Search

More than sixty-one million Americans have disabilities, and increasing evidence documents that they experience health care disparities. Although many factors likely contribute to these disparities, one little-studied but potential cause involves physicians' perceptions of people with disability. In our survey of 714 practicing US physicians nationwide, 82.4 percent reported that people with significant disability have worse quality of life than nondisabled people. Only 40.7 percent of physicians were very confident about their ability to provide the same quality of care to patients with disability, just 56.5 percent strongly agreed that they welcomed patients with disability into their practices, and 18.1 percent strongly agreed that the health care system often treats these patients unfairly. More than thirty years after the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was enacted, these findings about physicians' perceptions of this population raise questions about ensuring equitable care to people with disability. Potentially biased views among physicians could contribute to persistent health care disparities affecting people with disability.

**Objective:** To evaluate whether “Don’t Know” (DK) responses conveyed meaningful information when provided by oncologists in a national survey on medicinal cannabis (MC). **Study Setting:** This study is a secondary analysis of national survey data (n=237) collected between November 2016 and January 2017. **Methods:** The national survey asked oncologists about views regarding MC’s risks/benefits, and whether they had sufficient knowledge to make MC recommendations clinically. Cognitive testing of the survey instrument (n=5) suggested that physicians did not always feel that they possessed adequate MC knowledge in all domains, so DKs were added to six of 27 survey items. (Three items were batteries of questions while three were single questions.) We constructed bar graphs for the sum of DK responses in each battery and for the sum of all DK responses in the survey. Mann-Whitney tests compared medians for all DK responses within Yes/No responses to the sufficient knowledge question. **Principal Findings:** Statistically significant associations between DK responses and the sufficient knowledge question indicate that DK answers improved data quality by providing all respondents with an answer category that they feel fits their “true” answer. Associations between DK answers and other background variables such as respondents’ age, sex, and race are also discussed. The logistic regressions found that possessing sufficient knowledge was the only variable significant across six of the nine regressions, and the direction was consistent with the bivariate findings. **Conclusion:** In this study, DKs appear to be valid responses, improving data quality by providing some respondents with an answer category that best fits their “true” answer. Future surveys aiming to learn about physicians’ views regarding emerging treatments might consider including the DK response option in some items.

Objectives To better understand patients' and pharmacists' preferences for and experiences with changes in pill appearance (size, shape, color, and markings). Study design Cross-sectional. Methods We conducted independent national surveys of patients 50 years and older taking generic drugs for depression, diabetes, epilepsy, HIV, hyperlipidemia, or hypertension and of licensed pharmacists practicing in chain, franchise, or independent pharmacies. Responses were collected between January and April 2016. Results Of 1000 patient respondents (30% response rate), most reported experiencing changes in pill appearance (51%) and preferred to be notified about them (82%), but less than half recalled being notified (verbally: 36%; via sticker: 45%). Among patients who reported experiencing a change, 12% reported stopping their medication or using it less frequently. Of 710 pharmacist respondents (33% response rate), many reported changes in pill appearance occurring frequently in their pharmacies (47% reported that changes occurred 6 or more times per month) and more than three-fourths reported notifying patients about them often (verbally: 88%; via sticker: 77%). Conclusions Our findings reveal opportunities to improve patients' experiences with pill appearance changes through better notification practices and patient education.

Objective To explore attitudes and practices of physicians relating to accessible medical diagnostic equipment in serving patients with mobility disability. Design Open-ended individual telephone interviews, which reached data saturation. Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim for qualitative conventional content analysis. Setting Massachusetts, the United States, October 2017-January 2018. Participants Practicing physicians from 5 clinical specialties (N=20). Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures Common themes concerning physical accessibility. Results Mean ± SD time in practice was 27.5±12.5 years; 14 practices had height-adjustable examination tables; and 7 had wheelchair-accessible weight scales. The analysis identified 6 broad themes: height-adjustable examination tables have advantages; height-adjustable examination tables have drawbacks; transferring patients onto examination tables is challenging; rationale for examining patients in their wheelchairs; perceptions of wheelchair-accessible weight scales; and barriers and facilitators to improving physical accessibility. Major barriers identified by participants included costs of equipment, limited space, and inadequate payment for extra time required to care for persons with disability. Even physicians with accessible examination tables sometimes examined patients seated in their wheelchairs. Conclusions Even if physicians have accessible equipment, they do not always use it in examining patients with disability. Future efforts will need to consider ways to eliminate these access barriers in clinical practice. Given small sample size, results are not generalizable to physicians nationwide and globally.

Importance Despite documented disparities in health care for patients with significant vision impairments and legal mandates that patients with disability receive equitable care, little is known about the extent to which physicians practicing in the US accommodate these patients in outpatient clinical settings. Objective To empirically explore the extent of basic accommodations physicians practicing in the US provide to patients with significant vision limitations in outpatient care. Design, Setting, and Participants In this physician survey study, randomly selected physicians were surveyed throughout the US on their attitudes toward patients with disability. A total of 1400 randomly selected active board-certified physicians representing 7 specialties (family medicine, general internal medicine, rheumatology, neurology, ophthalmology, orthopedic surgery, and obstetrics-gynecology) were surveyed. Data were collected from October 2019 to June 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures Reported use of basic accommodations when caring for patients with significant vision limitations (defined here as blind or significant difficulty seeing even with glasses or other corrective lenses). Physicians’ accommodation performance was assessed based on whether they always or usually described the clinic space and always or usually provided printed material in large font. Use of Braille materials was reported too rarely to include in analyses. Results Of the 462 survey participants, 297 of 457 (65.0%) were male. The weighted response rate was 61.0%. Only 48 physicians (9.1%; 95% CI, 6.6-12.3) provided both accommodations (always or usually describing clinic spaces and providing large-font materials), while 267 (60.2%; 95% CI, 55.3-65.0) provided neither of these accommodations. Although 62.8% (95% CI, 57.5-67.8; n = 245) of nonophthalmologists did not provide either accommodation, 29.3% (95% CI, 20.1-40.7; n = 22) of ophthalmologists also did not do so; only 24.0% (95% CI, 15.6-35.0; n = 18) of ophthalmologists provided both accommodations compared with 8.4% (95% CI, 5.4-12.7) of other physicians. Conclusions and Relevance This survey study suggests that less than one-tenth of physicians practicing in the US who care for patients with significant vision limitations usually or always describe clinic spaces or provide large-font materials, and less than one-third of ophthalmologists do so. Actions to address this seem warranted.

Background Mobility limitations are the most common disability type among the 61 million Americans with disability. Studies of patients with mobility limitations suggest that inaccessible medical diagnostic equipment poses significant barriers to care. Methods The study team surveyed randomly selected US physicians nationwide representing seven specialties about their reported use of accessible weight scales and exam tables/chairs when caring for patients with mobility limitations. A descriptive analysis of responses was performed, and multivariable logistic regression was used to examine associations between accessible equipment and participants’ characteristics. Results The 714 participants (survey response rate = 61.0%) were primarily male, White, and urban, and had practiced for 20 or more years. Among those reporting routinely recording patients’ weights (n = 399), only 22.6% (standard error [SE] = 2.2) reported always or usually using accessible weight scales for patients with significant mobility limitations. To determine weights of patients with mobility limitations, 8.1% always, 24.3% usually, and 40.0% sometimes asked patients. Physicians practicing ≥ 20 years were much less likely than other physicians to use accessible weight scales: odds ratio (OR) = 0.51 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.26–0.99). Among participants seeing patients with significant mobility limitations (n = 584), only 40.3% (SE = 2.2) always or usually used accessible exam tables or chairs. Specialists were much more likely than primary care physicians to use accessible exam tables/chairs: OR = 1.96 (95% CI = 1.29–2.99). Conclusion More than 30 years after enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act, most physicians surveyed do not use accessible equipment for routine care of patients with chronic significant mobility limitations.

