Results of a national UK physician reported survey of COVID-19 infection in patients with a myeloproliferative neoplasm.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Salisbury RA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7880652 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Results of a national UK physician reported survey of COVID-19 infection in patients with a myeloproliferative neoplasm.
Salisbury Richard A RA Curto-Garcia Natalia N O'Sullivan Jennifer J Chen Frederick F Polzella Paolo P Godfrey Anna L AL Russell James J Knapper Steven S Willan John J Frewin Rebecca R Joshi Shivani S Arami Siamak S Burns Sarah S Teh Chun Huat CH Wadelin Frances F Dhanapal Jaymathi J Neelakantan Pratap P Milojkovic Dragana D Psaila Beth B Szydlo Richard R Francis Sebastian S Cargo Catherine C Jain Manish M McGregor Andrew A Wallis Louise L Duncombe Andrew A Hussein Hayder H Dyer Peter P Munro Laura L Bond Lee L McMullin Mary Frances MF Somervaille Tim C P TCP Garg Mamta M Sekhar Mallika M Harrison Claire C Mead Adam J AJ Innes Andrew J AJ
Leukemia 20210212 8
Similar Datasets
Project description:The use of drug utilization management techniques such as formulary exclusions, prior authorizations, and step edits has risen sharply during the last decade, contributing to the growing burden on physicians and patients. Limited quantitative data exist, however, on physician perceptions of drug utilization management. A national survey was conducted between February 9 and March 30, 2021, targeting office-based physicians working in the United States to assess their perceptions on drug utilization management in their practice. Of the 742 physicians that participated in the study, over 80% reported deciding against prescribing certain treatments in anticipation of drug utilization management at least sometimes (>50% of the time). Despite utilization management having an impact on prescribing decisions, about half of physicians said that the utilization management policies they encounter rarely or never (0-25% of the time) align with clinical evidence.
| S-EPMC9488785 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has significantly impacted health care delivery across the United States, including treatment of cancer. We aim to describe the determinants of treatment plan changes from the perspective of oncology physicians across the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS:Participants were recruited to an anonymous cross-sectional online survey of oncology physicians (surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists) using social media from March 27 to April 10, 2020. Physician demographics, practice characteristics, and cancer treatment decisions were collected. RESULTS:The analytic cohort included 411 physicians: 241 (58.6%) surgeons, 106 (25.8%) medical oncologists, and 64 (15.6%) radiation oncologists. In all, 38.0% were practicing in states with 1001 to 5000 confirmed COVID-19 cases as of April 3, 2020, and 37.2% were in states with >5000 cases. Most physicians (N=285; 70.0% of surgeons, 64.4% of medical oncologists, and 73.4% of radiation oncologists) had altered cancer treatment plans. Most respondents were concerned about their patients' COVID-19 exposure risks, but this was the primary driver for treatment alterations only for medical oncologists. For surgeons, the primary driver for treatment alterations was conservation of personal protective equipment, institutional mandates, and external society recommendations. Radiation oncologists were primarily driven by operational changes such as visitor restrictions. CONCLUSIONS:The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a majority of oncologists to alter their treatment plans, but the primary motivators for changes differed by oncologic specialty. This has implications for reinstitution of standard cancer treatment, which may occur at differing time points by treatment modality.
