Physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding fibromyalgia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis, etiology, and optimal management of fibromyalgia remains contentious. This uncertainty may result in variability in clinical management. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies examining physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding fibromyalgia. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed from inception to February 2023 for cross-sectional surveys evaluating physicians' attitudes toward, and management of, fibromyalgia. Pairs of independent reviewers conducted article screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment in duplicate. We used random-effects meta-analysis to pool proportions for items reported by more than one study and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to summarize the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Of 864 citations, 21 studies (8904 participants) were eligible for review. Most physicians endorsed fibromyalgia as a distinct clinical entity (84%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 74-92), and half (51%; 95% CI, 40-62) considered fibromyalgia a psychosocial condition. Knowledge of formal diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia was more likely among rheumatologists (69%, 95% CI, 45-89) versus general practitioners (38%, 95% CI, 24-54) (P = .04). Symptom relief was endorsed as the primary management goal by most physicians (73%, 95% CI, 52-90). Exercise, physiotherapy, antidepressants, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and non-opioid analgesics were most endorsed for management of fibromyalgia, but with wide variability between surveys. Opioids and most complementary and alternative interventions (e.g., homeopathy, chiropractic, and massage) received limited endorsement. CONCLUSION: There is moderate certainty evidence to suggest that physicians are divided regarding whether fibromyalgia is a biomedical or psychosocial disorder. Physicians typically prioritize symptom relief as the primary goal of management, and often endorse management with exercise, non-opioid analgesics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antidepressants, and physiotherapy (moderate to high certainty evidence); however, important practice variation exists.

The role of mindfulness in stress, productivity and wellbeing of foundation year doctors: a mixed-methods feasibility study of the mindful resilience and effectiveness training programme.

BACKGROUND: Medical Foundation Year (FY) doctors demonstrate greater psychological distress compared with the general population and other student groups. This feasibility study investigated FY doctors' perceptions of mindfulness and the impact of a mindful resilience and effectiveness training (MRET) programme on stress, wellbeing, and performance. METHODS: Mixed-methods study utilising a questionnaire (study 1, N = 144) and a pre-post analysis design of MRET programme (study 2, N = 13), along with focus groups (N = 7). RESULTS: In study 1 28.5% of FY's reported using mindfulness. All five mindfulness facets were significantly, and positively, associated with mental wellbeing (p < 0.05). Acting with awareness (AA) and non-reactivity (NR) were significantly, positively associated with a challenge responses to stress (p < 0.05). Threat and loss appraisals were negatively associated with AA, NR, and non-judging (p < 0.01). Perceived productivity was positively associated with mindfulness facets: describing, AA, and NR (p < 0.001). In study 2, there were significant increases in wellbeing and mindfulness facets observing, describing, AA, and NR, and threat appraisals decreased (p < 0.05). The main themes identified across the focus group included Reframed Mindset, Values-Based Action, Embodied Leadership and Pedagogy. CONCLUSIONS: There exists a relationship between mindfulness, psychological wellbeing, and performance in FYs. The MRET prorgamme improved psychological wellbeing and reduced threat appraisals. Future work could focus resources on enhancing the skills of AA and NR, as this may be sufficient to bring about meaningful improvements in wellbeing, percieved productivity and cognitive reappraisal of stressful life events.

Physician-medical manufacturing industry relationships: Perceptions of medical students.

