Search

Background: Collaborative relationships between academic oncology and industry (pharmaceutical, biotechnology, "omic," and medical device companies) are essential for therapeutic development in oncology; however, limited research on engagement in and perceptions of these relationships has been done. Methods: Survey questions were developed to evaluate relationships between academic oncology and industry. An electronic survey was delivered to 1000 randomly selected members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, a professional organization for oncologists, eliciting respondents' views around oncology‐industry collaborations. The responses were analyzed according to prespecified plans. Results: There were 225 survey respondents. Most were from the United States (70.0%), worked at an academic institution (60.1%), worked in medical oncology (81.2%), and had an active relationship with industry (85.8%). One quarter (26.7%) of respondents reported difficulty establishing a relationship with industry collaborators, and most respondents (75%) did not report having had mentorship in developing these relationships. The majority (85.3%) of respondents considered these collaborations important to their careers. Respondents generally thought that scientific integrity was preserved (92%), and most respondents (95%) had little concern over the quality of the collaborative product. Many (60%) shared concerns over potential conflict of interest if an individual with a compensated relationship promoted an industry product for clinical care/research, yet most respondents (67%) stated these relationships did not shape their interactions with patients. Conclusions: This study provides novel data characterizing the nature of collaborative relationships between clinicians, researchers, and industry in oncology. Although respondents considered these collaborations an important part of clinical and academic oncology, formal education or mentorship around these relationships was rare. Conflicting findings around conflict of interest highlight the importance of more dedicated research in this area. Plain Language Summary: Business enterprises in health care play a central role in cancer research and care, driving the development of new medical testing, drugs, and devices. Effective working relationships among clinicians, researchers, and these industry partners can promote innovative research and enhance patient care. Study of these collaborations has been limited to date. Through distribution of a questionnaire to cancer clinicians and researchers, we found that most participants consider these relationships valuable, though they find establishing such relationships challenging partly because of gaps in educational programs in this area. Our findings also highlight the need for further policy around the potential bias these relationships can introduce. Oncology‐industry collaborations can be mutually beneficial relationships that contribute to both scientific and clinical innovation. Despite their value, a deficit of education and policy around these collaborations is recognized by cancer clinicians and researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with high‐grade glioma (HGG) face unique challenges toward the end of life (EoL), given their aggressive trajectory and neurologic deterioration. Aggressiveness of medical care at EoL has been identified as an important quality metric for oncology patients. At this time, limited data exist around the nature of EoL care of patients with HGG. Methods: Patients with HGG and palliative care (PC) referral seen between 2010 and 2015 were identified (N = 80). Of these, N = 52 met inclusion criteria. Random selections of patients with (1) HGG not referred to PC (n = 80), and (2) non‐CNS cancers with PC referral (n = 80) were identified for comparison. A composite score of aggressiveness of medical care at EoL was calculated for each patient from predetermined variables. A time of eligibility for PC was defined for each patient when predetermined criteria based on symptom burden, functional status, and prognosis were met. Results: Among the patients analyzed with HGG referred to PC, 59.6% (N = 31) were referred as inpatients, and 53.8% (N = 28) were referred within the last 12 weeks of life. Patients with HGG had similar aggressiveness of care at EoL regardless of PC referral, and HGG patients had less aggressive care at EoL than patients with non‐CNS cancers (p = 0.007). Care was more aggressive at EoL in HGG patients who received late versus early PC referrals (p = 0.012). Motor weakness at time of eligibility (OR = 2.55, p = 0.002) and more disease progressions (OR = 1.25, p = 0.043) were associated with less aggressive care at EoL. Conclusions: Early clinical‐ and disease‐related features predict the aggressiveness of medical care at EoL in patients with HGG. Formal PC consultation is used infrequently and suboptimally in patients with HGG. Our data suggest that the role of PC in improving EoL outcomes in HGG warrants further evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic Lyme disease can manifest as a debilitating illness with symptoms that change over time. With its varied presentation, timeline variation, diagnostic difficulty, and lack of definitive treatment, clinical recognition of chronic Lyme disease remains controversial. At the same time, patients face challenges in finding a provider who is supportive and knowledgeable about diagnosing and treating Lyme. We examined the ways the medical system may have affected the lived experiences of chronic Lyme patients. In this article, we communicate the personal, health care, and community illness experiences of 14 women navigating the medical system with chronic Lyme disease through a qualitative community-based participatory research study using interviews and narrative reflection in a rural community setting. The women were interviewed by a researcher living with chronic Lyme disease and the transcripts were analyzed for themes. All participants described navigating multiple allopathic and nonallopathic care modalities to find satisfactory care. They struggled with physical and emotional burdens of chronic, nonlinear illness, as well as disbelief and discrimination