| S-EPMC7513953 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST563 | biostudies-other
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5967380 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Polygenic risk scores (PRS) may improve risk-stratification in preventive care. Their clinical implementation will depend on primary care physicians' (PCPs) uptake. We surveyed PCPs in a national physician database about the perceived clinical utility, benefits, and barriers to the use of PRS in preventive care. Among 367 respondents (participation rate 96.3%), mean (SD) age was 54.9 (12.9) years, 137 (37.3%) were female, and mean (SD) time since medical school graduation was 27.2 (13.3) years. Respondents reported greater perceived utility for more clinical action (e.g., earlier or more intensive screening, preventive medications, or lifestyle modification) for patients with high-risk PRS than for delayed or discontinued prevention actions for low-risk patients (p < 0.001). Respondents most often chose out-of-pocket costs (48%), lack of clinical guidelines (24%), and insurance discrimination concerns (22%) as extreme barriers. Latent class analysis identified 3 subclasses of respondents. Skeptics (n = 83, 22.6%) endorsed less agreement with individual clinical utilities, saw patient anxiety and insurance discrimination as significant barriers, and agreed less often that PRS could help patients make better health decisions. Learners (n = 134, 36.5%) and enthusiasts (n = 150, 40.9%) expressed similar levels of agreement that PRS had utility for preventive actions and that PRS could be useful for patient decision-making. Compared with enthusiasts, however, learners perceived greater barriers to the clinical use of PRS. Overall results suggest that PCPs generally endorse using PRS to guide medical decision-making about preventive care, and barriers identified suggest interventions to address their needs and concerns.
| S-EPMC10620193 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is placing a significant strain on healthcare. We conducted a national survey of the UK nephrology workforce to understand its impacts on their working lives.MethodsAn online questionnaire incorporating the Maslach Burnout Inventory score was distributed between 31 March and 1 May 2021, with a focus on COVID-19 and long COVID incidence, vaccine uptake, burnout and working patterns. Data were analysed qualitatively and quantitatively; multivariable logistic regression was used to identify associations.ResultsA total of 423 responses were received. Of them, 29% had contracted COVID-19, which was more common among doctors and nurses {odds ratio [OR] 2.18 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13-4.22]} and those <55 years of age [OR 2.60 (95% CI 1.38-4.90)]. Of those who contracted COVID-19, 36% had symptoms of long COVID, which was more common among ethnicities other than White British [OR 2.57 (95% CI 1.09-6.05)]. A total of 57% had evidence of burnout, which was more common among younger respondents [OR 1.92 (95% CI 1.10-3.35)] and those with long COVID [OR 10.31 (95% CI 1.32-80.70)], and 59% with reconfigured job plans continued to work more hours. More of those working full-time wished to retire early. A total of 59% experienced remote working, with a majority preference for continuing this in the future. In terms of vaccination, 95% had received one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and 86% had received two doses by May 2021.ConclusionsBurnout and long COVID is prevalent with impacts on working lives. Some groups are more at risk. Vaccination uptake is high and remote and flexible working were well received. Institutional interventions are needed to prevent workforce attrition.
| S-EPMC8754810 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere has been a substantial decline in in-person care in inpatient and outpatient settings during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Avoidance of needed in-person care may contribute to an avoidable decline in patient health and an increase in mortality. While several systems and behavioral theories have been put forward to explain the decline, there is a lack of studies informed by patients' own experiences. The current study applied a socio-ecological model encompassing patient, environmental, and institutional-related variables to examine patient-reported factors associated with avoidance of in-person care.MethodsBetween October and December 2020, a total of 3840 persons responded to a nationwide online questionnaire that was administered using ResearchMatch and Facebook. Self-reported avoidance of in-person care among those who needed it was the main outcome. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with avoidance of needed care.FindingsOut of a total of 3372 respondents who reported that they needed in-person care during the early phase of the pandemic, 257 (7.6%) avoided it. Patient-related variables associated with avoiding needed care included younger age (odds ratio (OR), 1.46, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.94, p<0.01; <45 y/o vs 45+), inability to afford care (OR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.34, p<0.01), and greater COVID-related stress (OR = 1.36, CI 1.01 to 1.83, p<0.05). More frequent discussions about COVID with family and friends was the only significant environment-related avoidance of care variable (OR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.01-1.91, p < .05). Institution-related care avoidance variables included a negative patient healthcare experience rating (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.42, p<0.001), poor awareness of the institution's safety protocol (OR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.51, p<0.01), and low ratings of the institution's effectiveness in communicating their safety protocol (OR = 3.45, 95% CI 1.94 to 6.12, p<0.001). The final model predicted 11.9% of the variance in care avoidance.ConclusionsThese results suggest that care avoidance of in-person care during the initial phase of the pandemic was influenced by a patient's demographics as well as environmental and healthcare institutional factors. Patients' previous experiences and their awareness of healthcare systems' safety protocols are important factors in care avoidance.