PURPOSE: There is a need to improve the coordination of care and communication between primary care physicians (PCPs) and oncology after completion of initial cancer treatment. We sought to evaluate PCP experiences and perspectives in cancer survivorship and to identify practical opportunities to improve care within an integrated health care system with a shared electronic health record (EHR). METHODS: We conducted a self-administered, anonymous, electronic survey of PCPs in practices affiliated with an academic medical center to evaluate practices, the sense of preparedness, and preferences in the delivery of survivorship care and communication with oncology. RESULTS: One hundred seventeen of 225 PCPs responded (response rate, 52%). A majority were engaged in survivorship care, with 94% reporting managing psychological sequelae of cancer, 84% managing chronic physical complications, 71% screening for cancer recurrence, and 60% screening for late complications. However, few PCPs felt prepared to manage these issues: 65% felt unprepared to screen for late complications, and 36% felt unprepared to screen for recurrence. Common barriers to survivorship care were uncertainty about delegation of responsibility (73%) and a lack of training (72%). PCPs expressed strong interest in survivorship care plans, preferring active tracking of ongoing care needs and delegation of care responsibility in the EHR active problem list over traditional summary documents. CONCLUSION: Most PCPs are engaged in cancer survivorship care but report barriers to optimal care delivery. Opportunities to improve care could include targeted education to increase preparedness to deliver survivorship care, and optimization of communication among providers, including active survivorship care plans in the EHR.

BACKGROUND: Generic versions of a drug can vary in appearance, which can impact adherence. OBJECTIVE: To assess the preferences, perceptions, and responses of patients who experienced a change in the appearance of a generic medication. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of patients from a large commercial health plan. PARTICIPANTS: Adults receiving generic versions of lisinopril, fluoxetine, lamotrigine, or simvastatin who experienced a change in the color or shape of their pills between March 2014 and November 2015. MAIN MEASURES: Likert-scale responses to questions concerning perceptions of generic drug safety and effectiveness, reliance on and preferences for pill appearance, and responses to pill appearance changes. Multivariable logistic regression-modeled predictors of seeking advice and adjusting use following a pill appearance change. KEY RESULTS: Of 814 respondents (response rate = 41%), 72% relied on pill appearance to ensure they took the correct medication. A similar percentage wanted their pills to remain the same color (72%), shape (71%), and size (75%) upon refill, but 58% would not have paid a $1 premium on a $5 co-pay to ensure such consistency. Most respondents (86%) wanted their pharmacists to notify them about pill appearance changes, but only 37% recalled such notification; 21% thought they received the wrong medication, and 8% adjusted medication use. Younger respondents (18–33 vs. 50–57 years) were more likely to seek advice (odds ratio [OR] = 1.91; 95% confidence interval [CI],1.02–3.59), and respondents with lower household income ( $100,000) were more likely to adjust medication use (OR = 3.40; 95% CI,1.09–10.67). CONCLUSIONS: Requiring uniform pill appearance may help increase adherence but presents challenges. Standardized pharmacy notification and education policies may be a more feasible short-term solution. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11606-018-4791-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act, part of the Affordable Care Act, requires pharmaceutical and medical device firms to report payments they make to physicians and, through its Open Payments program, makes this information publicly available. To establish estimates of the exposure of the American patient population to physicians who accept industry payments, to compare these population-based estimates to physician-based estimates of industry contact, and to investigate Americans’ awareness of industry payments. Cross-sectional survey conducted in late September and early October 2014, with data linkage of respondents’ physicians to Open Payments data. A total of 3542 adults drawn from a large, nationally representative household panel. Respondents’ contact with physicians reported in Open Payments to have received industry payments; respondents’ awareness that physicians receive payments from industry and that payment information is publicly available; respondents’ knowledge of whether their own physician received industry payments. Among the 1987 respondents who could be matched to a specific physician, 65% saw a physician who had received an industry payment during the previous 12 months. This population-based estimate of exposure to industry contact is much higher than physician-based estimates from the same period, which indicate that 41% of physicians received an industry payment. Across the six most frequently visited specialties, patient contact with physicians who had received an industry payment ranged from 60 to 85%; the percentage of physicians with industry contact in these specialties was much lower (35–56%). Only 12% of survey respondents knew that payment information was publicly available, and only 5% knew whether their own doctor had received payments. Patients’ contact with physicians who receive industry payments is more prevalent than physician-based measures of industry contact would suggest. Very few Americans know whether their own doctor has received industry payments or are aware that payment information is publicly available.

Drug Safety Communications (DSCs) are used by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to inform health care providers, patients, caregivers, and the general public about safety issues related to FDA-approved drugs. To assess patient knowledge of the messaging contained in DSCs related to the sleep aids zolpidem and eszopiclone, we conducted a large, cross-sectional patient survey of 1,982 commercially insured patients selected by stratified random sampling from the Optum Research Database who had filled at least two prescriptions for either zolpidem or eszopiclone between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013. Among the 594 respondents (32.7% response rate), two-thirds reported hearing generally about drug safety information prior to starting a new drug, with the remaining one-third “rarely” or “never” hearing such information. Providers and pharmacists were primary sources of drug safety information. Two-thirds of zolpidem users and half of eszopiclone users reported having heard about the related DSC messages, ability to accurately identify the major factual messages was limited (overall median 2 correct out of 5, with men and those reporting higher educational level scoring higher [2/5 vs. 1/5, p=0.001]). Respondents reacted to new drug safety information about their sleep aids by reporting that they would want to learn about alternative ways to help them sleep (70%) and seek out more information about the safety of their specific sleeping pill (59-78%). Opportunities may exist for the FDA to work with providers and pharmacies to help ensure the DSC information is more widely received and is more fully understood by those taking the affected medications.

Over 84 % of all prescriptions in the US are filled as generic drugs, though in prior surveys, patients reported concerns about their quality.We aimed to survey patients' perceptions and use of generic drugs.Our survey (administered August 2014) assessed patients' skepticism about generic drug safety and effectiveness and how often they requested brand-name drugs. Chi-square tests and two-sample t-tests assessed associations between patient demographics and the outcomes.Our sample frame was the CVS Advisor Panel, a national database of 124,621 CVS customers. We randomly selected 1450 patients with self-reported chronic conditions who filled at least one prescription in the prior 3 months.We assessed how often patients reported asking their physicians to prescribe a brand-name over a generic drug in the last year, and "generic skepticism," defined as not believing generic drugs were as safe, effective, had the same side effects, and contained the same active ingredients as brand-name drugs.Of the 1,442 patients with valid addresses, 933 responded (65 % response rate) and 753 took the full survey. A vast majority (83 %) agreed that physicians should prescribe generic drugs when available, and 54 % said they had not asked their physicians to prescribe a brand-name drug over a generic in the past year. Most respondents considered generic drugs to be as effective (87 %) and safe (88 %) as their brand-name counterparts, and to have the same side effects (80 %) and active ingredients (84 %). Non-Caucasians were more likely than Caucasians to request a brand-name drug over a generic (56 % vs. 43 %, p 0.01), and were also more skeptical of generic drugs' clinical equivalence (43 % vs. 29 %, p 0.01).We found a substantial shift towards more patients having positive views of generic drugs, but lingering negative perceptions will have to be overcome to ensure continued cost-savings and improved patient outcomes from generic drugs.