Background Physicians and the medical manufacturing industry (MMI) are closely associated and may have some form of financial or business arrangement. Research has highlighted that these interactions negatively impact physicians' prescribing behaviour. We tried to explore medical students' perspectives regarding these interactions. Methods We did a questionnaire-based survey to capture the demographic information and included five yes-or-no questions with two possible answers that probed the participants' awareness. Statements (26 Likert-style questions) describing various physician-industry interactions were formulated based on previous research. Excel was used to gather the data, and SPSS v 25.0® for Windows was used to analyse it. Frequencies and percentages (qualitative variables) and means and standard deviations were used to present descriptive statistics (quantitative variables). The associations between the independent variables and awareness were examined using chi-square test. Results About 40% of students knew doctors and MMI work together, but only 6% knew there were rules about accepting gifts from MMI. Eighty-four per cent of respondents felt free samples from MMI were an excellent way to learn about new products. The prevalence of awareness was higher in interns/housemen (51.6%) compared to medical students (35.9%). Most (43%) of the participants preferred an online database as a method of disclosure. Conclusions Our findings indicated students' knowledge gaps regarding ethical considerations and recommended guidelines regarding the relational dynamics of medical practitioners and MMI. Students should be taught appropriate conduct and best practices and must strive to develop skepticism towards MMI marketing claims. This may be achieved by implementing various educational interventions in the medical curriculum.

State Abortion Policy and Moral Distress Among Clinicians Providing Abortion After the Dobbs Decision.

Importance: Moral distress occurs when individuals feel powerless to do what they think is right, including when clinicians are prevented from providing health care they deem necessary. The loss of federal protections for abortion following the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision may place clinicians providing abortion at risk of experiencing moral distress, as many could face new legal and civil penalties for providing care in line with professional standards and that they perceive as necessary. Objective: To assess self-reported moral distress scores among abortion-providing clinicians following the Dobbs decision overall and by state-level abortion policy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study, conducted from May to December 2023, included US abortion-providing clinicians (physicians, advanced practice clinicians, and nurses). A purposive electronic survey was disseminated nationally through professional listservs and snowball sampling. Exposure: Abortion policy in each respondent's state of practice (restrictive vs protective using classifications from the Guttmacher Institute). Main Outcomes and Measures: Using descriptive statistics and unadjusted and adjusted negative binomial regression models, the association between self-reported moral distress on the Moral Distress Thermometer (MDT), a validated psychometric tool that scores moral distress from 0 (none) to 10 (worst possible), and state abortion policy was examined. Results: Overall, 310 clinicians (271 [87.7%] women; mean [SD] age, 41.4 [9.7] years) completed 352 MDTs, with 206 responses (58.5%) from protective states and 146 (41.5%) from restrictive states. Reported moral distress scores ranged from 0 to 10 (median, 5) and were more than double for clinicians in restrictive compared with protective states (median, 8 [IQR, 6-9] vs 3 [IQR, 1-6]; P < .001). Respondents with higher moral distress scores included physicians compared with advanced practice clinicians (median, 6 [IQR, 3-8] vs 4 [IQR, 2-7]; P = .005), those practicing in free-standing abortion clinics compared with those practicing in hospitals (median, 6 [IQR, 3-8] vs 4 [IQR, 2-7]; P < .001), those no longer providing abortion care compared with those still providing abortion care (median, 8 [IQR, 4-9] vs 5 [IQR, 2-8]; P = .004), those practicing in loss states (states with the greatest decline in abortion volume since the Dobbs decision) compared with those in stable states (unadjusted incidence rate [IRR], 1.72 [95% CI, 1.55-1.92]; P < .001; adjusted IRR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.40-1.79]; P < .001), and those practicing in surge states (states with the greatest increase in abortion volume since the Dobbs decision) compared with those in stable states (unadjusted IRR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.11-1.46]; P < .001; adjusted IRR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.09-1.41]; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this purposive national survey study of clinicians providing abortion, moral distress was elevated among all clinicians and more than twice as high among those practicing in states that restrict abortion compared with those in states that protect abortion. The findings suggest that structural changes addressing bans on necessary health care, such as federal protections for abortion, are needed at institutional, state, and federal policy levels to combat widespread moral distress.

'None of Them Know Me': A Qualitative Study of the Implications of Locum Doctor Working for Patient Experience.

