A National Evaluation of Scholarly Activity Requirement in Osteopathic EM Residency Programs: Survey of EM Program Directors.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the study were to determine the percentage of osteopathic emergency medicine (EM) residencies that require an original research project to meet the American Osteopathic Association requirement, describe the resources available to the residents and faculty members to complete their projects, and determine resident and faculty research productivity. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional online survey of program directors from osteopathic EM residency programs. Participants were asked about demographics and specifics related to their program's research curriculum, which included resources, outcomes, and challenges. RESULTS: The response rate was 48.21% (27/56) of program directors from EM residencies. The majority (82.77%) of respondents were from a community-based EM program, had a requirement that a research project be completed before graduation from residency (87.5%), and did not have a research associate program to assist in recruiting patients (83.33%). A physician research director was noted to lead the department in 53.57% of respondents, whereas 70.83% noted having a statistician on staff. A total of 2.91% of program faculty had received federal grant funding, and 13.88% had a research study indexed in PubMed. EM programs that had a physician-led research director were more likely to have core faculty with federal funding, articles indexed in PubMed, residents who submit their research for publication, and residents with competitive grants, as compared with programs without a research director. Program directors noted that analyzing data, designing a study, and generating a hypothesis were the biggest challenges to conducting research in the residency. CONCLUSIONS: Osteopathic EM residencies significantly differ from their allopathic counterparts in their research curriculum, capabilities, and outcomes.

Role of Debt and Loan Forgiveness/Repayment Programs in Osteopathic Medical Graduates' Plans to Enter Primary Care.

CONTEXT: Osteopathic medicine emphasizes partnering with patients to help them attain or maintain health. This philosophy encourages physicians to practice primary care and a mission of improving community health. However, there is currently a shortage of primary care physicians in many areas of the United States. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether intended practice patterns of recent graduates of colleges of osteopathic medicine favor primary care and whether practice patterns correlate with medical education debt. METHODS: Responses were analyzed from the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine survey of pending medical school graduates from 2007 through 2016 regarding indebtedness and specialty selection. RESULTS: The percentage of graduating osteopathic medical students who chose a primary care specialty increased from 28.1% (676 students) in 2007 to 33.2% (1377 students) in 2016. Among graduates, those above the 75th percentile of debt had a general move toward more non-primary care positions, with a value of 74.4% in 2007 and 79.9% in 2016. Graduates below the 25th percentile had a gradual increase in primary care representation, moving from 24.6% in 2007 to 29.4% in 2016. In 2007, graduates with a loan forgiveness/repayment program were more likely to choose primary care over graduates without such a program (OR, 0.681 [95% CI, 0.505-0.920]; P=.02). Analysis of subsequent years showed a declining OR with increasing significance. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this analysis indicated that increased educational debt loan directly influenced physician practice choice. Graduates with high debt burden were more likely to enter primary care fields and use loan forgiveness/repayment programs. Graduates with high debt burden who did not use loan forgiveness/repayment programs were more likely to enter non-primary care specialty fields, with this trend increasing as mean medical school debt increased. This association has implications for policies that could affect choice of primary care. However, further research is needed to fully understand the primary care choice by graduates of colleges of osteopathic medicine.

The Jefferson Scale of Empathy: a nationwide study of measurement properties, underlying components, latent variable structure, and national norms in medical students.

The Jefferson Scale of Empathy (JSE) is a broadly used instrument developed to measure empathy in the context of health professions education and patient care. Evidence in support of psychometrics of the JSE has been reported in health professions students and practitioners with the exception of osteopathic medical students. This study was designed to examine measurement properties, underlying components, and latent variable structure of the JSE in a nationwide sample of first-year matriculants at U.S. colleges of osteopathic medicine, and to develop a national norm table for the assessment of JSE scores. A web-based survey was administered at the beginning of the 2017-2018 academic year which included the JSE, a scale to detect "good impression" responses, and demographic/background information. Usable surveys were received from 6009 students enrolled in 41 college campuses (median response rate = 92%). The JSE mean score and standard deviation for the sample were 116.54 and 10.85, respectively. Item-total score correlations were positive and statistically significant (p < 0.01), and Cronbach α = 0.82. Significant gender differences were observed on the JSE scores in favor of women. Also, significant differences were found on item scores between top and bottom third scorers on the JSE. Three factors of Perspective Taking, Compassionate Care, and Walking in Patient's Shoes emerged in an exploratory factor analysis by using half of the sample. Results of confirmatory factor analysis with another half of the sample confirmed the 3-factor model. We also developed a national norm table which is the first to assess students' JSE scores against national data.