Background Although almost every state medical marijuana (MM) law identifies cancer as a qualifying condition, little research supports MM’s use in oncology. We hypothesized that the discrepancy between these laws and the scientific evidence base poses clinical challenges for oncologists. Oncologists’ beliefs, knowledge, and practices regarding MM were examined in this study. Methods In November 2016, we mailed a survey on MM to a nationally-representative, random sample of 400 medical oncologists. Main outcome measures included whether oncologists reported discussing MM with patients, recommended MM clinically in the past year, or felt sufficiently informed to make such recommendations. The survey also queried oncologists’ views on MM’s comparative effectiveness for several conditions (including its use as an adjunct to standard pain management strategies) and its risks compared with prescription opioids. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed using standard statistical techniques. Results The overall response rate was 63%. Whereas only 30% of oncologists felt sufficiently informed to make recommendations regarding MM, 80% conducted discussions about MM with patients, and 46% recommended MM clinically. Sixty-seven percent viewed it as a helpful adjunct to standard pain management strategies, and 65% thought MM is equally or more effective than standard treatments for anorexia and cachexia. Conclusion Our findings identify a concerning discrepancy between oncologists’ self-reported knowledge base and their beliefs and practices regarding MM. Although 70% of oncologists do not feel equipped to make clinical recommendations regarding MM, the vast majority conduct discussions with patients about MM and nearly one-half do, in fact, recommend it clinically. A majority believes MM is useful for certain indications. These findings are clinically important and suggest critical gaps in research, medical education, and policy regarding MM.

Background To assess mentorship experiences among the faculty of a large academic department of medicine and to examine how those experiences relate to academic advancement and job satisfaction. Methods Among faculty members in the Massachusetts General Hospital Department of Medicine, we assessed personal and professional characteristics as well as job satisfaction and examined their relationship with two mentorship dimensions: (1) currently have a mentor and (2) role as a mentor. We also developed a mentorship quality score and examined the relationship of each mentorship variable to academic advancement and job satisfaction. Results 553/988 (56.0%) of eligible participants responded. 64.9% reported currently having a mentor, of whom 21.3% provided their mentor a low quality score; 66.6% reported serving as a mentor to others. Faculty with a current mentor had a 3.50-fold increased odds of serving as a mentor to others (OR 3.50, 95% CI 1.84–6.67, p

BACKGROUND: Michigan’s approach to Medicaid expansion, the Healthy Michigan Plan (HMP), emphasizes primary care, prevention, and incentives for patients and primary care practitioners (PCPs). OBJECTIVE: Assess PCPs’ perspectives about the impact of HMP on their patients and practices. DESIGN: In 2014–2015, we conducted semi-structured interviews then a statewide survey of PCPs. SETTING: Interviewees came from varied types of practices in five Michigan regions selected for racial/ethnic diversity and a mix of rural and urban settings. Surveys were sent via mail. PARTICIPANTS: Interviewees were physician (n = 16) and non-physician practitioners (n = 3). All Michigan PCPs caring for ≥ 12 HMP enrollees were surveyed (response rate 55.5%, N = 2104). MEASUREMENTS: PCPs’ experiences with HMP patients and recent changes in their practices. RESULTS: Interviews include examples of the impact of Medicaid expansion on patients and practices. A majority of surveyed PCPs reported recent increases in new patients (52.3%) and patients who had not seen a PCP in many years (56.2%). For previously uninsured patients, PCPs reported positive impact on control of chronic conditions (74.4%), early detection of serious illness (71.1%), medication adherence (69.1%), health behaviors (56.5%), emotional well-being (57.0%), and the ability to work, attend school, or live independently (41.5%). HMP patients reportedly still had more difficulty than privately insured patients accessing some services. Most PCPs reported that their practices had, in the past year, hired clinicians (53.2%) and/or staff (57.5%); 15.4% had colocated mental health care. Few (15.8%) reported established patients’ access to urgent appointments worsened. LIMITATIONS: PCP reports of patient experiences may not be accurate. Results reflect the experiences of PCPs with ≥ 12 Medicaid patients. Differences between respondents and non-respondents present the possibility for response bias. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs reported improved patient access to care, medication adherence, chronic condition management, and detection of serious illness. Established patients’ access did not diminish, perhaps due to reported practice changes. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11606-018-4487-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Small changes in bioavailability of narrow therapeutic index (NTI) drugs can alter clinical outcomes, raising concern over generic NTI substitution. We surveyed pharmacists to identify their perceptions of generic NTI drugs, their frequency of performing generic NTI substitution, and predictors of this behavior. Of 710 respondents (33% response rate), 87% perceived generic NTI drugs as effective as their brand-name versions and 94% as safe. Whereas 82% almost always performed generic NTI substitution for initial prescriptions, only 60% did for refills. Pharmacists in non-chain settings (odds ratio (OR) = 2.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.40-4.02), in practice longer (per year OR = 1.04; 95% CI = 1.02-1.06), in states with affirmative patient consent laws (OR = 1.88; 95% CI = 1.06-3.32), and in states with NTI-specific substitution requirements (OR = 1.95; 95% CI = 1.16-3.26) were more likely not to substitute initial prescriptions. Education of non-chain and veteran pharmacists and elimination of affirmative patient consent and NTI-specific substitution requirements could increase generic NTI substitution.

The US Food and Drug Administration uses drug safety communications (DSCs) to release emerging information regarding post-market safety issues, but it is unclear the extent of awareness by patients and providers of these communications and their specific recommendations. We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients and physicians to evaluate their awareness and understanding of emerging drug safety information related to two sleep aids: zolpidem or eszopiclone. We conducted interviews with 40 patients and ten physicians recruited from a combination of insurer claims databases and online sources. We evaluated (1) sources of drug safety information; (2) discussions between patients and physicians about the two medications; (3) their knowledge of the DSC; and (4) preferences for learning about future drug safety information. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed thematically. Patients cited their physicians, pharmacy inserts, and the Internet as sources of drug safety information. Physicians often referred to medical journals and online medical sources. Most patients reported being aware of information contained in the DSC summaries they were read. Almost all patients and physicians reported discussing side effects during patient-provider conversations, but almost no patients mentioned that physicians had communicated with them key messaging from the DSCs at issue: the risk of next-morning impairment with zolpidem and the lower recommended initial dose for women. Some risks of medications are effectively communicated to patients and physicians; however, there is still a noticeable gap between information issued by the Food and Drug Administration and patient and physician awareness of this knowledge, as well as patients’ decisions to act on this information. Disseminators of emerging drug safety information should explore ways of providing user-friendly resources to patients and healthcare professionals that can update them on new risks in a timely manner.

