Search

Building trust in public health agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has become a key government priority. Understanding the roots of FDA mistrust is important if the agency is to develop targeted messaging and reforms aimed at building confidence in the agency. We conducted a survey of 2,021 respondents in the US probing attitudes toward the FDA. The primary outcome was FDA trust, defined as the mean score that each respondent assigned to the FDA across four prespecified axes: (1) competence and effectiveness; (2) commitment to acting in the best interests of the American public; (3) abiding by the rules and regulations set forth by policy or law; and (4) expertise in health, science, and medicine. On multivariable ordinal logistic regression, FDA mistrust was associated with female gender (odds ratio [OR] = 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.88), rural community (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75-0.96), conservative political views (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.74-0.81), worse self-reported health (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80-0.98), lower satisfaction with health care received (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.56-0.71), less attention to health and science news (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.80), and not having children under the age of 18 (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60-0.86). These findings underscore the challenges faced by US political leaders in convincing a heterogeneous American public to trust the FDA. The FDA should develop and deploy targeted outreach strategies to populations with lower levels of trust and strengthen internal processes that minimize biases and ensure sound decision-making., (© 2024 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2024 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Objective: Higher uncertainty is associated with poorer quality of life and may be impacted by clinician communication about the future. We determined how patients undergoing lung transplant evaluation experience uncertainty and communication about the future from clinicians., Methods: We performed a convergent parallel mixed-methods study using a cross-sectional survey and semistructured interviews. Patients undergoing lung transplant evaluation at the University of Colorado and the University of Washington answered questions about future communication and completed the Mishel Uncertainty in Illness Scale-Adult (MUIS-A; range 33-165, higher scores indicate more uncertainty). Interviews were analyzed using content analysis. Integration of survey and interview results occurred during data interpretation., Results: A total of 101 patients completed the survey (response rate: 47%). Twelve survey participants completed interviews. In the survey, most patients identified changing family roles as important (76%), which was infrequently discussed with clinicians (31%). Most patients (86%) worried about the quality of their life in the future, and 74% said that not knowing what to expect in the future prevented them from making plans. The mean MUIS-A score was 85.5 (standard deviation 15.3). Interviews revealed three themes: (1) uncertainty of the future distresses participants; (2) participants want practical information from clinicians; and (3) communication preferences vary among participants., Conclusion: Participants experienced distressing uncertainty and wanted information about the future. Communication topics that were important to participants were not always addressed by physicians. Clinicians should address how chronic lung disease and lung transplant can directly impact patients' lives and support patients to cope with uncertainty., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Importance: Sponsorship of promotional events for health professionals is a key facet of marketing campaigns for pharmaceuticals and medical devices; however, there appears to be limited transparency regarding the scope and scale of this spending., Objective: To develop a novel method for describing the scope and quantifying the spending by US pharmaceutical and medical companies on industry-sponsored promotional events for particular products., Design and Setting: This was a cross-sectional study using records from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid's Open Payments database on payments made to prescribing clinicians from January 1 to December 21, 2022., Main Outcomes and Measures: An event-centric approach was used to define sponsored events as groupings of payment records with matching variables. Events were characterized by value (coffee, lunch, dinner, or banquet) and number of attendees (small vs large). To test the method, the number of and total spending for each type of event across professional groups were calculated and used to identify the top 10 products related to dinner events. To validate the method, we extracted all event details advertised on the websites of 4 state-level nurse practitioner associations that regularly hosted industry-sponsored dinner events during 2022 and compared these with events identified in the Open Payments database., Results: A total of 1 154 806 events sponsored by pharmaceutical and medical device companies were identified for 2022. Of these, 1 151 351 (99.7%) had fewer than 20 attendees, and 922 214 (80.0%) were considered to be a lunch ($10-$30 per person). Seven companies sponsored 16 031 dinners for the top 10 products. Of the 227 sponsored in-person dinner events hosted by the 4 state-level nurse practitioner associations, 168 (74.0%) matched events constructed from the Open Payments dataset., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings indicate that an event-centric analysis of Open Payments data is a valid method to understand the scope and quantify spending by pharmaceutical and medical device companies on industry-sponsored promotional events attended by prescribers. Expanding and enforcing the reporting requirements to cover all payments to all registered health professionals would improve the accuracy of estimates of the true extent of all sponsored events and their impact on clinical practice.

Background: Approximately 20% of the United States' population lives in a state or jurisdiction where medical aid in dying (MAiD) is legal. It is unknown how physicians' own barriers are associated with their provision of the spectrum of MAiD services., Objective: To measure physicians' religious and/or ethical barriers to providing MAiD services and how such barriers relate to physicians' intentions and behaviors., Design: Three-wave cross-sectional survey fielded in Colorado in 2020-2021., Participants: Physicians providing care to patients likely clinically eligible for MAiD according to probabilistic sampling., Main Measures: Physicians self-reported barriers to their own participation in MAiD. We considered large ethical and/or religious barriers to be conscience-based barriers. We measured physicians' self-reported intention to participate and self-reported prior participation in MAiD since it was legalized in Colorado in 2017. We estimated differences in intention and behavior outcomes according to presence of conscience-based barriers, adjusting for physician gender, race/ethnicity, time in practice, and specialty., Key Results: Among 300 respondents, 26% reported "large" ethical and/or religious barriers to their involvement in MAiD. Physicians with longer time in practice and those identifying as non-White were more likely to report conscience-based barriers to MAiD. Comparing physicians with and without conscience-based barriers to MAiD, we found no difference in ancillary participation (discussing, referring) but significant differences in direct participation (serving as consultant [5% vs. 31%] or attending [0% vs. 22%])., Conclusions: Approximately one-quarter of physicians likely to care for MAiD-eligible patients in Colorado reported religious and/or ethical barriers to MAiD. Despite religious and/or ethical barriers, the vast majority of physicians were willing to discuss MAiD and/or refer patients seeking MAiD services. These data provide important empirical foundation for policy from hospitals and health systems as well as medical specialty groups with official positions on MAiD., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Background: There is limited data regarding how clinicians operationalize shared decision-making (SDM) with athletes with cardiovascular diagnoses. This study was designed to explore sports cardiologists' conceptions of SDM and approaches to sports eligibility decisions., Methods: 20 sports cardiologists were interviewed by telephone or video conference from October 2022 to May 2023. Qualitative descriptive analysis was conducted with the transcripts., Results: All participants endorsed SDM for eligibility decisions, however, SDM was defined and operationalized heterogeneously. Only 6 participants specifically referenced eliciting patient preferences during SDM. Participants described variable roles for the physician in SDM and variable views on athletes' understanding, perception, and tolerance of risk. Participants thresholds for prohibitive annual risk of sudden cardiac death ranged from <1 % to >10 %., Conclusions: These findings reinforce the general acceptance of SDM for sports eligibility decisions and highlight the need to better understand this process and identify the most effective approach for operationalization., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Dr. Dickert reports consulting and research funding from Abiomed, Inc. and research funding from NIH and AHRQ. Dr. Baggish receives compensation for his role as consultant / team cardiologist from the US Olympic Committee / US Olympic Training Centers, International Olympic Committee, National Football League Players Association, US Soccer, and US Rowing. Dr. Campbell has served as a paid expert witness on law cases related to financial conflicts of interest in medicine. The other authors report no conflicts., (© 2024 The Authors.)