by medical providers. Their lives followed patterns of illness and wellness, trust and mistrust of medical treatment, and community connection and disengagement. They learned to become their own advocates to seek affirmative care. They are aware of the controversial nature of their illness, and many have channeled their frustrations into caring for one another through their Lyme community. Women living with controversial diagnoses like chronic Lyme disease experience increased challenges navigating the medical system to find satisfactory care and thus create communities with each other for mutual aid and support. In understanding these challenges, the medical community can improve care for people living with contested chronic illnesses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Medecins Sans Frontieres set up a clinic to provide multidisciplinary care to a vulnerable migrant population experiencing torture. We describe the population accessing care, the characteristics of care provided and patient outcomes. Methods A descriptive retrospective cohort study of patients enrolled in care during January 2017–June 2019 was conducted. Results Of 2512 victims of torture cases accessing the clinic, the male: female ratio was 1:1. About 67% of patients received medical care, mostly for chronic pain treatment. About 73% of patients received mental healthcare, 37% received physiotherapy and 33% received social support care; 49% came to the clinic upon the recommendation of a friend or family member. The discharge with improvement rate ranged from 23% in the mental health service to 9% in the sociolegal service. Patients retained in care had a median IQR of 3 (2–4) follow-up visits for medical care, 4 (2–7) for mental health, 6 (3–10) for physiotherapy and 2 (1–4) for sociolegal. Conclusion Care for victims of torture cases among vulnerable migrants is complex. For those who did receive care that led to an improvement in their condition, their care models have been described, to allow its implementation in other non-specialised settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The enlargement of the European Union since 2004 has led to an increase in the number of Eastern European migrants living in the UK. The health of this group is under-researched though some mixed evidence shows they are at higher risk of certain physical health conditions such as heart attacks, strokes, HIV and alcohol use and have poorer mental health. This is compounded by poor or insecure housing, low pay, isolation and prejudice. We aimed to understand the health needs and health service experiences of the Eastern European population in a town in Northern England.Methods: Five semi structured one-to-one and small group interviews and five focus groups were conducted with 42 Eastern European participants between June and September 2014. The majority of participants were Polish and other participants were from Belarus, Hungary, Latvia, Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine. The data were analysed using thematic framework analysis.Results: Key findings included a good understanding the UK health service structure and high registration and use of general practice/primary care services. However, overall, there were high levels of dissatisfaction, frustration and distrust in General Practitioners (GP). The majority of participants viewed the GP as unhelpful and dismissive; a barrier to secondary/acute care; reluctant to prescribe antibiotics; and that GPs too often advised them to take paracetamol (acetaminophen) and rest.Conclusions: Overwhelmingly participants had strong opinions about access to primary care and the role of the general practitioners. Although the design of the UK health service was well understood, participants were unhappy with the system of GP as gatekeeper and felt it inferior to the consumer-focused health systems in their country of origin. More work is needed to promote the importance of self-care, reduce antibiotic and medication use, and to increase trust in the GP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND United States academic hospitals have rapidly adopted the hospitalist model of care. Academic hospitalists have taken on much of the clinical and teaching responsibilities at many institutions, yet little is known about their academic productivity and promotion. OBJECTIVE We sought to discover the attitudes and attributes of academic hospitalists regarding mentorship, productivity, and promotion. DESIGN We performed a web-based email survey of academic hospitalists consisting of 61 questions. PARTICIPANTS Four hundred and twenty academic hospitalists. MAIN MEASURES Demographic details, scholarly production, presence of mentorship and attitudes towards mentor, academic rank KEY RESULTS Two hundred and sixty-six (63%) of hospitalists responded. The majority were under 41 (80%) and had been working as hospitalists for <5 years (62%). Only 42% of academic hospitalists had a mentor. Forty-four percent of hospitalists had not presented a poster or abstract at national meeting; 51% had not been first author on a peer-reviewed publication. Factors positively associated with publication of a peer-reviewed first author paper included: 1) male gender, AOR = 2.38 (95% CI 1.30, 4.33), 2) >20% "protected" time, AOR = 1.92 (95% CI 1.00, 3.69), and 3) a better-than-average understanding of the criteria for promotion, AOR = 3.66 (95% CI 1.76, 7.62). A lack of mentorship was negatively associated with producing any peer-reviewed first author publications AOR = 0.43 (95% CI 0.23, 0.81); any non-peer reviewed publications AOR = 0.45 (95% CI 0.24, 0.83), and leading a teaching session at a national meeting AOR = 0.41 (95% CI 0.19, 0.88). Most hospitalists promoted to the level of associate professor had been first author on four to six peer-reviewed publications. CONCLUSIONS Most academic hospitalists had not presented a poster at a national meeting, authored an academic publication, or presented grand rounds at their institution. Many academic hospitalists lacked mentorship and this was associated with a failure to produce scholarly activity. Mentorship may improve academic productivity among hospitalists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]