Purpose: We evaluated whether primary care physicians (PCPs) from urban and rural practices differ on attitudes and behaviors related to quality improvement (QI) activities, patient relationships, and professionalism/self-regulation. Methods: Data from a national survey that assessed physician attitudes and behaviors based on the Physician Charter on Medical Professionalism were used. Of the 1,891 survey respondents, N = 840 were PCPs (n = 274 family medicine (response rate = 67.5%); n = 257 general internal medicine (60.8%); and n = 309 pediatricians (72.7%)). Using Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes, PCPs were classified as urban and rural according to their practice ZIP code. Findings: A total of n = 691 physicians were urban and n = 127 rural. Attitudes regarding participating in QI did not differ by practice location; however, rural PCPs were more likely to have reviewed an other physician’s records for QI than urban PCPs (65.6% vs 48.0%, P < .001). Rural physicians were more likely to agree that physicians should talk with their patients about the cost of care than urban PCPs (40.5% vs 29.2%, P = .02). While all PCPs endorsed attitudes regarding the importance of professional behaviors (eg, reporting impaired/incompetent colleagues, disclosing medical errors) at generally similar levels, their behaviors differed. More rural physicians had a personal knowledge of an impaired/incompetent physician than urban physicians (20.7% vs 12.7%, P = .02). Conclusions: PCPs from rural and urban areas share similar attitudes regarding the importance of participating in QI and fulfilling professional responsibilities. However, certain behaviors (eg, knowledge of impaired colleagues) do differ. These results should be confirmed in larger studies of rural PCPs.

Background Resident physicians are the direct care providers for many patients with addiction. This study assesses residents’ self-perceived preparedness to diagnose and treat addiction, measures residents’ perceptions of the quality of addictions instruction, and evaluates basic knowledge of addictions. Methods A survey was e-mailed to 184 internal medicine residents at Massachusetts General Hospital in May 2012. Results Responses were obtained from 55% of residents. Residents estimated that 26% of inpatients they cared for met criteria for a substance use disorder (SUD). Twenty-five percent of residents felt unprepared to diagnose and 62% felt unprepared to treat addiction. Only 13% felt very prepared to diagnose addiction. No residents felt very prepared to treat addiction. Preparedness to diagnose or treat addiction did not differ significantly across postgraduate year (PGY) level. Fifty-five percent rated the overall instruction in addictions as poor or fair. Seventy-two percent of residents rated the quality of addictions training as poor or fair in the outpatient clinical setting, and 56% in the inpatient setting. No resident answered all 6 knowledge questions correctly. Slightly more than half correctly identified the mechanism of buprenorphine and 19% correctly answered a question about naltrexone. Nine percent of residents responded that someone had expressed concern about the respondent's substance use. Conclusions Despite providing care for a substantial population with addiction, the majority of internal medicine residents in this study feel unprepared to treat SUDs. More than half rate the quality of addictions instruction as fair or poor. Structured and comprehensive addictions curriculum and faculty development are needed to address the deficiencies of the current training system.

Background Generic drugs are cost-effective versions of brand-name drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) following proof of pharmaceutical equivalence and bioequivalence. Generic drugs are widely prescribed by physicians, although there is disagreement over the clinical comparability of generic drugs to brand-name drugs within the physician community. The objective of this survey was to assess physicians' perceptions of generic drugs and the generic drug approval process. Methods and Findings A survey was administered to a national sample of primary care internists and specialists between August 2014 and January 2015. In total, 1,152 physicians comprising of internists with no reported specialty certification and those with specialty certification in hematology, infectious diseases, and endocrinology were surveyed. The survey assessed physicians’ perceptions of the FDA’s generic drug approval process, as well as their experiences prescribing six generic drugs approved between 2008 and 2012 using product-specific approval pathways and selected comparator drugs. Among 718 respondents (62% response rate), a majority were comfortable with the FDA’s process in ensuring the safety and effectiveness of generic drugs overall (91%) and with letting the FDA determine which tests were necessary to determine bioequivalence in a particular drug (92%). A minority (13–26%) still reported being uncomfortable prescribing generic drugs approved using product-specific pathways. Overall, few physicians heard reports of concerns about generic versions of the study drugs or their comparators, with no differences between the two groups. Physicians tended to hear about concerns about the safety or effectiveness of generic drugs from patients, pharmacists, and physician colleagues. Conclusions Physicians hold largely positive views of the FDA's generic drug approval process even when some questioned the performance of certain generic drugs in comparison to brand-name drugs. Better education about the generic drug approval process and standards may alleviate concerns among the physician community and support the delivery of cost-effective health care.

Article-at-a-Glance Background An appreciation of how human factors affect patient safety has led to development of safety climate surveys and recommendations that hospitals regularly assess safety attitudes among caregivers. A better understanding of variation in patient safety climate across units within hospitals would facilitate internal efforts to improve safety climate. A study was conducted to assess the extent and nature of variation in safety climate across units within an academic medical center. Methods The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Hospital Survey of Patient Safety was administered in 2008 to all nurses and attending physicians (N = 4,283) in a 900-bed acute care hospital (overall response rate, 69% [n = 2,961]). Responses were analyzed from the 2,163 physicians and nurses (73% of respondents) who could be assigned to one specific clinical unit. Results were examined for 57 units, categorized into six types. Results Ratings of various safety climate domains differed markedly across the 57 units, with the percentage reporting a safety grade of excellent ranging from 0% to 50%. The overall percentage of positive ratings was lower for the operating and emergency unit types than for inpatient medical and other clinical units. Even within the six unit types, substantial variation across individual units was evident. Unlike previous findings, physicians reported more negative ratings than nurses for some safety climate dimensions. Conclusions Safety climate may vary markedly within hospitals. Assessments of safety climate and educational and other interventions should anticipate considerable variation across units within individual hospitals. Furthermore, clinicians at individual hospitals may offer different relative perceptions of the safety climate than their professional peers at other hospitals.

Background Maintenance of appropriate boundaries in the doctor-patient relationship is central to medical professionalism. Little is known about physician attitudes toward personal relationships with patients. Objective To explore physician attitudes toward a range of personal relationships with patients and the connection between them and other facets of professional behavior. Research design National survey by mail using a stratified random sample. Subjects Active physicians specializing in internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, cardiology, surgery, and anesthesiology. Measures Respondents rated the appropriateness of social, business, and sexual contacts with patients and expressed level of agreement with statements regarding other aspects of medical professionalism relating to patient welfare and professional self-regulation. Endorsement of relationships was dichotomized as never versus rarely, sometimes, often, or always appropriate. Results A total of 1662 eligible physicians responded of 3504 sampled (adjusted response rate: 58%). Support was high for social relations (91%), somewhat less for business relations (65%), and low for sexual contact (9%). Women, nonwhites, and foreign medical school graduates were less likely to support all 3 relationships. Support for sensitive relationships was associated with rejection of the primacy of patient welfare over physician financial interests (P = 0.015), providing care to indigent patients (P = 0.010), reporting medical errors (P = 0.002), and participating in peer evaluations (P = 0.002). Conclusion Physicians may perceive different types of relations with patients to fall on a continuum of potential for conflict with their professional role. Support for personal relationships was associated with physician demographic characteristics. More permissive interpersonal boundaries may be associated with weaker support for other professional standards.

e18612Background: Novel cancer research frequently involves storage of biospecimens for future use. However, ethical questions related to collection, control, and use of stored tissue persist. We s...