Understanding ACGME Scholarly Activity Requirements for General Surgery Programs in the Era of Single Accreditation and the Next Accreditation System.

Becoming compliant with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirements for scholarly activity and remaining compliant over time requires time and attention to the development of an environment of inquiry, which is reflected in detailed documentation submitted in program applications and annual updates. Since the beginning of the next accreditation system, all ACGME programs have been required to submit evidence of scholarly activity of both residents and faculty on an annual basis. Since 2014, American Osteopathic Association-accredited programs have been able to apply for ACGME accreditation under the Single Graduate Medical Education Accreditation initiative. The Residency Program Director, Chair, Designated Institutional Official, Faculty, and coordinator need to work cohesively to ensure compliance with all program requirements, including scholarly activity in order for American Osteopathic Association-accredited programs to receive Initial ACGME Accreditation and for current ACGME-accredited programs to maintain accreditation. Fortunately, there are many ways to show the type of scholarly activity that is required for the training of surgeons. In this article, we will review the ACGME General Surgery Program Requirements and definitions of scholarly activity. We will also offer suggestions for how programs may show evidence of scholarly activity.

Difference in R01 Grant Funding Among Osteopathic and Allopathic Emergency Physicians over the Last Decade.

INTRODUCTION: Receiving an R01 grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is regarded as a major accomplishment for the physician researcher and can be used as a means of scholarly activity for core faculty in emergency medicine (EM). However, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires that a grant must be obtained for it to count towards a core faculty member's scholarly activity, while the American Osteopathic Association states that an application for a grant would qualify for scholarly activity whether it is received or not. The aim of the study was to determine if a medical degree disparity exists between those who successfully receive an EM R01 grant and those who do not, and to determine the publication characteristics of those recipients. METHODS: We queried the NIH RePORTER search engine for those physicians who received an R01 grant in EM. Degree designation was then determined for each grant recipient based on a web-based search involving the recipient's name and the location where the grant was awarded. The grant recipient was then queried through PubMed central for the total number of publications published in the decade prior to receiving the grant. RESULTS: We noted a total of 264 R01 grant recipients during the study period; of those who received the award, 78.03% were allopathic physicians. No osteopathic physician had received an R01 grant in EM over the past 10 years. Of those allopathic physicians who received the grant, 44.17% held a dual degree. Allopathic physicians had an average of 48.05 publications over the 10 years prior to grant receipt and those with a dual degree had 51.62 publications. CONCLUSION: Allopathic physicians comprise the majority of those who have received an R01 grant in EM over the last decade. These physicians typically have numerous prior publications and an advanced degree.

Types and Distribution of Payments From Industry to Physicians in 2015.