INTRODUCTION: There have been some concerns about the impact of temporary doctors, otherwise known as locums, on patient safety and the quality of care. Despite these concerns, research has paid little attention to the implications of locum working on patient experience. METHODS: A qualitative semi-structured interview study was conducted with 130 participants including locums, people working with locums and patients with experience of being seen or treated by locums. Analysis was conducted using a reflexive thematic approach and abductive analysis to position themes against wider knowledge. RESULTS: Three main themes were constructed through analysis: (1) Awareness and disclosure; patients were not always aware if their doctor was a locum, and there was some debate about whether patients had a right to know, particularly if locum working presented quality and safety risks. (2) Continuity and accessibility of care; access was regarded as priority for acute conditions, but for long-term or serious conditions, patients preferred to see a permanent doctor who knew their history, although it was acknowledged that locums could provide fresh perspectives. (3) Communication and practice; locums and patients described how consultations were approached differently when doctors worked as locums. Patients evaluated their interactions based on how safe they felt with practitioners. CONCLUSION: Patients reported that they were unlikely to have continuity of care with any doctors delivering care, regardless of their contractual status. Locums sometimes provided new perspectives on care which could be beneficial for patient outcomes, but for patients with long-term, complex or serious conditions continuity of care was important, and these patients may avoid or delay seeking care when locums are the only available option. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients and carers were involved in our study from inception to dissemination. Our Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) forum was involved throughout project design and planning and gave us feedback and guidance on research materials and outputs (e.g., study protocol, participant information sheets, survey tools, interview schedules, emerging findings). Our PPI forum co-produced our patient interview schedule, two members of our PPI forum led the patient focus groups and all were involved in analysis of patient interviews. Our PPI Chair was involved in the preparation of this manuscript.

Bedsharing among breastfeeding physicians: Results of a nationwide survey.

INTRODUCTION: Bedsharing is common but advised against by the American Academy of Pediatrics. It is unknown if breastfeeding physicians bedshare more or less than the general population. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of bedsharing among physicians, their reasons for bedsharing or not, and whether bedsharing was associated with a longer duration of breastfeeding. METHODS: An online survey was adapted from surveys administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The survey was administered to physicians and medical students who birthed children from October 2020 through August 2021. Respondents were asked to report on a singleton birth, and questions centered around sleep practices and breastfeeding. Survival analysis was used to examine the association between bedsharing and breastfeeding duration. RESULTS: Of 546 respondents with bedsharing data, 68% reported some history of bedsharing, and 77% were in specialties that involved caring for pregnant people and/or infants. Those who bedshared breastfed an average of four months longer than those who never bedshared (18.08 versus 14.08 months p<0.001). The adjusted risk of breastfeeding cessation was markedly lower for those who bedshared compared to those who did not (Hazard Ratio 0.57, 95% Confidence Interval 0.45, 0.71). The primary reason for bedsharing was to breastfeed (73%); the primary reason for not bedsharing was safety concerns (92%). Among those who bedshared (n = 373), 52% did not inform their child's healthcare provider. CONCLUSIONS: Bedsharing is common among our sample of mainly breastfeeding physicians, including those who care for pregnant people and/or infants. It is also associated with a longer duration of breastfeeding, which has implications for population health. Practicing bedsharing implies cognitive dissidence and may affect how physicians counsel about bedsharing. Additionally, lack of disclosure of bedsharing practices has implications for practical guidance about having open non-judgmental conversations and may be a missed opportunity to counsel on bedsharing safety.

Mixed methods evaluation of a specialty-specific system to promote physician engagement in safety and quality reporting in a large academic health system.