Some hospitals that disproportionately care for poor patients are falling behind in adopting electronic health records (EHRs). Data from a national survey indicate early evidence of an emerging digital divide: U.S. hospitals that provide care to large numbers of poor patients also had minimal use of EHRs. These same hospitals lagged others in quality performance as well, but those with EHR systems seemed to have eliminated the quality gap. These findings suggest that adopting EHRs should be a major policy goal of health reform measures targeting hospitals that serve large populations of poor patients.

BACKGROUND Electronic health records have the potential to improve the delivery of health care services. However, in the United States, physicians have been slow to adopt such systems. This study assessed physicians' adoption of outpatient electronic health records, their satisfaction with such systems, the perceived effect of the systems on the quality of care, and the perceived barriers to adoption. METHODS In late 2007 and early 2008, we conducted a national survey of 2758 physicians, which represented a response rate of 62%. Using a definition for electronic health records that was based on expert consensus, we determined the proportion of physicians who were using such records in an office setting and the relationship between adoption and the characteristics of individual physicians and their practices. RESULTS Four percent of physicians reported having an extensive, fully functional electronic-records system, and 13% reported having a basic system. In multivariate analyses, primary care physicians and those practicing in large groups, in hospitals or medical centers, and in the western region of the United States were more likely to use electronic health records. Physicians reported positive effects of these systems on several dimensions of quality of care and high levels of satisfaction. Financial barriers were viewed as having the greatest effect on decisions about the adoption of electronic health records. CONCLUSIONS Physicians who use electronic health records believe such systems improve the quality of care and are generally satisfied with the systems. However, as of early 2008, electronic systems had been adopted by only a small minority of U.S. physicians, who may differ from later adopters of these systems.

Relationships between physicians and pharmaceutical, medical device, and other medically related industries have received considerable attention in recent years. We surveyed physicians to collect information about their financial associations with industry and the factors that predict those associations.We conducted a national survey of 3167 physicians in six specialties (anesthesiology, cardiology, family practice, general surgery, internal medicine, and pediatrics) in late 2003 and early 2004. The raw response rate for this probability sample was 52%, and the weighted response rate was 58%.Most physicians (94%) reported some type of relationship with the pharmaceutical industry, and most of these relationships involved receiving food in the workplace (83%) or receiving drug samples (78%). More than one third of the respondents (35%) received reimbursement for costs associated with professional meetings or continuing medical education, and more than one quarter (28%) received payments for consulting, giving lectures, or enrolling patients in trials. Cardiologists were more than twice as likely as family practitioners to receive payments. Family practitioners met more frequently with industry representatives than did physicians in other specialties, and physicians in solo, two-person, or group practices met more frequently with industry representatives than did physicians practicing in hospitals and clinics.The results of this national survey indicate that relationships between physicians and industry are common and underscore the variation among such relationships according to specialty, practice type, and professional activities.

Objective The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education measures surgical residents’ experience in the United States by mandating that residents log each procedure in which they have participated. This system is the primary mechanism by which breadth and depth of surgical training are documented, and data are used for program accreditation and by individual program directors to assess resident preparedness. The study objective was to learn from residents across surgical specialties how this system is being used, and whether they believe these data are reliable. Design Investigators developed and administered a voluntary, 45-item survey. Resident demographic data, program details, logging behaviors, and attitudes were examined using descriptive statistics. Authors used multivariate logistic regression to assess respondent and program characteristics associated with logging habits. Setting The survey was administered at a large academic medical center. Participants All general surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, orthopedics, urology, neurosurgery, otolaryngology, and plastic surgery residents were eligible. Of 126 surgical residents, 82 participated, yielding a response rate of 65%. Results Overall, 7.5% considered the case log system highly inaccurate, 28.8% somewhat inaccurate, 52.5% somewhat accurate, and 11.3% highly accurate. Nearly half (48.1%) use an incorrect metric to log their role as surgeon or assistant. Half logged monthly or less frequently. The longest time residents reported falling behind ranged from less than a week to more than a year, with about half (51.4%) reporting backlogs of 3 months or longer. Approximately two-thirds considered the system difficult to navigate (64.2%) and burdensome (68.8%). Departmental training and reminders to log were associated with high fidelity logging habits. Conclusions Inconsistency of logging habits and perceived lack of accuracy raise concerns about use of the system for assessing surgical preparedness or accrediting training programs. Academic departments playing an active role may benefit from more reliable data to guide improvements in surgical training.

For the past decade, more attention and concern has been directed toward financial relationships between the life science industry and physicians. Relationships between industry and institutional review board (IRB) members represent an important subclass that has the potential to broadly influence decisions regarding medical research.To study the nature, extent, and perceived consequences of industry relationships among IRB members in academic health centers and to compare our results with findings from 2005.A survey mailed to IRB members from the 115 most research-intensive medical schools and teaching hospitals in the United States from January 16 through May 16, 2014. The survey included questions identical to those used in 2005. Data analysis was conducted from June through October 2014.The frequency of industry relationships among IRB members and the perceived effect of those relationships on IRB-related activities.We found no significant change in the percentage of IRB members with an industry relationship from 2005 through 2014 (2005: 37.2%; 95% CI, 32.7%-42.0%; 2014: 32.1%; 95% CI, 28.0%-36.4%; P = .09). However, since 2005, the percentage of members who felt another member did not properly disclose a financial relationship decreased from 10.8% (95% CI, 8.0%-14.4%) to 6.7% (95% CI, 4.7%-9.4%) (P = .04), as did the percentage who felt pressure from their institution or department to approve a protocol (2005: 18.6%; 95% CI, 15.0%-22.9%; 2014: 10.0%; 95% CI, 7.6%-13.0%; P .001). The percentage of members with a conflict of interest who voted on protocols with which they have a conflict has not changed, although the percentage who said they always disclose relationships increased significantly from 54.9% in 2005 (95% CI, 42.2%-66.9%) to 80.0% in 2014 (95% CI, 65.3%-89.4%) (P = .01). We also found evidence of anti-industry bias in the presentation of protocols to the IRB.The results show significant positive progress in the reporting and management of conflicts of interest among IRB members in academic health centers since 2005 after adjusting for other factors. Additional attention should be focused on deterring IRB members from inappropriately voting on or presenting protocols in a biased manner.

Purpose. To understand the effect of market competition on patient-oriented research at U.S. medical schools and teaching hospitals. Method. From a multi-stage stratified, random sample, the authors surveyed 3,804 research faculty at 117 U.S. medical schools. The questionnaire assessed five variables, the type of research conducted by the respondent, changes in patient-oriented and non-clinical research in the preceding three years, amount of time spent on patient care, market stage of the respondent's institution, and research productivity. Results. Of the 2,336 faculty who responded (62%), 84% of those conducting patient-oriented research and 80% of those engaged in non-clinical research reported conducting the same amount of research or more in 1996–1997 than in the preceding three years. However, both patient-oriented and non-clinical researchers in the most competitive health care markets and those with high levels of patient care duties were most likely to report decreases in the amounts of such research conducted in the previous three years. Further, researchers reporting such decreases had been as productive in recent years and over their careers as had those who did not report a decrease. Conclusions. This study provides additional evidence of the negative relationships that exist between high levels of market competition and patient care services on the patient-oriented and non-clinical research missions of teaching hospitals.

reported receiving gifts when they attended medical schools that received higher levels of NIH funding (odds ratio (OR) 0.51, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.38-0.67, p

The Charter on Medical Professionalism, endorsed by more than 100 professional groups worldwide and the US Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, requires openness and honesty in physicians' communication with patients. We present data from a 2009 survey of 1,891 practicing physicians nationwide assessing how widely physicians endorse and follow these principles in communicating with patients. The vast majority of physicians completely agreed that physicians should fully inform patients about the risks and benefits of interventions and should never disclose confidential information to unauthorized persons. Overall, approximately one-third of physicians did not completely agree with disclosing serious medical errors to patients, almost one-fifth did not completely agree that physicians should never tell a patient something untrue, and nearly two-fifths did not completely agree that they should disclose their financial relationships with drug and device companies to patients. Just over one-tenth said they had told patients something untrue in the previous year. Our findings raise concerns that some patients might not receive complete and accurate information from their physicians, and doubts about whether patient-centered care is broadly possible without more widespread physician endorsement of the core communication principles of openness and honesty with patients.