IMPORTANCE: Given scrutiny over financial conflicts of interest in health care, it is important to understand the types and distribution of industry-related payments to physicians. OBJECTIVE: To determine the types and distribution of industry-related payments to physicians in 2015 and the association of physician specialty and sex with receipt of payments from industry. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational, retrospective, population-based study of licensed US physicians (per National Plan & Provider Enumeration System) linked to 2015 Open Payments reports of industry payments. A total of 933 295 allopathic and osteopathic physicians. Outcomes were compared across specialties (surgery, primary care, specialists, interventionalists) and between 620 166 male (66.4%) and 313 129 female (33.6%) physicians using regression models adjusting for geographic Medicare-spending region and sole proprietorship. EXPOSURES: Physician specialty and sex. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Reported physician payment from industry (including nature, number, and value), categorized as general payments (including consulting fees and food and beverage), ownership interests (including stock options, partnership shares), royalty or license payments, and research payments. Associations between physician characteristics and reported receipt of payment. RESULTS: In 2015, 449 864 of 933 295 physicians (133 842 [29.8%] women), representing approximately 48% of all US physicians were reported to have received $2.4 billion in industry payments, including approximately $1.8 billion for general payments, $544 million for ownership interests, and $75 million for research payments. Compared with 47.7% of primary care physicians (205 830 of 431 819), 61.0% of surgeons (110 604 of 181 372) were reported as receiving general payments (absolute difference, 13.3%; 95% CI, 13.1-13.6; odds ratio [OR], 1.72; P < .001). Surgeons had a mean per-physician reported payment value of $6879 (95% CI, $5895-$7862) vs $2227 (95% CI, $2141-$2314) among primary care physicians (absolute difference, $4651; 95% CI, $4014-$5288). After adjusting for geographic spending region and sole proprietorship, men within each specialty had a higher odds of receiving general payments than did women: surgery, 62.5% vs 56.5% (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.26-1.31); primary care, 50.9% vs 43.0% (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.36-1.39); specialists, 36.3% vs 33.4% (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.13-1.17); and interventionalists, 58.1% vs 40.7% (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.97-2.10; P < .001 for all tests). Similarly, men reportedly received more royalty or license payments than did women: surgery, 1.2% vs 0.03% (OR, 43.20; 95% CI, 25.02-74.57); primary care, 0.02% vs 0.002% (OR, 9.34; 95% CI, 4.11-21.23); specialists, 0.08% vs 0.01% (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.71-7.89); and for interventionalists, 0.13% vs 0.04% (OR, 7.98; 95% CI, 2.87-22.19; P < .001 for all tests). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: According to data from 2015 Open Payments reports, 48% of physicians were reported to have received a total of $2.4 billion in industry-related payments, primarily general payments, with a higher likelihood and higher value of payments to physicians in surgical vs primary care specialties and to male vs female physicians.

Variations in Patterns of Utilization and Charges for the Care of Headache in North Carolina, 2000-2009: A Statewide Claims' Data Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to compare patterns of utilization and charges generated by medical doctors (MDs), doctors of chiropractic (DCs), and physical therapists (PTs) for the treatment of headache in North Carolina. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of claims data from the North Carolina State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees from 2000 to 2009. Data were extracted from Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina for the North Carolina State Health Plan using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, diagnostic codes for headache. The claims were separated by individual provider type, combination of provider types, and referral patterns. RESULTS: The majority of patients and claims were in the MD-only or MD plus referral patterns. Chiropractic patterns represented less than 10% of patients. Care patterns with single-provider types and no referrals incurred the least charges on average for headache. When care did not include referral providers or services, MD with DC care was generally less expensive than MD care with PT. However, when combined with referral care, MD care with PT was generally less expensive. Compared with MD-only care, risk-adjusted charges (available 2006-2009) for patients in the middle risk quintile were significantly less for DC-only care. CONCLUSIONS: Utilization and expenditures for headache treatment increased from 2000 to 2009 across all provider groups. MD care represented the majority of total allowed charges in this study. MD care and DC care, alone or in combination, were overall the least expensive patterns of headache care. Risk-adjusted charges were significantly less for DC-only care.

