Search

Background and Overview. The use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) is a rapidly growing trend throughout the United States. E-cigarettes have been linked to the risk of causing explosion and fire. Case Description. Data are limited on the associated health hazards of e-cigarette use, particularly long-term effects, and available information often presents conflicting conclusions. In addition, an e-cigarette explosion and fire can pose a unique treatment challenge to the dental care provider because the oral cavity may be affected heavily. In this particular case, the patient's injuries included intraoral burns, luxation injuries, and alveolar fractures. Conclusions and Practical Implications. This case report aims to help clinicians gain an increased knowledge about e-cigarette design, use, and risks; discuss the risk of spontaneous failure and explosion of e-cigarettes with patients; and understand the treatment challenges posed by an e-cigarette explosion. [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]

The article reflects on the positive opinion of the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) for generic biosimilar drugs since its issuance of regulatory guidelines and some related cases regarding these generic drugs. It also discussed the planned entry of biosimilar drugs into the United States. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has yet to decide on the issue. Other related reports were also discussed.

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., (© 2023 American Cancer Society.)

Purpose: The career decisions, practice patterns, and approach to patient care of current female students, who make up close to 50% of medical school classes, will have a profound impact on the profession. This study explores the role gender plays in the mentoring experiences of female medical students., Method: In 2011, the authors conducted focus groups with 48 third- and fourth-year female medical students at four U.S. medical schools. Using a template organizing style, they derived themes in an iterative process to explore female medical students' mentoring relationships and the impact of gender on those relationships., Results: The authors identified four major themes: (1) Optimal mentoring relationships are highly relational. Students emphasized shared values, trust, and a personal connection in describing ideal mentoring relationships. (2) Relational mentoring is more important than gender concordance. Students identified a desire for access to female mentors but stated that when a mentor and mentee developed a personal connection, the gender of the mentor was less important. (3) Gender-based assumptions and stereotypes affect mentoring relationships. Students described gender-based assumptions and expectations for themselves and their mentors. (4) Gender-based power dynamics influence students' thinking about mentoring. Students stated that they were concerned about how their mentors might perceive their professional decisions because of their gender, which influenced what they disclosed to male mentors and mentors in positions of power., Conclusions: Gender appears to play a role in female medical students' expectations and experience with mentoring relationships and may influence their decision making around career planning.

Background: Increasing numbers of clinicians desire part-time work, and many will opt out of academic medicine if the barriers to part-time work are too great., Method: Purposeful sampling was used to investigate the experiences of part-time academic physicians and their division leaders to understand (1) how each identified the negative and positive consequences of part-time work, and (2) how each conceptualize part-time work. In 2004, the authors interviewed the Society of General Medicine Horn Scholars Program applicants and their division chiefs from the 2001 and 2004 award cycles and performed a qualitative analysis of the one- to two-hour audiotaped interviews., Results: Seven out of nine eligible applicants and six of seven division chiefs participated. All applicants were female junior faculty clinician educators in academic internal medicine from seven institutions. All division chiefs were male full-time faculty members. Both applicants and division chiefs identified multiple specific negative and positive consequences of part-time work. Analysis of interviews suggested that both groups tended to frame part-time work as a decision to "work less" or to "work differently." Self-reflection and articulation of values helped some faculty determine where they derive the greatest happiness and fulfillment personally and professionally., Conclusions: As more academics seek work-life balance and consider part-time work as a tool to achieve that balance, academic medicine will be challenged to develop creative models for integrating successful part-time physicians, or it will lose that segment of the workforce. This study's findings suggest that one such model may require that physicians and their leaders reconceptualize work altogether.

Background: As more physicians work part-time (PT), the faculty, institutions, and organizations that represent them should understand the factors that motivate and satisfy these physicians., Objective: Compare factors associated with job satisfaction among PT and full-time (FT) academic physicians., Design: Cross-sectional survey., Participants: Members of the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM), a national, academic Internal Medicine organization., Results: Fifty percent (1,396 of 2,772) of SGIM members responded, 11% work PT. Compared to FT, PT physicians were more often female (85% vs 38%, p < .001), clinicians (Cs) or clinician-educators (CEs) (84% vs 56%, p < .001), and of a lower rank (77% vs 61%, p = .001). Job satisfaction was similar between PT and FT Cs and CEs. For PT Cs and CEs, record of publication (11% vs 21%, p = .04) and local and national recognition (24% vs 36%, p = .03) were less important to overall job satisfaction compared to FT Cs and CEs. In multivariate analysis, academic rank (odds ratio [OR] = 7.18, 95%CI = 1.40-36.50) was associated with higher satisfaction among PT Cs and CEs., Conclusions: PT and FT C and CE SGIM members report similar satisfaction, but different factors contribute to satisfaction. Knowing what motivates and satisfies PT physicians may allow medical centers to retain faculty and create positions to help them to fulfill their potential.