Opinion

“BMI is trash. Full stop.” This controversial tweet received 26,500 likes and almost 3,000 retweets. The 400 comments from medical and non–health care personnel ranged from agreeable to contrary to offensive.

Regardless of your opinion on BMI (body mass index), this conversation highlighted that the medical community needs to discuss the limitations of BMI and decide its future.

As a Black woman who is an obesity expert living with the impact of obesity in my own life, I know the emotion that a BMI conversation can evoke. Before emotions hijack the conversation, let’s discuss BMI’s past, present, and future.
 

BMI: From observational measurement to clinical use

Imagine walking into your favorite clothing store where an eager clerk greets you with a shirt to try on. The fit is off, but the clerk insists that the shirt must fit because everyone who’s your height should be able to wear it. This scenario seems ridiculous. But this is how we’ve come to use the BMI. Instead of thinking that people of the same height may be the same size, we declare that they must be the same size.

The idea behind the BMI was conceived in 1832 by Belgian anthropologist and mathematician Adolphe Quetelet, but he didn’t intend for it to be a health measure. Instead, it was simply an observation of how people’s weight changed in proportion to height over their lifetime.

Fast-forward to the 20th century, when insurance companies began using weight as an indicator of health status. Weights were recorded in a “Life Table.” Individual health status was determined on the basis of arbitrary cut-offs for weight on the Life Tables. Furthermore, White men set the “normal” weight standards because they were the primary insurance holders.

In 1972, Dr. Ancel Keys, a physician and leading expert in body composition at the time, cried foul on this practice and sought to standardize the use of weight as a health indicator. Dr. Keys used Quetelet’s calculation and termed it the Body Mass Index.

By 1985, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization adopted the BMI. By the 21st century, BMI had become widely used in clinical settings. For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services adopted BMI as a quality-of-care measure, placing even more pressure on clinicians to use BMI as a health screening tool.
 

BMI as a tool to diagnose obesity

We can’t discuss BMI without discussing the disease of obesity. BMI is the most widely used tool to diagnose obesity. In the United States, one-third of Americans meet the criteria for obesity. Another one-third are at risk for obesity.

Compared with BMI’s relatively quick acceptance into clinical practice, however, obesity was only recently recognized as a disease.

Historically, obesity has been viewed as a lifestyle choice, fueled by misinformation and multiple forms of bias. The historical bias associated with BMI and discrimination has led some public health officials and scholars to dismiss the use of BMI or fail to recognize obesity as disease.

This is a dangerous conclusion, because it comes to the detriment of the very people disproportionately impacted by obesity-related health disparities.

Furthermore, weight bias continues to prevent people living with obesity from receiving insurance coverage for life-enhancing obesity medications and interventions.
 

Is it time to phase out BMI?

The BMI is intertwined with many forms of bias: age, gender, racial, ethnic, and even weight. Therefore, it is time to phase out BMI. However, phasing out BMI is complex and will take time, given that:

• Obesity is still a relatively “young” disease. 2023 marks the 10th anniversary of obesity’s recognition as a disease by the American Medical Association. Currently, BMI is the most widely used tool to diagnose obesity. Tools such as waist circumference, body composition, and metabolic health assessment will need to replace the BMI. Shifting from BMI emphasizes that obesity is more than a number on the scale. Obesity, as defined by the Obesity Medicine Association, is indeed a “chronic, relapsing, multi-factorial, neurobehavioral disease, wherein an increase in body fat promotes adipose tissue dysfunction and abnormal fat mass physical forces, resulting in adverse metabolic, biomechanical, and psychosocial health consequences.”
• Much of our health research is tied to BMI. There have been some shifts in looking at non–weight-related health indicators. However, we need more robust studies evaluating other health indicators beyond weight and BMI. The availability of this data will help eliminate the need for BMI and promote individualized health assessment.
• Current treatment guidelines for obesity medications are based on BMI. (Note: Medications to treat obesity are called “anti-obesity” medications or AOMs. However, given the stigma associated with obesity, I prefer not to use the term “anti-obesity.”) Presently this interferes with long-term obesity treatment. Once BMI is “normal,” many patients lose insurance coverage for their obesity medication, despite needing long-term metabolic support to overcome the compensatory mechanism of weight regain. Obesity is a chronic disease that exists independent of weight status. Therefore, using non-BMI measures will help ensure appropriate lifetime support for obesity.