Variations in Patterns of Utilization and Charges for the Care of Neck Pain in North Carolina, 2000 to 2009: A Statewide Claims' Data Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to compare utilization and charges generated by medical doctors (MD), doctors of chiropractic (DC) and physical therapists (PT) by provider patterns of care for the treatment of neck pain in North Carolina. METHODS: This was an analysis of neck-pain-related closed claim data from the North Carolina State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees (NCSHP) from 2000 to 2009. Data were extracted from Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina for the NCSHP using ICD-9 diagnostic codes for uncomplicated neck pain (UNP) and complicated neck pain (CNP). RESULTS: Care patterns with single-provider types and no referrals incurred the least average charges for both UNP and CNP. When care did not include referral providers or services, for either UNP or CNP, MD care with PT was generally less expensive than MD care with DC care. However, when care involved referral providers or services, MD and PT care was on average more expensive than MD and DC care for either UNP or CNP. Risk-adjusted charges for patients in the middle quintile of risk (available 2006-2009) were lower for chiropractic patients with or without medical care or referral care to other providers. CONCLUSIONS: Chiropractic care alone or DC with MD care incurred appreciably fewer charges for UNP or CNP compared to MD care with or without PT care, when care included referral providers or services. This finding was reversed when care did not include referral providers or services. Risk-adjusted charges for UNP and CNP patients were lower for DC care patterns.

Variations in Patterns of Utilization and Charges for the Care of Low Back Pain in North Carolina, 2000 to 2009: A Statewide Claims' Data Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to compare utilization and charges generated by medical doctors (MD), doctors of chiropractic (DC) and physical therapists (PT) by patterns of care for the treatment of low back pain in North Carolina. METHODS: This was an analysis of low-back-pain-related closed claim data from the North Carolina State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees from 2000 to 2009. Data were extracted from Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina for the North Carolina State Health Plan using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision diagnostic codes for uncomplicated low back pain (ULBP) and complicated low back pain (CLBP). RESULTS: Care patterns with single-provider types and no referrals incurred the least charges on average for both ULBP and CLBP. When care did not include referral providers or services, for ULBP, MD and DC care was on average $465 less than MD and PT care. For CLBP, MD and DC care averaged $965 more than MD and PT care. However, when care involved referral providers or services, MD and DC care was on average $1600 less when compared to MD and PT care for ULBP and $1885 less for CLBP. Risk-adjusted charges (available 2006-2009) for patients in the middle quintile of risk were significantly less for DC care patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Chiropractic care alone or DC with MD care incurred appreciably fewer charges for ULBP than MD care with or without PT care. This finding was reversed for CLBP. Adjusted charges for both ULBP and CLBP patients were significantly lower for DC patients.

Examining Health Care Students' Attitudes toward E-Professionalism.

Objective. To compare pharmacy, osteopathic medicine, dental medicine, and physician assistant (PA) students' perceptions of e-professionalism. Methods. A 20-item questionnaire was developed and administered to four cohorts of health care professions students early in their first professional year. The questionnaire contained 16 scenarios in which a hypothetical health care student or professional shared information or content electronically and students were asked to indicate how much they agreed that the scenario represented professional behavior. Results. Ninety-four percent of students completed the questionnaire. More female students were in the pharmacy and PA cohorts. There were statistical differences in students' perceptions of e-professionalism in five of 16 scenarios. Specific differences were most often between the osteopathic medicine students and the other cohorts. Conclusions. The health care professions students surveyed had similar perceptions of e-professionalism. Of the four cohorts, osteopathic medicine students appeared less conservative in their approach to e-professionalism than the other cohorts.

Learning With Reflection: Practices in an Osteopathic Surgery Clinical Clerkship Through an Online Module.

CONTEXT: The value of reflective practices has gained momentum in osteopathic medical education. However, the use of reflective pedagogies has not been explored in the larger context of medical course delivery and design, to the authors' knowledge. OBJECTIVE: To determine the types of reflection demonstrated by osteopathic medical students on an online discussion board and to explore differences in discussion engagement caused by the use of a reflective learning self-assessment tool. METHODS: Using a mixed-method approach, reflection processes in an osteopathic surgery clinical clerkship online module were investigated in third-year osteopathic medical students. Discussion board messages were captured and coded. Both manual coding techniques and automated interrogation using NVivo9 (a computer program) for qualitative data were applied. Correlations of scores across 4 case-based discussion tasks and scores for self-reflection were computed as quantitative data. RESULTS: Twenty-eight students were included. Four main types of reflection (ie, content, contextual, dialogic, and personal) along with corresponding differentiated subthemes for each type of case-based discussion board group message were identified. Group collaboration revealed insights about the reflection process itself and also about the evidence of collective efforts, group engagements, and intragroup support among students. Student preparation revealed that students' metacognition was triggered when they judged their own contributions to group work. Challenges in completing readings and meeting deadlines were related to the students' long work hours. CONCLUSION: Reflective practices are essential to the practice of osteopathic medicine and medical education. Curricula can promote the development of reflective skills by integrating these deliberate practices in educational activities.