Objective To examine variation in the adoption of electronic health record (EHR) functionalities and their use patterns, barriers to adoption, and perceived benefits by physician practice size. Design Mailed survey of a nationally representative random sample of practicing physicians identified from the Physician Masterfile of the American Medical Association. Measurements We measured, stratified by practice size: (1) availability of EHR functionalities, (2) functionality use, (3) barriers to the adoption and use of EHR, and (4) impact of the EHR on the practice and quality of patient care. Results With a response rate of 62%, we found that

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) serve as standards of care in practice, quality improvement, and reimbursement. The extent of conflicts of interest (COIs) in cardiology guideline production has not been well studied. Herein, we describe the scope of COIs in CPGs.We examined the 17 most recent American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines through 2008. Using disclosure lists, we cataloged COIs for each participant as receiving a research grant, being on a speaker's bureau and/or receiving honoraria, owning stock, or being a consultant or member of an advisory board. We also cataloged the companies and institutions reported in each disclosure. "Episode" describes 1 instance of participation in 1 guideline by 1 person. "Individual" describes 1 person who may be involved in multiple episodes. "Company" describes a commercial or industry affiliation reported by an individual in a single episode. Analysis involved descriptive statistics and correlation analyses (Pearson correlation coefficient, χ(2) and R(2)).Fifty-six percent of the 498 individuals reported a COI, corresponding to 56% of the 651 episodes. Being a consultant or member of an advisory board was the most common type. The percentage of episodes involving a COI varied between guidelines (range, 13%-87%). The number of episodes per individual was associated with both presence and number of disclosures (P.001 for both comparisons). Of 478 companies, the number per guideline ranged from 2 to 242 companies (mean, 38 companies). One company was the most frequently reported company in 7 of 17 guidelines.Conflicts of interest are prevalent in cardiology guidelines, but there seems to be a significant number of experienced experts without COIs.

Background One tenet of medical professionalism is managing conflicts of interest related to physician-industry relationships (PIRs). Since 2004 much has been done at the institutional, state, and national levels to limit PIRs. This study estimates the nature, extent, consequences, and changes in PIRs nationally. Methods We performed a national survey of a stratified random sample of 2938 primary care physicians (internal medicine, family practice, and pediatrics) and specialists (cardiology, general surgery, psychiatry, and anesthesiology). A total of 1891 physicians completed the survey, yielding an overall response rate of 64.4%. The main outcome measure was prevalence of several types of PIRs and comparison with PIRs in 2004. Results Overall, 83.8% of all respondents reported some type of relationship with industry during the previous year. Approximately two-thirds (63.8%) received drug samples, 70.6% food and beverages, 18.3% reimbursements, and 14.1% payments for professional services. Since 2004 the percentage of each of these benefits has decreased significantly. Higher rates of PIRs are significantly and inversely associated with low levels of Medicare spending. Conclusion Among a random sample of physicians, the prevalence of self-reported PIRs in 2009 was 83.8%, which was lower than in 2004.

Context Peer monitoring and reporting are the primary mechanisms for identifying physicians who are impaired or otherwise incompetent to practice, but data suggest that the rate of such reporting is lower than it should be. Objective To understand physicians' beliefs, preparedness, and actual experiences related to colleagues who are impaired or incompetent to practice medicine. Design, Setting, and Participants Nationally representative survey of 2938 eligible physicians practicing in the United States in 2009 in anesthesiology, cardiology, family practice, general surgery, internal medicine, pediatrics, and psychiatry. Overall, 1891 physicians (64.4%) responded. Main Outcome Measures Beliefs about and preparedness for reporting and experiences with colleagues who practice medicine while impaired or who are incompetent in their medical practice. Results Sixty-four percent (n = 1120) of surveyed physicians agreed with the professional commitment to report physicians who are significantly impaired or otherwise incompetent to practice. Nonetheless, only 69% (n = 1208) of physicians reported being prepared to effectively deal with impaired colleagues in their medical practice, and 64% (n = 1126) reported being so prepared to deal with incompetent colleagues. Seventeen percent (n = 309) of physicians had direct personal knowledge of a physician colleague who was incompetent to practice medicine in their hospital, group, or practice. Of those with this knowledge, 67% (n = 204) reported this colleague to the relevant authority. Underrepresented minorities and graduates of non-US medical schools were less likely than their counterparts to report, and physicians working in hospitals or medical schools were most likely to report. The most frequently cited reason for taking no action was the belief that someone else was taking care of the problem (19% [n = 58]), followed by the belief that nothing would happen as a result of the report (15% [n = 46]) and fear of retribution (12% [n = 36]). Conclusion Overall, physicians support the professional commitment to report all instances of impaired or incompetent colleagues in their medical practice to a relevant authority; however, when faced with these situations, many do not report.

PURPOSE: To determine whether professional activities, professional productivity, and salaries of life sciences faculty differ by gender. The authors undertook this study because previous studies found differences in the academic experiences of women and men. METHOD: In 2007, the authors conducted a mailed survey of 3,080 life sciences faculty at the 50 universities whose medical schools received the greatest amount of National Institutes of Health funding in 2004. The response rate was 74% (n = 2,168). The main outcome measures were a faculty member’s total number of publications; number of publications in the past three years; average impact score of the journals in which he or she had published; professional activities; work hours per week; the numbers of hours spent specifically in teaching, patient care, research, professional activities, and administrative activities; and annual income. RESULTS: Among professors, the women reported greater numbers of hours worked per week and greater numbers of administrative and professional activities than did the men. Female faculty members reported fewer publications across all ranks. After control for professional characteristics and productivity, female researchers in the life sciences earned, on average, approximately $13,226 less annually than did their male counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Men and women in the academic life sciences take on different roles as they advance through their careers. A substantial salary gap still exists between men and women that cannot be explained by productivity or other professional factors. Compensation and advancement policies should recognize the full scope of the roles that female researchers play.