The preceding are barriers, not impossibilities. In the interim, if BMI is still used in any capacity, the BMI reference chart should be an adjusted BMI chart based on age, race, ethnicity, biological sex, and obesity-related conditions. Furthermore, BMI isn’t the sole determining factor of health status.

Instead, an “abnormal” BMI should initiate conversation and further testing, if needed, to determine an individual’s health. For example, compare two people of the same height with different BMIs and lifestyles. Current studies support that a person flagged as having a high adjusted BMI but practicing a healthy lifestyle and having no metabolic diseases is less at risk than a person with a “normal” BMI but high waist circumference and an unhealthy lifestyle.

Regardless of your personal feelings, the facts are clear. Technology empowers us with better tools than BMI to determine health status. Therefore, it’s not a matter of if we will stop using BMI but when.

Sylvia Gonsahn-Bollie, MD, DipABOM, is an integrative obesity specialist who specializes in individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Connect with her at www.embraceyouweightloss.com or on Instagram @embraceyoumd. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness,” is Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s picks for the 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“BMI is trash. Full stop.” This controversial tweet received 26,500 likes and almost 3,000 retweets. The 400 comments from medical and non–health care personnel ranged from agreeable to contrary to offensive.

Regardless of your opinion on BMI (body mass index), this conversation highlighted that the medical community needs to discuss the limitations of BMI and decide its future.

As a Black woman who is an obesity expert living with the impact of obesity in my own life, I know the emotion that a BMI conversation can evoke. Before emotions hijack the conversation, let’s discuss BMI’s past, present, and future.
 

BMI: From observational measurement to clinical use

Imagine walking into your favorite clothing store where an eager clerk greets you with a shirt to try on. The fit is off, but the clerk insists that the shirt must fit because everyone who’s your height should be able to wear it. This scenario seems ridiculous. But this is how we’ve come to use the BMI. Instead of thinking that people of the same height may be the same size, we declare that they must be the same size.

The idea behind the BMI was conceived in 1832 by Belgian anthropologist and mathematician Adolphe Quetelet, but he didn’t intend for it to be a health measure. Instead, it was simply an observation of how people’s weight changed in proportion to height over their lifetime.

Fast-forward to the 20th century, when insurance companies began using weight as an indicator of health status. Weights were recorded in a “Life Table.” Individual health status was determined on the basis of arbitrary cut-offs for weight on the Life Tables. Furthermore, White men set the “normal” weight standards because they were the primary insurance holders.

In 1972, Dr. Ancel Keys, a physician and leading expert in body composition at the time, cried foul on this practice and sought to standardize the use of weight as a health indicator. Dr. Keys used Quetelet’s calculation and termed it the Body Mass Index.

By 1985, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization adopted the BMI. By the 21st century, BMI had become widely used in clinical settings. For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services adopted BMI as a quality-of-care measure, placing even more pressure on clinicians to use BMI as a health screening tool.
 

BMI as a tool to diagnose obesity

We can’t discuss BMI without discussing the disease of obesity. BMI is the most widely used tool to diagnose obesity. In the United States, one-third of Americans meet the criteria for obesity. Another one-third are at risk for obesity.

Compared with BMI’s relatively quick acceptance into clinical practice, however, obesity was only recently recognized as a disease.

