Resilience, Well-being, and Empathy Among Private Practice Physicians and Advanced Practice Providers in Texas: A Structural Equation Model Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate structural relationships of latent constructs such as occupational wellbeing, resilience, work meaningfulness, and psychological empowerment with affective and cognitive clinical empathy among a community of physicians and advanced practice providers. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional observational study. We gathered data by an anonymous self-administered multidimensional questionnaire disseminated electronically between March and May 2016. Participants were physicians and advanced practice providers belonging to the Health Texas Provider Network, a group private practice affiliated with the Baylor Scott and White Health system. We excluded allied health care staff (eg, nurses) and trainees (eg, residents, medical students). We pursued a 3-step strategy: (1) confirmatory factor analysis of a theory-driven measurement model, (2) a modified structural equation model from which pathways with nonsignificant path coefficients were deleted, and (3) multigroup analyses of the modified model. RESULTS: Cognitive empathy was the strongest predictor of affective empathy. We observed modest positive associations of resilience with cognitive and affective empathy and of well-being and meaning with affective but not with cognitive empathy. Resilience, meaning, and psychological empowerment were surprisingly negatively associated with well-being, suggesting diminished self-care among practitioners. Effects of psychological empowerment on empathy and well-being were mediated by resilience and meaning. CONCLUSION: Cognitive empathy directly influenced affective empathy; well-being and meaningfulness exerted direct positive effects on affective but not on cognitive empathy, whereas resilience had direct positive associations with both empathy dimensions. Resilience and meaning manifested direct, negative associations with well-being, revealing clinicians' disproportionate focus on patient care at the expense of self-care.

Nonpharmacologic Pain Management Among Hospitalized Inpatients: A Randomized Waitlist-Controlled Trial of Standard Virtual Reality (CGI VR) Versus Video Capture VR (360 degrees 3D/Stereoscopic Video Capture VR).

OBJECTIVES: Nonpharmacologic pain management strategies are needed because of the growing opioid epidemic. While studies have examined the efficacy of virtual reality (VR) for pain reduction, there is little research in adult inpatient settings, and no studies comparing the relative efficacy of standard animated computer-generated imagery (CGI) VR to Video Capture VR (360 degrees 3D/stereoscopic Video Capture VR). Here, we report on a randomized controlled trial of the relative efficacy of standard CGI VR versus Video Capture VR (matched for content) and also compared the overall efficacy of VR to a waitlist control group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants (N=103 hospitalized inpatients reporting pain) were randomized to 1 of 3 conditions: (1) waitlist control, (2) CGI VR, or (3) Video Capture VR. The VR and waitlist conditions were 10 minutes in length. Outcomes were assessed pretreatment, post-treatment, and after a brief follow-up. RESULTS: Consistent with hypotheses, both VR conditions reduced pain significantly more relative to the waitlist control condition (d=1.60, P<0.001) and pain reductions were largely maintained at the brief follow-up assessment. Both VR conditions reduced pain by ∼50% and led to improvements in mood, anxiety, and relaxation. Contrary to prediction, the Video Capture VR condition was not significantly more effective at reducing pain relative to the CGI VR condition (d=0.25, P=0.216). However, as expected, patients randomized to the Video Capture VR rated their experience as more positive and realistic (d=0.78, P=0.002). DISCUSSION: Video Capture VR was as effective as CGI VR for pain reduction and was rated as more realistic.

Anxiety sensitivity, COVID-19 fear, and mental health: results from a United States population sample.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented consequences. Transdiagnostic factors, such as anxiety sensitivity, could be an important component to understand how individuals experience COVID-19 specific fear, depression and anxiety. A US representative sample (5,023) completed measures including the Anxiety Sensitivity Index-3, the Fear of COVID-19 Scale, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 and the Patient Health Questionnaire-8. Analyses controlled for age, sex, race, marital status, education level, working status, household income, and COVID-19 exposure. Results were consistent with prediction. First, higher ASI-3 Total scores were associated with above average COVID-19 fear (ß = 0.19). Second, the ASI-3 physical concerns subscale was the strongest predictor of COVID-19 fear; one SD increase on the ASI-3 physical concerns subscale was associated with almost a twofold risk of reaching above average levels of COVID-19 (OR = 1.93). Third, higher ASI-3 Total scores were associated with higher anxiety (ß = 0.22) and depression (ß = 0.20). Finally, COVID-19 fear mediated the relationship between ASI-3 Total scores and anxiety (17% of effect mediated) as well as ASI-3 Total scores and depression (16% of effect mediated). These data support the role of anxiety sensitivity in predicting fear of COVID-19 and resulting mental health.