BACKGROUND: Incident reporting systems (IRS) can improve care quality and patient safety, yet their impact is limited by clinician engagement. Our objective was to assess barriers to reporting in a hospital-wide IRS and use data to inform ongoing improvement of a specialty-specific IRS embedded in the electronic health record targeting anaesthesiologists. METHODS: This quality improvement (QI) evaluation used mixed methods, including qualitative interviews, faculty surveys and user data from the specialty-specific IRS. We conducted 24 semi-structured interviews from January to May 2023 in a large academic health system in Northern California. Participants included adult and paediatric anaesthesiologists, operating room nurses, surgeons and QI operators, recruited through convenience and snowball sampling. We identified key themes and factors influencing engagement, which were classified using the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety framework. We surveyed hospital anaesthesiologists in January and May 2023, and characterised the quantity and type of reports submitted to the new system. RESULTS: Participants shared organisation and technology-related barriers to engagement in traditional system-wide IRSs, many of which the specialty-specific IRS addressed-specifically those related to technological access to the system. Barriers related to building psychological safety for those who report remain. Survey results showed that most barriers to reporting improved following the specialty-specific IRS launch, but limited time remained an ongoing barrier (25 respondents out of 44, 56.8%). A total of 964 reports with quality/safety concerns were submitted over the first 8 months of implementation; 47-76 unique anaesthesiologists engaged per month. The top safety quality categories of concern were equipment and technology (25.9%), clinical complications (25.3%) and communication and scheduling (19.9%). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that a specialty-specific IRS can facilitate increased physician engagement in quality and safety reporting and complement existing system-wide IRSs.

Workplace support for physicians during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Did it affect burnout?

BACKGROUND: A concern before 2020, physician burnout worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic. Little empirical data are available on pandemic workplace support interventions or their influence on burnout. We surveyed a national sample of frontline physicians on burnout and workplace support during the pandemic. METHODS: We surveyed a stratified random sample of 12,833 US physicians most likely to care for adult COVID-19 patients from the comprehensive AMA Physician Professional Data ™ file. The sample included 6722 primary care physicians (3331 family physicians, 3391 internists), 880 hospitalists, 1783 critical care physicians (894 critical care physicians, 889 pulmonary intensivists), 2548 emergency medicine physicians, and 900 infectious disease physicians. The emailed survey elicited physicians' perceptions of organizational interventions to provide workplace support and/or to address burnout. Burnout was assessed with the Professional Fulfillment Index Burnout Composite scale (PFI-BC). Proportional specialty representation and response bias were addressed by survey weighting. Logistic regression assessed the association of physician characteristics and workplace interventions with burnout. RESULTS: After weighting, respondents were representative of the total sample. Overall physician burnout was 45.4%, significantly higher than in our previous survey. Open-ended responses mentioned that staffing shortages (physician, nursing, and other staff) combined with the increased volume, complexity, and acuity of patients during the pandemic increased job demands. The most frequent workplace support interventions were direct pandemic control measures (increased access to personal protective equipment, 70.0%); improved telehealth functionality (43.4%); and individual resiliency tools (yoga, meditation, 30.7%). Respondents placed highest priority on workplace interventions to increase financial support and increase nursing and clinician staffing. Factors significantly associated with lower odds of burnout were practicing critical care (compared with emergency medicine) OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.12 - 0.93), improved telehealth functionality OR 0.47 (95% CI 0.23 - 0.97) and being in practice for 11 years or longer OR 0.44 (95% CI 0.19-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Burnout across frontline specialties increased during the pandemic. Physician respondents focused on inadequate staffing in the context of caring for more and sicker patients, combined with the lack of administrative efforts to mitigate problems. Burnout mitigation requires system-level interventions beyond individual-focused stress reduction programs to improve staffing, increase compensation, and build effective teams.

Clinical and surgical physician's perception of nutrition knowledge.

BACKGROUND: Due to the significant increase in the prevalence of food-related diseases, the value that physicians place on nutritional advice may have implications for patient treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate the perception of the importance of nutritional intervention among physicians in the Universidad San Francisco de Quito's (USFQ) healthcare system. METHODS: This cross-sectional study employed a telephone survey administered to a subset of all medical doctors (MDs) working in the healthcare system clinics of USFQ between 2021 and 2022. Study participants were recruited through voluntary response sample from a complete list of 253 MD. The single time questionnaire consisted of a 22-item validated survey in which attitudes, self-perceived capacity, and knowledge about nutrition ofmedical doctors were evaluated. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, two-sided t test, bivariate associations and linear and logistic regressions. RESULTS: 136 MDs completed the survey yielding a response rate of 54%. Our analysis grouped participants into clinical (CE) and non-clinical specialties, hereafter referred to as surgical MDs. While a higher percentage of physicians in CE are confident in their ability to provide examples of recommended food portions based on national or international guidelines, 1 in 10 do not know how to use and interpret BMI or waist circumference, and around 1 in 3 do not know how many calories there are in one gram of fat, protein, or carbohydrates, and their basic metabolic functions. Almost all survey participants believe MDs can have an impact on the eating behavior of a patient if time is used to discuss the problem, however, almost half of survey participants believe nutrition counseling is not an effective use of time. CONCLUSION: It is important to explore the perceptions and self-confidence of physicians around nutrition related issues. Our results demonstrated that nearly 1 in 4 surgical MDs do not feel capable of recognizing nutritional risk in patients, which highlights the essentiality of physicians having an updated understanding of basic nutrition principles. Future research should examine how commonly MDs refer patients to nutritionists/dietitians, as well as strategies for improving physician knowledge on basic nutrition concepts.