BACKGROUND: The number of long-term US cancer survivors is expected to double by the year 2050. Although primary care physicians (PCPs) provide the majority of care for long-term cancer survivors, to the authors' knowledge, few data to date have detailed PCP practice patterns, attitudes, and challenges in caring for long-term cancer survivors. METHODS: Self-administered surveys were mailed to 406 community- and academic-based general internal medicine physicians in Denver, Colorado. Survey development included in-depth physician interviews and pretesting. Of the 299 responses, 72 were ineligible; an analysis of the data from 227 surveys is presented. RESULTS: The response rate was 76%. Community-based PCPs comprised 70% of completed surveys. Reported care patterns were assessed to create a multidimensional care score reflecting levels of attention to 4 areas of survivorship care: monitoring for cancer recurrence, management of late effects, sexual functioning, and mental health. Only 24% of PCPs met criteria for routinely providing more multidimensional survivorship care. More recent medical school graduates reported providing less multidimensional survivorship care when compared with their more experienced colleagues. Approximately 82% of PCPs believed that primary care guidelines for adult cancer survivors are not well defined, and 47% of PCPs cited inadequate preparation and lack of formal training in cancer survivorship as a problem when delivering care to long-term survivors. CONCLUSIONS: Although PCPs provide the bulk of care for long-term survivors within the survivorship phase of the cancer trajectory, only a small subset have reported providing multidimensional survivorship care. Results underscore a need for substantially increased training in survivorship care to support the delivery of multidimensional primary care for long-term survivors. Cancer 2009;115(18 suppl):4409–18. © 2009 American Cancer Society.

Besides the generic "basic" vs "applied" labels, little information is known about the types of life-science research conducted within academic medical centers (AMCs).To determine the relative proportion, characteristics, funding, and productivity of AMC faculty by the type of research they conduct.Mailed survey conducted in 2007 of 3080 life-science faculty at the 50 universities with medical schools that received the most funding from the National Institutes of Health in 2004. Response rate was 74%.Research faculty affiliated with a medical school or teaching hospital, representing 77% of respondents (n = 1663).Type of research (basic, translational, clinical trials, health services research/clinical epidemiology, multimode, other), total funding, industry funding, publications, professional activities, patenting behavior, and industry relationships.Among AMC research faculty, 33.6% exclusively conducted basic science research as principal investigators compared with translational researchers (9.1%), clinical trial investigators (7.1%), and health services researchers/clinical epidemiologists (9.0%). While principal investigators garnered a mean of $410,755 in total annual research funding, 22.1% of all AMC research faculty were unsponsored, a proportion that ranged from 11.5% for basic science researchers to 46.8% for health services researchers (P.001). The average AMC faculty member received $33,417 in industry-sponsored funding, with most of this money concentrated among clinical trial ($110,869) and multimode ($59,916) principal investigators. Translational (61.3%), clinical trial (67.3%), and multimode (70.9%) researchers were significantly more likely than basic science researchers (41.9%) to report a relationship with industry and that these relationships contributed to their most important scientific work (P.05 for all comparisons).The research function of AMCs is active and diverse, incorporating a substantial proportion of faculty who are conducting research and publishing without sponsorship.

The prospect of improving care through increasing professionalism has been gaining momentum among physician organizations. Although there have been efforts to define and promote professionalism, few data are available on physician attitudes toward and conformance with professional norms.To ascertain the extent to which practicing physicians agree with and act consistently with norms of professionalism.National survey using a stratified random sample.Medical care in the United States.3504 practicing physicians in internal medicine, family practice, pediatrics, surgery, anesthesiology, and cardiology.Attitudes and behaviors were assessed by using indicators for each domain of professionalism developed by the American College of Physicians and the American Board of Internal Medicine. Of the eligible sampled physicians, 1662 responded, yielding a 58% weighted response rate (adjusting for noneligible physicians).Ninety percent or more of the respondents agreed with specific statements about principles of fair distribution of finite resources, improving access to and quality of care, managing conflicts of interest, and professional self-regulation. Twenty-four percent disagreed that periodic recertification was desirable. Physician behavior did not always reflect the standards they endorsed. For example, although 96% of respondents agreed that physicians should report impaired or incompetent colleagues to relevant authorities, 45% of respondents who encountered such colleagues had not reported them.Our measures of behavior did not capture all activities that may reflect on the norms in question. Furthermore, behaviors were self-reported, and the results may not be generalizable to physicians in specialties not included in the study.Physicians agreed with standards of professional behavior promulgated by professional societies. Reported behavior, however, did not always conform to those norms.

Information technology (IT) has been advocated as an important means to improve the practice of clinical medicine.To determine current prevalence of non-electronic health record (EHR) IT use by a national sample of U.S. physicians, and to identify associated physician, practice, and patient panel characteristics.Survey conducted in early 2004 of 1,662 U.S. physicians engaged in direct patient care selected from 3 primary care specialties (family practice, internal medicine, pediatrics) and 3 nonprimary care specialties (anesthesiology, general surgery, cardiology).Self-reported frequency of e-mail communication with patients or other clinicians, online access to continuing medical education or professional journals, and use of any computerized decision support (CDS) during clinical care. Survey results were weighted by specialty and linked via practice zip codes to measures of area income and urbanization.Response rate was 52.5%. Respondents spent 49 (+/-19) (mean [+/-standard deviation]) hours per week in direct patient care and graduated from medical school 23 (+/-11) years earlier. "Frequent" use was highest for CDS (40.8%) and online professional journal access (39.0%), and lowest for e-mail communication with patients (3.4%). Ten percent of physicians never used any of the 5 IT tools. In separate logistic regression analyses predicting usage of each of the 5 IT tools, the strongest associations with IT use were primary care practice (adjusted odds ratios [aORs] ranging from 1.34 to 2.26) and academic practice setting (aORs 2.17 to 5.41). Years since medical school graduation (aOR 0.85 to 0.87 for every 5 years after graduation) and solo/2-person practice setting (aORs 0.21 to 0.55) were negatively associated with IT use. Practice location and patient panel characteristics were not independently associated with IT use.In early 2004, the majority of physicians did not regularly use basic, inexpensive, and widely available IT tools in clinical practice. Efforts to increase the use of IT in medicine should focus on practice-level barriers to adoption.

Many major teaching hospitals might not be able to offer adequate access to specialty care for uninsured patients. This study found that medical school faculty were more likely to have difficulty obtaining specialty services for uninsured than for privately insured patients. These gaps in access were similar in magnitude for public and private institutions. Initial treatment of uninsured patients at academic health centers (AHCs) does not guarantee access to specialty and other referral services, which suggests that there are limits to relying on a health care safety net for uninsured patients. AHCs and affiliated group practices should examine policies that limit access for uninsured patients.

PURPOSE To understand the characteristics of medical school faculty members who serve on institutional review boards (IRBs) in U.S. academic health centers. METHOD Between October 2001 and March 2002, a questionnaire was mailed to a stratified random sample of 4,694 faculty members in 121 four-year medical schools in the United States (excluding Puerto Rico). The sample was drawn from the Association of American Medical College's faculty roster database for 1999. The primary independent variable was service on an IRB. Data were analyzed using standard statistical procedures. RESULTS A total of 2,989 faculty members responded (66.5%). Eleven percent of respondents reported they had served on an IRB in the three years before the study. Of these, 73% were male, 81% were white (non-Hispanic). Virtually all faculty IRB members (94%) conducted some research in the three years before the study, and, among these, 71% reported conducting clinical research, and 47% served as industrial consultants to industry. Underrepresented minority faculty members were 3.2 times more likely than white faculty members to serve on the IRB. Clinical researchers were 1.64 times more likely to be on an IRB than were faculty members who conducted nonclinical research. No significant difference was found in the average number of articles published in the three years before the study comparing IRB faculty to non-IRB faculty. CONCLUSIONS The faculty members who serve on IRBs tend to have research experience and knowledge that may be used to inform their IRB-related activities. However, the fact that almost half of all faculty IRB members serve as consultants to industry raises potential conflicts of interest.