Historically, obesity has been viewed as a lifestyle choice, fueled by misinformation and multiple forms of bias. The historical bias associated with BMI and discrimination has led some public health officials and scholars to dismiss the use of BMI or fail to recognize obesity as disease.

This is a dangerous conclusion, because it comes to the detriment of the very people disproportionately impacted by obesity-related health disparities.

Furthermore, weight bias continues to prevent people living with obesity from receiving insurance coverage for life-enhancing obesity medications and interventions.
 

Is it time to phase out BMI?

The BMI is intertwined with many forms of bias: age, gender, racial, ethnic, and even weight. Therefore, it is time to phase out BMI. However, phasing out BMI is complex and will take time, given that:

• Obesity is still a relatively “young” disease. 2023 marks the 10th anniversary of obesity’s recognition as a disease by the American Medical Association. Currently, BMI is the most widely used tool to diagnose obesity. Tools such as waist circumference, body composition, and metabolic health assessment will need to replace the BMI. Shifting from BMI emphasizes that obesity is more than a number on the scale. Obesity, as defined by the Obesity Medicine Association, is indeed a “chronic, relapsing, multi-factorial, neurobehavioral disease, wherein an increase in body fat promotes adipose tissue dysfunction and abnormal fat mass physical forces, resulting in adverse metabolic, biomechanical, and psychosocial health consequences.”
• Much of our health research is tied to BMI. There have been some shifts in looking at non–weight-related health indicators. However, we need more robust studies evaluating other health indicators beyond weight and BMI. The availability of this data will help eliminate the need for BMI and promote individualized health assessment.
• Current treatment guidelines for obesity medications are based on BMI. (Note: Medications to treat obesity are called “anti-obesity” medications or AOMs. However, given the stigma associated with obesity, I prefer not to use the term “anti-obesity.”) Presently this interferes with long-term obesity treatment. Once BMI is “normal,” many patients lose insurance coverage for their obesity medication, despite needing long-term metabolic support to overcome the compensatory mechanism of weight regain. Obesity is a chronic disease that exists independent of weight status. Therefore, using non-BMI measures will help ensure appropriate lifetime support for obesity.

The preceding are barriers, not impossibilities. In the interim, if BMI is still used in any capacity, the BMI reference chart should be an adjusted BMI chart based on age, race, ethnicity, biological sex, and obesity-related conditions. Furthermore, BMI isn’t the sole determining factor of health status.

Instead, an “abnormal” BMI should initiate conversation and further testing, if needed, to determine an individual’s health. For example, compare two people of the same height with different BMIs and lifestyles. Current studies support that a person flagged as having a high adjusted BMI but practicing a healthy lifestyle and having no metabolic diseases is less at risk than a person with a “normal” BMI but high waist circumference and an unhealthy lifestyle.

Regardless of your personal feelings, the facts are clear. Technology empowers us with better tools than BMI to determine health status. Therefore, it’s not a matter of if we will stop using BMI but when.

Sylvia Gonsahn-Bollie, MD, DipABOM, is an integrative obesity specialist who specializes in individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Connect with her at www.embraceyouweightloss.com or on Instagram @embraceyoumd. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness,” is Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s picks for the 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“BMI is trash. Full stop.” This controversial tweet received 26,500 likes and almost 3,000 retweets. The 400 comments from medical and non–health care personnel ranged from agreeable to contrary to offensive.

Regardless of your opinion on BMI (body mass index), this conversation highlighted that the medical community needs to discuss the limitations of BMI and decide its future.

As a Black woman who is an obesity expert living with the impact of obesity in my own life, I know the emotion that a BMI conversation can evoke. Before emotions hijack the conversation, let’s discuss BMI’s past, present, and future.
 

BMI: From observational measurement to clinical use

Imagine walking into your favorite clothing store where an eager clerk greets you with a shirt to try on. The fit is off, but the clerk insists that the shirt must fit because everyone who’s your height should be able to wear it. This scenario seems ridiculous. But this is how we’ve come to use the BMI. Instead of thinking that people of the same height may be the same size, we declare that they must be the same size.