Physicians' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice of Occupational Diseases Diagnosis and Occupational History Taking.

OBJECTIVES: This cross-sectional study assessed physicians' knowledge and attitudes toward occupational diseases, their practice of occupational history taking, and the associated factors and barriers. METHODS: From January 1 to June 30, 2023, Egyptian physicians from different specialties (n = 278) completed a questionnaire including sociodemographic and occupational data, questions measuring knowledge, attitudes, practice, and barriers. RESULTS: The significant predictor of low knowledge was the nonuse of a standard history form. The lack of undergraduate education/postgraduate training in occupational diseases was the predictor of unfavorable attitudes and poor practice. Unfavorable attitudes also predicted poor practice. The main barriers were insufficient knowledge and busy schedules. CONCLUSIONS: Different specialties physicians are essential in recognizing occupational diseases. They need to be knowledgeable about occupational diseases within their specialties. Specialized undergraduate and postgraduate training in this topic can help achieve such needs.

Sex bias in pain management decisions.

In the pursuit of mental and physical health, effective pain management stands as a cornerstone. Here, we examine a potential sex bias in pain management. Leveraging insights from psychological research showing that females' pain is stereotypically judged as less intense than males' pain, we hypothesize that there may be tangible differences in pain management decisions based on patients' sex. Our investigation spans emergency department (ED) datasets from two countries, including discharge notes of patients arriving with pain complaints (N = 21,851). Across these datasets, a consistent sex disparity emerges. Female patients are less likely to be prescribed pain-relief medications compared to males, and this disparity persists even after adjusting for patients' reported pain scores and numerous patient, physician, and ED variables. This disparity extends across medical practitioners, with both male and female physicians prescribing less pain-relief medications to females than to males. Additional analyses reveal that female patients' pain scores are 10% less likely to be recorded by nurses, and female patients spend an additional 30 min in the ED compared to male patients. A controlled experiment employing clinical vignettes reinforces our hypothesis, showing that nurses (N = 109) judge pain of female patients to be less intense than that of males. We argue that the findings reflect an undertreatment of female patients' pain. We discuss the troubling societal and medical implications of females' pain being overlooked and call for policy interventions to ensure equal pain treatment.

"Are you OK doctor?" An expanded health belief model exploration of doctors' experiences and perspectives of on-shift health behaviour.

PURPOSE: Understanding doctors' health beliefs is essential for developing effective and competent healthcare practices that benefit doctors and their patients. This study aimed to qualitatively explore doctors' perceptions of on-shift health-protective behaviours and their perceived effects on competence. METHODS: The research applied theoretically driven Expanded Health Belief Model (EHBM) enquiry methods to explore beliefs and experiences through an occupational context survey, 14 individual depth interviews, and two focus groups. Semantic and deductive themes associated with EHBM domains were examined, and an inductive thematic analysis of the interviews was conducted. RESULTS: Doctors' beliefs were strongly imbued by their perceived identity within the systemic context; they expressed impaired self-efficacy in reacting to their health needs on shift, and several disclosed harm to themselves and patients. Dominant themes included the psychosocial effects of the systemic culture and the influence of the situational occupational context in impacting health-protective behavioural action. The context and implications of experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents key belief-oriented factors influencing doctors' health-protective behaviour at work and its implications for competent practice. Further doctor-led guidance on focus points for evidence-based theoretically driven health improvement solutions is provided regarding operational practice, formulating policies, developing interventions and further research.