Bibliometric measures and National Institutes of Health funding at colleges of osteopathic medicine, 2006-2010.

CONTEXT: During the past 20 years, colleges of osteopathic medicine (COMs) have made several advances in research that have substantially improved the osteopathic medical profession and the health of the US population. Furthering the understanding of research at COMs, particularly the factors influencing the attainment of extramural funds, is highly warranted and coincides with the missions of most COMs and national osteopathic organizations. OBJECTIVES: To describe bibliometric measures (numbers of peer-reviewed publications [ie, published articles] and citations of these publications, impact indices) at COMs from 2006 through 2010 and to examine statistical associations between these measures and the amount of National Institutes of Health (NIH) research funds awarded to COMs in 2006 and 2010. METHODS: A customized, systematic search of the Web of Science database was used to obtain bibliometric measures for 28 COMs. For the analyses, the bibliometric measures were summed or averaged over a 5-year period (2006 through 2010). The NIH database was used to obtain the amount of NIH funds for research grants and contracts received by the 28 COMs. Bivariate and multivariate statistical procedures were used to explore relationships between bibliometric measures and NIH funding amounts. RESULTS: The COMs with 2010 NIH funding, compared with COMs without NIH funding, had greater numbers of publications and citations and higher yearly average impact indices. Funding from the NIH in 2006 and 2010 was positively and significantly correlated with the numbers of publications, citations, and citations per publication and impact indices. The regression analysis indicated that 63.2% and 38.5% of the total variance in 2010 NIH funding explained by the model (adjusted R(2)=0.74) was accounted for by 2006 NIH funding and the combined bibliometric (ie, publications plus citations), respectively. CONCLUSION: Greater scholarly output leads to the procurement of more NIH funds for research at COMs.

Research funding at colleges of osteopathic medicine in the United States.

CONTEXT: Research is a vital component of a college of osteopathic medicine (COM) portfolio. Previous studies have described research activity at COMs from 1989 through 2004 using data from surveys of COM administrators conducted by the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine (AACOM). However, these studies had limitations. OBJECTIVES: To address the limitations of previous studies and to provide more depth of understanding regarding research activity at COMs by (1) documenting changes in research funding at COMs from 2004 to 2009 according to the funding agencies, principal investigators' degrees, and areas of study after considering inflation and (2) examining predictors of research funding at COMs. METHODS: Information about 2004 and 2009 active research grants and contracts, research expenditures, and COM characteristics was obtained from AACOM databases. Descriptive statistics are presented for 20 COMs that completed the survey in both years. The 2004 dollar values were adjusted for the rate of inflation (13.57%). Bivariate and multivariate analyses were used to explore associations between school characteristics (eg, number of faculty), research expenditures, and research funding outcomes (total amount and number of awards) for all COMs completing the survey in 2009 (n=26). RESULTS: From 2004 to 2009, the total amount of awards increased from 115.2 million to 216.6 million, and the number of awards increased from 450 to 665. Funding rose substantially from foundations (336%), to PhD-DO principal investigators (909%), and for osteopathic manipulative medicine (60%). Total award amounts were positively associated with both research expenditures (P<.001) and the number of faculty (P<.001). Larger research expenditures also were related to securing a greater number of awards (P<.001). CONCLUSION: Research activity at COMs continues to advance partly because of investments in research and faculty made by COMs.