Search

Objective: Evaluate the effect of a virtual coaching program offered to women surgery residents in a surgical society. Background: Randomized controlled experiments evaluating the effect of coaching on trainee well-being and burnout is lacking. Methods: Women surgery residents in the Association of Women Surgeons were recruited to participate in a randomized controlled trial of the effects of a virtual coaching program on trainee well-being. Attending surgeons served as coaches after completing in-person training. Residents (n=237) were randomized to intervention (three 1:1 coaching sessions over 9 mo) or control (e-mailed wellness resources). Participants were surveyed at baseline and postintervention using validated measures of well-being, burnout, and resilience. Changes in outcome measures between presurvey and postsurvey were compared between study arms. Results: Survey response rates were 56.9% (n=66) in the control group and 69.4% (n=84) in the intervention group (P =0.05). The intervention group showed significant improvement in professional fulfillment (P =0.021), burnout (0.026), work exhaustion (0.017), self-valuation (0.003), and well-being (P =0.002); whereas the control group showed significant improvement in self-valuation (P =0.015) and significant decline in resilience (P =0.025). The intervention group had a significant improvement in well-being (P =0.015) and intolerance of uncertainty (P =0.015) compared to controls. Conclusions: Women surgery residents who participated in a remote coaching program offered by a surgical society demonstrated improvement in aspects of well-being relative to peers who did not receive coaching. Therefore, remote coaching offered by a professional society may be a useful component of initiatives directed at trainee well-being. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As guidelines and payers increasingly recommend use of patient decision aids (DAs), evidence about the comparative effectiveness of available DAs is critical for organizations interested in implementing them. The primary purpose of this study was to compare 2 DAs with regard to their ability to help patients become informed and receive their preferred treatment (that is, make an informed patient-centered decision), shared decision-making, surgical rates, and surgeon satisfaction.Methods: We performed a multisite factorial randomized trial enrolling patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Patients were randomly assigned to use a long, detailed DA (long DA) or short, interactive DA (short DA). Eight surgeons were randomly assigned to receive a patient preference report detailing the patient's goals and treatment preferences or to administer usual care.Results: We distributed 1,636 pre-visit surveys, 1,220 of which were returned (75% response rate), and 1,124 post-visit surveys, 967 of which were returned (86% response rate). The patients in the sample had a mean age (and standard deviation) of 65 ± 10 years, 57% were female, 89% were white non-Hispanic, and 67% had knee osteoarthritis. The majority (67.2%) made informed patient-centered decisions, and the rate did not vary significantly between the DA groups (p = 0.97) or between the surgeon groups (p = 0.23). Knowledge scores were higher for the short-DA group (mean difference = 9%; p < 0.001). More than half of the sample (60.5%) had surgery within 6 months after the visit, and rates did not differ significantly by DA or surgeon group. Overall, the surgeons were highly satisfied and reported that the majority (88.7%) of the visits were of normal duration or shorter.Conclusions: The DECIDE-OA study is, to our knowledge, the first randomized comparative effectiveness study of 2 orthopaedic DAs. The short DA outperformed the long DA with regard to knowledge scores and was comparable with respect to other outcomes. The surgeons reported high satisfaction and normal visit duration with both DAs.Clinical Relevance: Surgeons need to ensure that patients with osteoarthritis are well-informed and have a clear preference regarding whether to undergo hip or knee replacement surgery. The DAs used in this study may help surgeons involve patients in elective surgery decisions and meet the requirements of informed consent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: There has been a rapid increase in the presence of illicitly manufactured fentanyl in the heroin drug supply. Buprenorphine is an effective treatment for heroin and prescription opioid use disorder; however, little is known about treatment outcomes among people using fentanyl. We compared 6-month treatment retention and opioid abstinence among people initiating buprenorphine treatment who had toxicology positive for heroin compared to fentanyl at baseline. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of 251 adult patients initiating office-based buprenorphine treatment who had available toxicology testing across an academic health system between August 2016 and July 2017. Exposure was assessed at baseline before initiating buprenorphine and was categorized as negative toxicology (n = 184) versus fentanyl positive toxicology (n = 48) versus heroin positive toxicology (n = 19). Results: Six-month treatment retention rates were not different between the fentanyl positive and heroin positive groups [38% (n = 18) vs 47% (n = 9); P  = 0.58], or between the fentanyl positive and the negative toxicology group [38% (n = 18) vs 51% (n = 93); P  = 0.14]. Opioid abstinence at 6 months among those who had testing did not differ between the fentanyl positive and the heroin positive group [55% (n = 6) vs 60% (n = 6); P  = 0.99]. The fentanyl positive group had a lower abstinence rate at 6 months compared to those with negative toxicology at baseline [55% (n = 6) vs 93% (n = 63); P  = 0.004]. Mean initial buprenophine dosage did not differ between groups. Conclusions: Buprenorphine treatment retention and abstinence among those retained in treatment is not worse between people using fentanyl compared to heroin at treatment initiation. Both groups have lower abstinence rates at 6 months compared to individuals with negative toxicology at baseline. These findings suggest that people exposed to fentanyl still benefit from buprenorphine treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Almost 400 000 people with HIV (PWH) in the United States are over age 55 years and at risk for age-associated dementias (AAD), including Alzheimer's disease and vascular contributions to cognitive impairment and dementia (VCID). We projected the cumulative incidence and mortality associated with AAD among PWH at least 60 years in the United States compared with the general population., Design/methods: Integrating the CEPAC and AgeD-Pol models, we simulated two cohorts of 60-year-old male and female individuals: PWH, and the general US population. We estimated AAD incidence and AAD-associated mortality rates. Projected outcomes included AAD cumulative incidence, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We performed sensitivity and scenario analyses on AAD-specific (e.g. incidence) and HIV-specific (e.g. disengagement from HIV care) parameters, as well as premature aging among PWH., Results: We projected that 22.1%/16.3% of 60-year-old male individuals/female individuals with HIV would develop AAD by 80 years compared with 15.9%/13.3% of male individuals/female individuals in the general population. Accounting for age-associated and dementia-associated quality of life, 60-year-old PWH would have a lower life expectancy (QALYs): 17.4 years (14.1 QALYs) and 16.8 years (13.4 QALYs) for male and female individuals, respectively, compared with the general population [male individuals, 21.7 years (18.4 QALYs); female individuals, 24.7 years (20.2 QALYs)]. AAD cumulative incidence was most sensitive to non-HIV-related mortality, engagement in HIV care, and AAD incidence rates., Conclusion: Projected estimates of AAD-associated morbidity, mortality, and quality of life can inform decision-makers and health systems planning as the population of PWH ages. Improved AAD prevention, treatment, and supportive care planning are critical for people aging with HIV., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)