathic family physicians to increase access to asthma action plans and medication in schools.

An Analysis of the Evidence Informing Clinical Practice Guidelines in the Management and Treatment of Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the methodological quality and accuracy of reporting within systematic reviews (SRs) that provide evidence to form clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in the management and treatment of breast cancer. METHODS: The 5 included CPGs for breast cancer management among National Comprehensive Cancer Network and European Society for Medical Oncology were searched for all SRs and meta-analyses. The characteristics of each study along with their methodological reporting were extracted from each SR using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Instrument for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2) tools. Our second objective was to compare SRs produced by Cochrane groups vs non-Cochrane. RESULTS: Our study included 5 CPGs for the management of breast cancer, containing 1341 total references with 69 being unique SRs we analyzed. PRISMA completeness percent had a mean 76.3% (n = 69), while AMSTAR-2 completeness score mean was 66.5% (n = 59). Cochrane SRs were found to adhere far better to PRISMA (0.91 vs. 0.74) and AMSTAR-2 (0.95 vs. 0.62) guidelines compared to the non-Cochrane SRs. CONCLUSION: The reporting quality of SRs that underpin CPGs in breast cancer management widely varies. We recommend that authors of SRs adopt a more uniform approach in assessing the quality of reporting within their studies. In addition, CPGs should use a more standardized method to seek out evidence to establish their recommendations. With improved reporting, clinicians may have increased confidence in CPGs and thus increased utilization of CPGs in clinical decision making.

Assessing the United States' most frequently asked questions about osteopathic medicine, osteopathic education, and osteopathic manipulative treatment.

CONTEXT: Osteopathic medicine in the United States continues to produce a substantial number of physicians and medical educators. However, recently popularized misconceptions about osteopathic medical practice, education, and manual therapy suggest an unsettling prevalence of inaccurate beliefs held by the public. The public often searches the internet to find out information about osteopathic medicine, but the content of questions and the transparency of the resulting information is unknown. OBJECTIVES: We sought to explore frequently asked questions (FAQs) generated by Google to assess commonly searched questions about the osteopathic profession and to determine the level of information transparency associated with resulting sources. METHODS: On June 16, 2021, we searched Google for three terms: "osteopathic medicine," "doctor of osteopathic medicine," and "DO," until a minimum of 100 FAQs and their answer links were extracted from each search. After excluding irrelevant FAQs, we used Rothwell's Classification of Questions to categorize the FAQs. We then used the Journal of the American Medical Association's Benchmark Criteria to assess information transparency for each corresponding answer source provided by Google. The answer sources were screened for the inappropriate use of "osteopathy" in place of "osteopathic medicine" and for "osteopath" in place of "DO," "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine," or "Osteopathic Physician." We performed statistical tests to ascertain the differences in information transparency between osteopathic and nonosteopathic information sources. RESULTS: Our Google search revealed 110 unique FAQs about osteopathic medicine. The majority of FAQs were classified as fact-based (82/110; 74.55%), nearly half of which (45.12%) were related to the medical practicing privileges of DOs. The FAQs were most commonly answered by academic institutions (44/110, 40.0%). Nearly half (49.09%) of the linked answer sources were deemed inadequate by JAMA benchmark criteria. Of the 110 linked answer sources, 19 (17.27%) misused either osteopathy, osteopath, or both to describe osteopathic physicians. Only 30 sources were linked to US-based osteopathic organizations. Osteopathic organizations were statistically less likely to meet high-transparency criteria than nonosteopathic organizations (p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that the US public may be unsure about the physician status of DOs, which may prevent securing the professional identity of osteopathic physicians in the eyes of the public. Osteopathic organizations should tailor awareness campaigns toward addressing the common misconceptions revealed by our study. Osteopathic organizations should use transparency criteria as a rubric when publishing information to enhance transparency.

An analysis of the evidence underpinning the national comprehensive cancer network practice guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: This study assesses the quality and completeness of systematic reviews (SRs) included by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) cancer screening clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). METHODS: We evaluated SRs according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews). RESULTS: Seven NCCN CPGs were included with 109 SRs. The mean PRISMA percent completeness of included SRs was 71 % (range 0.1-1.0). The mean AMSTAR-2 percent completeness was 56 % (range 0.05-0.99). Of the 70 SRs assessed via AMSTAR-2, 42 (60 %) received a "critically low" rating, 11 (15.7 %) received "low" ratings, and 17 (24.3 %) received "moderate". None of the SRs received a "high" rating. CONCLUSION: Lack of adherence to AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA reporting standards among the SRs included is prevalent. We suggest improved reporting of SR inclusion criteria and evaluation to bolster the reporting quality of SRs underpinning CPG recommendations.