Demographic Representation of Generative Artificial Intelligence Images of Physicians.

This cross-sectional study compares the race and ethnicity and gender of images of physicians generated by artificial intelligence (AI) with US physician demographic characteristics.

Responding to Bias: Equipping Residents With Tools to Address Microaggressions.

Introduction: Resident physicians frequently experience bias at work, with patients and families often being the source. Women and other trainees underrepresented in medicine are disproportionately impacted by these negative experiences, and experiencing bias contributes to resident physician burnout. Unfortunately, many resident physicians feel inadequately prepared to respond to bias. Methods: We developed a 45-minute, peer-led, case-based workshop that equipped trainees with tools to respond to patient-expressed bias. Our toolkit centered on resident physicians by including an assessment of the trainee's emotional well-being, a team-based response, and an embedded debrief. The toolkit provided resident physicians with possible responses to bias directed towards themselves (bias-towards-self) or bias directed towards others (bias-towards-others). Surveys were administered pre- and postworkshop to assess change in participants' comfort in responding to patient-expressed bias. Results: Thirty-seven residents completed both surveys. The workshop significantly increased comfort in responding to bias-towards-self (p < .001; 95% CI, 1.00-1.50) and bias-towards-others (p < .001; 95% CI, 1.00-1.50). Discussion: We improved resident physicians' comfort responding to patient bias-towards-self and bias-towards-others through a toolkit and workshop designed specifically for trainees. The toolkit centers the resident physician perspective, incorporates clinical context, and embeds a debrief. Our novel approach situates the toolkit's teaching in a highly scalable, case-based workshop.

Clinician Knowledge and Attitudes About Climate Change and Health After a Quality Incentive Program.

Importance: Climate change is a fundamental threat to human health, and industries, including health care, must assess their respective contribution to this crisis. Objective: To assess the change in knowledge of clinicians who completed a quality incentive program (QIP) measure on climate change and health care sustainability and to examine clinician attitudes toward climate change and their perception of clinical and individual relevance. Design, Setting, and Participants: The participants in this survey study included employed physicians and psychologists who were part of a hospital physician organization in an academic medical center (AMC) in Boston, Massachusetts. The hospital physician organization provides a QIP with different measures every 6 months and provides incentive payments on completion. The study is based on a survey of participants on completion of a QIP measure focused on climate change and health care sustainability offered from July 2023 through September 2023 at the AMC. Exposure: Structured educational video modules. Main Outcomes and Measures: After completion of the modules, the participants reported their baseline and postintervention knowledge on climate change impacts on health and health care sustainability, perceived relevance of the material, and attitudes toward the modules using 5-point Likert scales and free-text comments. Data were analyzed using univariate and multivariable analyses including participant age, gender, and practice specialty. Results: Of the 2559 eligible clinicians, 2417 (94.5%) (mean [SD] age, 48.9 [11.5] years; range, 29-85 years; 1244 males [51.5%]) participated in the measure and completed the survey. Among these participants, 1767 (73.1%) thought the modules were relevant or very relevant to their lives and 1580 (65.4%) found the modules relevant or very relevant to their clinical practice. Age was not associated with responses. Practitioners in specialties classified as climate facing were more likely to think that the education was relevant to their clinical practice compared with those in non-climate-facing specialties (mean [SD] score, 3.76 [1.19] vs 3.61 [1.26]; P = .005). Practitioners identifying as female were also more likely to consider this education as relevant to their clinical practice compared with male practitioners (mean [SD] score, 3.82 [1.17] vs 3.56 [1.27]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, a high proportion of clinicians expressed positive attitudes toward education in climate change and health and health care sustainability, with some demographic and specialty variability. These data support that climate and health education in AMCs provides information that practitioners see as relevant and important.