ContextAlthough both internal medicine (IM) and family practice (FP) physicians frequently provide care for the same common adult conditions, IM and FP residency programs differ in their training emphases.ObjectiveTo assess differences in IM and FP residents' self-perceived preparedness to diagnose and treat common adult medical conditions.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsCross-sectional analysis of a national survey administered in the spring of 1998 to residents in their final year of residency at US academic health centers. A total of 279 IM residents in 25 programs and 326 FP residents in 75 programs responded to the survey.Main Outcome MeasuresResidents' self-rated preparedness to diagnose and treat 4 inpatient conditions (acute myocardial infarction, diabetic ketoacidosis, acute asthma, and acute renal failure) and 8 outpatient conditions (diabetes, hypertension, low back pain, vaginitis, headache, depression, upper respiratory tract infection, and hyperlipidemia), controlling for resident sex, race/ethnicity, US medical school graduate status, intent to subspecialize, and estimates of exposure to patients in inpatient and outpatient settings.ResultsInternal medicine residents were more likely to report being very prepared for all 4 inpatient conditions (P≤.001), while FP residents were more likely to report being very prepared for 5 of 8 outpatient conditions (P≤.05). Differences between IM and FP residents persisted in multivariate analyses for all inpatient conditions and some outpatient conditions. Exposure to patients in inpatient and outpatient settings varied by specialty and was significantly associated with resident self-report of preparedness for a majority of conditions investigated.ConclusionsInternal medicine and FP residents report differences in preparedness to manage common adult conditions. These differences were consistent with the emphasis on an inpatient setting for IM residents and on office-based care for FP residents.

PURPOSE To examine graduating medical students' perceptions of the adequacy of instruction in managed care and in 11 curricular content areas identified by experts as a necessary part of managed care education. This study sought to determine whether medical students perceived these content areas as relevant to managed care and to evaluate the extent to which students' perceptions of the adequacy of instruction varied as a function of managed care penetration in the locations of their respective medical schools. METHOD Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges' 1999 Medical School Graduation Questionnaire (GQ) were analyzed. Students' ratings of adequacy of instruction were summarized. Correlations between ratings of instruction in managed care and 11 related content areas were calculated, as well as correlations between managed care penetration in the locations of the students' schools and the proportion of students rating instruction as inadequate. RESULTS A majority of 1999 medical school graduates (60%) rated instruction in managed care as inadequate; other content areas to which majorities of graduates gave inadequate ratings were practice management (72%), quality assurance (57%), medical care cost control (57%), and cost-effective medical practice (56%). Ratings in these four content areas were highly correlated with ratings of instruction in managed care. The correlation between managed care penetration and rating of instruction in managed care was statistically significant (r = -.37); correlations between managed care penetration and instruction in the other content areas were not. CONCLUSIONS On the 1999 GQ, a majority of medical students responded that they felt they had not received adequate instruction in managed care. Further, the responses suggest that these medical students defined managed care in terms of managing costs, rather than managing health care, or developing population-based approaches to the delivery of health care.

In recent years, numerous US medical schools and academic medical centers have enacted policies preventing pharmaceutical sales representatives from interacting directly with students. Little is known about how pharmaceutical sales representatives affect trainees' knowledge about pharmaceutical prescribing.To determine whether there is an association between medical trainees' interactions with pharmaceutical promotion and their preferences in medication use.We surveyed a nationally representative sample of first- and fourth-year medical students and third-year residents by randomly selecting at least 14 trainees at each level per school.All trainees were asked how often they used different educational resources to learn about prescription drugs. Among fourth-year students and residents, we posed a series of multiple choice knowledge questions asking about the appropriate initial therapy for clinical scenarios involving patients with diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and difficulty sleeping.Evidence-based answers followed widely used clinical guidelines, while marketed-drug answers favored brand-name drugs over generic alternatives. We used survey answers to build an industry relations index assessing each trainee's level of acceptance of pharmaceutical promotion; we used proportional odds logistic regression models to estimate the association between the index and responses to the knowledge questions.The 1601 student (49.0% response rate) and 735 resident (42.9% response rate) respondents reported common use of unfiltered sources of drug information such as Google (74.2%-88.9%) and Wikipedia (45.2%-84.5%). We found that 48% to 90% of fourth-year students and residents accurately identified evidence-based prescribing choices. A 10-point higher industry relations index was associated with 15% lower odds of selecting an evidence-based prescribing choice (odds ratio [OR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92) (P .001). There was also a significant association between the industry relations index and greater odds of choosing to prescribe brand-name drugs (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00-1.16) (P = .04).Among physician trainees, our survey showed an association between positive attitudes toward industry-physician interactions and less knowledge about evidence-based prescribing and greater inclination to recommend brand-name drugs. Policies intended to insulate trainees from pharmaceutical marketing may promote better educational outcomes.

Access to care by low-income persons and residents of rural and poor inner-city areas is a persistent problem, yet physicians tend to be maldistributed relative to need. The objectives were to describe preferences of resident physicians to locate in underserved areas and to assess their preparedness to provide service to low-income populations. A national survey was made of residents completing their training in eight specialties at 162 US academic health center hospitals in 1998, with 2,626 residents responding. (Of 4,832 sampled, 813 had invalid addresses or were no longer in the residency program. Among the valid sample of 4,019, the response rate was 65%.) The percentage of residents ranking public hospitals, rural areas, and poor inner-city areas as desirable employment locations and the percentage feeling prepared to provide specified services associated with indigent populations were ascertained. Logistic regressions were used to calculate adjusted percentages, controlling for sex, race/ethnicity, international medical graduate (IMG) status, plans to subspecialize, ownership of hospital, specialty, and exposure to underserved patients during residency. Only one third of residents rated public hospitals as desirable settings, although there were large variations by specialty. Desirability was not associated with having trained in a public hospital or having greater exposure to underserved populations. Only about one quarter of respondents ranked rural (26%) or poor inner-city (25%) areas as desirable. Men (29%, P.01) and noncitizen IMGs (43%, P.01) were more likely than others to prefer rural settings. Residents who were more likely to rate poor inner-city settings as desirable included women (28%, P =.03), noncitizen IMGs (35%, P =.01), and especially underrepresented minorities (52%, P.01). Whereas about 90% or more of residents felt prepared to treat common clinical conditions, only 67% of residents in four primary care specialties felt prepared to counsel patients about domestic violence or to care for human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) or substance abuse patients (all 67%). Women were more likely than men to feel prepared to counsel patients about domestic violence (70% vs. 63%, P =.002) and depression (83% vs. 75%, P.01). Underrepresented minority residents were more likely than other residents to feel prepared to counsel patients about domestic violence (P.01) and compliance with care (P =.04). Residents with greater exposure to underserved groups were more prepared to counsel patients about domestic violence (P =.01), substance abuse (P =.01), and to treat patients with HIV/AIDS (P =.01) or with substance abuse problems (P.01). This study demonstrates the need to expose graduate trainees to underserved populations and suggests a continuing role of minorities, women, and noncitizen physicians in caring for low-income populations.