Associations of clinical personnel characteristics and telemedicine practices.

CONTEXT: The use of telemedicine strategies has been increasing in the United States for more than a decade, with physicians taking advantage of this new tool to reach more patients. Determining the specific demographics of physicians utilizing telemedicine most in their practice can inform recommendations for expanded telemedicine use among all physicians and aid in mitigating the need for local physicians in urban and rural populations. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess the use of telemedicine by physicians in 2021, based on four demographics utilizing the National Electronic Health Record Survey (NEHRS): physician age, sex, specialty, and training. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of the 2021 NEHRS to determine the relationship between physician characteristics and telemedicine practices. Differences between groups were measured through design-based chi-square tests. RESULTS: Compared to male physicians, female physicians were more likely to utilize telemedicine services (X 2=8.0; p=0.005). Compared to younger physicians, those over the age of 50 were less likely to utilize telemedicine services (X 2=4.1; p=0.04). Compared to primary care physicians, medical and surgical specialty physicians were less likely to utilize telemedicine services, with surgical specialty physicians being the least likely overall (X 2=11.5; p<0.001). We found no significant differences in telemedicine use based on degree (Osteopathic and Allopathic). CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed a statistically significant difference between physician's age, sex, and specialty on telemedicine use in practice during 2021. Efforts to increase telemedicine use among physicians may be needed to provide more accessible care to patients. Thus, by increasing physician education on the importance of telemedicine for modern patients, more physicians may decide to utilize telemedicine services in practice.

Social determinants of health in patients with arthritis: a cross-sectional analysis of the 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

CONTEXT: Social determinants of health (SDOH) are economic, social, and political conditions that affect a person's overall health or the health of a group of people. Researchers have investigated the effects of SDOH on various diseases, such as asthma, obesity, and chronic stress, but few publications have been made regarding its effects on arthritis. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to analyze the implications of SDOH on disease severity relating to pain levels and limitations experienced among people with diagnosed arthritis. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). We included individuals who reported having arthritis, were over the age of 45, and who also completed the SDOH module. Pain scores from the four-question Arthritis Burden Module were correlated to question responses pertaining to SDOH to determine their associations. RESULTS: For the analysis, our sample size was 25,682, with response rates varying slightly among the SDOH questions. Individuals diagnosed with arthritis were more likely to report functional limitations if they experienced food insecurity (χ2=234.0, p<0.001), financial instability (χ2=149.7, p<0.001), or frequent stress (χ2=297.6, p<0.001). Further, we found that individuals with arthritis experiencing any domain of SDOH reported higher mean pain scores than those not experiencing that domain, with the highest pain score difference among those reporting frequent stress (Coefficient: 1.93, CI=1.74-2.13, t=19.43, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that SDOH profoundly impact pain levels and limitations experienced by patients with arthritis. Although work has already begun to help alleviate burdens associated with SDOH, more research and actions are required to create equitable health throughout the population.

Prevalence of depression among caregivers based on the condition and relationship of care recipient.

BACKGROUND: Caregiver distress is the strain experienced by individuals providing care for people with chronic conditions which limit their self-sufficiency for tasks of daily living. Over 1 in 5 Americans are caregivers-a number expected to increase with an aging population. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis using the 2021 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to determine rates of depressive disorders among caregivers and associations between demographic and relational aspects of the care recipient. RESULTS: The included sample size for analysis was 32,676, representing 17,274,935 US caregivers. We found that caregivers who were female, American Indian/Alaskan Native, race-not-listed, earning less than $15,000 a year, or did not complete high school, had higher rates of depression diagnosis. The rates of depression were higher among caregivers if the recipient had a mental or chronic respiratory condition, or if the recipient was their live-in partner. Rates of depression were lower for caregivers of their mother-in-law or spouse. LIMITATIONS: Results were based on self-reported survey data, which are susceptible to social desirability bias. Diagnoses of depression may also be over or under reported across several demographic variables, which may confound results. CONCLUSION: Our findings add to previous research showing that specific groups of caregivers are at higher risk for caregiver stress. Future qualitative research may elucidate underlying causes of depression among caregivers. Analysis into the risk factors for depression among caregivers is vital in providing effective therapeutic options for the caregiver.

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.

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on osteopathic education in ACGME-OR residencies from February 2020 to February 2021.

CONTEXT: It remains to be determined exactly how the COVID-19 pandemic has and will continue to impact osteopathic resident education, in particular as it pertains to treatment with osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM). Although the long-term effects of the pandemic cannot be determined yet, changes in current resident education can be analyzed. OBJECTIVES: Here, we describe how the format, frequency, and environment of OMM training have changed in residency programs from prior to February 2020 to the "lockdown" period of February 2020 to June 2020, and then to the "recovery" period of July 2020 to February 2021. METHODS: A 19-question survey inquiring about the above three categories was emailed via SurveyMonkey to 282 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) residency programs with osteopathic recognition at the end of January 2021. RESULTS: Of the 282 programs surveyed, 24.5% (69) responded. Osteopathic neuromusculoskeletal medicine (ONMM) programs were excluded from the data analysis, resulting in a modified sample size of n=60. Responses indicated that residency programs dramatically decreased the frequency of OMM didactic education sessions (100.0% [60] reported offering OMM didactic education before the lockdown period; compared to 73.3% [44] during the lockdown period) and shifted their educational programs from an in-person-only environment (88.3% [53] before lockdown; 8.3% [5] during lockdown) to either a combined in-person/virtual platform (6.7% [4] before lockdown; 31.7% [19] during lockdown) or to a virtual-only platform (0.0% [0] before lockdown; 46.7% [28] during lockdown). During the recovery period, 91.7% (55) programs reported giving some form of OMM didactic education. The percentage of programs reporting in-person-only, combined in-person/virtual platform, and virtual-only didactic education were 3.3% (2), 53.3% (32), and 41.7% (25), respectively, during the recovery period. The preferred method of instruction changed from a combination of resident and attending lectures with a hands-on component (55.0%; 33) before lockdown, to the same but without a hands-on component (28.3%; 17) during lockdown, and back to the same but with a hands-on component (36.7%; 22) during the recovery period. Furthermore, the number of programs offering OMM didactic education [OMM patient care] at least once a month decreased from 70.0% (42) [78.3% (47)] before the lockdown period to 46.7% (28) [48.3% (29)] during the lockdown period. It then increased to 55.0% (33) [73.3% (44)] during the recovery period. Finally, before the lockdown period, programs offered OMM patient care predominantly in a combination of an inpatient/outpatient environment (63.3%; 38). The preferred patient care setting changed to an outpatient-only environment (43.3%; 26) during the lockdown period and then back to a combination of an inpatient/outpatient environment (45.0%; 27) during the recovery period. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that programs have been dramatically impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, by the augmentation of the osteopathic learning environment, and by the delivery of OMM to patient care within the training programs. These impacts were still present 1 year after the start of the pandemic. It will be imperative for ACGME Osteopathic Recognition (ACGME-OR) programs to continue an assessment of these impacts on resident physicians' learning and preparedness.

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.