| S-EPMC9355185 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPlastic surgery training in the UK continues to evolve towards an outcome-based rather than time-served curriculum. UK plastic surgery trainees are appointed nationally, and are assessed according to national standards, but training is delivered regionally. This study sought opinion from current UK plastic surgery trainees in order to highlight strengths and shortcomings of the higher surgical training programme.MethodA cross-sectional study was designed and administered by the UK Plastic Surgery Trainees Association (PLASTA). A questionnaire was distributed to all UK plastic surgery trainees holding a National Training Number, using the REDCap web-based application.ResultsOf the 320 UK plastic surgery trainees, 131 (41%) participated in this survey, with responses from all 12 UK training regions. The most common subspecialty career aspirations for trainees were hand surgery, cleft lip and palate, lower limb and oncoplastic breast reconstruction. The survey highlighted regional variation in teaching programmes, the ability to achieve indicative operative logbook numbers, and training in aesthetic surgery. Of the trainees, 82% expressed a desire to undertake a fellowship within their training, but most did not know whether their deanery would support this. Fifteen per cent of the respondents were currently training flexibly and the majority of these had experienced negative behaviours towards their less than full time working status. Of the respondents, 44% reported stress, 25% reported a lack of autonomy and 17% reported feeling burnt out at work at least once a week. A total of 85% perceived that they did not have access to a mentoring service.ConclusionsPlastic surgery remains a popular and highly competitive surgical speciality in the UK, and many trainees reported high levels of satisfaction during their training. Aspects of training that could be improved have been highlighted and recommendations made accordingly.
| S-EPMC7394739 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMany older adults are screened for breast and colorectal cancers beyond guideline recommended thresholds. Electronic medical record (EMR) reminders are commonly used to prompt cancer screening. Behavioral economics theory suggests that changing the default settings for these reminders can be effective to reduce over-screening. We examined physician perspectives about acceptable thresholds for stopping EMR cancer screening reminders.MethodsIn a national survey of 1200 primary care physicians (PCP) and 600 gynecologists randomly selected from the AMA Masterfile, we asked physicians to choose whether EMR reminders for cancer screening should stop based on a list of criteria that included age, life expectancy, specific serious illnesses, and functional limitations. Physicians could choose multiple responses. PCPs were randomized to questions about breast or colorectal cancer screening.ResultsA total of 592 physicians participated (adjusted response rate 54.1%). 54.6% chose age and 71.8% chose life expectancy as criteria for stopping EMR reminders; only 30.6% chose functional limitations. Regarding age thresholds, 52.4% chose ages ≤75, 42.0% chose a threshold between 75 and 85, 5.6% would not stop reminders even at age 85. Regarding life expectancy thresholds, 32.0% chose ≥10 years, 53.1% chose a threshold between 5 and 9 years, 14.9% would not stop reminders even when life expectancy is <5 years.ConclusionsWe found that many physicians would continue EMR reminders for cancer screening even in light of older age, limited life expectancy, and functional limitations. This may reflect reluctance to stop cancer screening and/or reluctance to stop EMR reminders so that physicians can retain control to decide for individual patients, for example, to assess patient preference and ability to tolerate treatment. There was consensus for stopping EMR reminders at ages 85+ and <5-year life expectancy. Interventions that seek to reduce over-screening by suppressing EMR reminders may be important for these groups but may have limited physician buy-in outside these thresholds.
| S-EPMC10935591 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5685234 | biostudies-literature