The idea behind the BMI was conceived in 1832 by Belgian anthropologist and mathematician Adolphe Quetelet, but he didn’t intend for it to be a health measure. Instead, it was simply an observation of how people’s weight changed in proportion to height over their lifetime.

Fast-forward to the 20th century, when insurance companies began using weight as an indicator of health status. Weights were recorded in a “Life Table.” Individual health status was determined on the basis of arbitrary cut-offs for weight on the Life Tables. Furthermore, White men set the “normal” weight standards because they were the primary insurance holders.

In 1972, Dr. Ancel Keys, a physician and leading expert in body composition at the time, cried foul on this practice and sought to standardize the use of weight as a health indicator. Dr. Keys used Quetelet’s calculation and termed it the Body Mass Index.

By 1985, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization adopted the BMI. By the 21st century, BMI had become widely used in clinical settings. For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services adopted BMI as a quality-of-care measure, placing even more pressure on clinicians to use BMI as a health screening tool.
 

BMI as a tool to diagnose obesity

We can’t discuss BMI without discussing the disease of obesity. BMI is the most widely used tool to diagnose obesity. In the United States, one-third of Americans meet the criteria for obesity. Another one-third are at risk for obesity.

Compared with BMI’s relatively quick acceptance into clinical practice, however, obesity was only recently recognized as a disease.

Historically, obesity has been viewed as a lifestyle choice, fueled by misinformation and multiple forms of bias. The historical bias associated with BMI and discrimination has led some public health officials and scholars to dismiss the use of BMI or fail to recognize obesity as disease.

This is a dangerous conclusion, because it comes to the detriment of the very people disproportionately impacted by obesity-related health disparities.

Furthermore, weight bias continues to prevent people living with obesity from receiving insurance coverage for life-enhancing obesity medications and interventions.
 

Is it time to phase out BMI?

The BMI is intertwined with many forms of bias: age, gender, racial, ethnic, and even weight. Therefore, it is time to phase out BMI. However, phasing out BMI is complex and will take time, given that:

• Obesity is still a relatively “young” disease. 2023 marks the 10th anniversary of obesity’s recognition as a disease by the American Medical Association. Currently, BMI is the most widely used tool to diagnose obesity. Tools such as waist circumference, body composition, and metabolic health assessment will need to replace the BMI. Shifting from BMI emphasizes that obesity is more than a number on the scale. Obesity, as defined by the Obesity Medicine Association, is indeed a “chronic, relapsing, multi-factorial, neurobehavioral disease, wherein an increase in body fat promotes adipose tissue dysfunction and abnormal fat mass physical forces, resulting in adverse metabolic, biomechanical, and psychosocial health consequences.”
• Much of our health research is tied to BMI. There have been some shifts in looking at non–weight-related health indicators. However, we need more robust studies evaluating other health indicators beyond weight and BMI. The availability of this data will help eliminate the need for BMI and promote individualized health assessment.
• Current treatment guidelines for obesity medications are based on BMI. (Note: Medications to treat obesity are called “anti-obesity” medications or AOMs. However, given the stigma associated with obesity, I prefer not to use the term “anti-obesity.”) Presently this interferes with long-term obesity treatment. Once BMI is “normal,” many patients lose insurance coverage for their obesity medication, despite needing long-term metabolic support to overcome the compensatory mechanism of weight regain. Obesity is a chronic disease that exists independent of weight status. Therefore, using non-BMI measures will help ensure appropriate lifetime support for obesity.

The preceding are barriers, not impossibilities. In the interim, if BMI is still used in any capacity, the BMI reference chart should be an adjusted BMI chart based on age, race, ethnicity, biological sex, and obesity-related conditions. Furthermore, BMI isn’t the sole determining factor of health status.

Instead, an “abnormal” BMI should initiate conversation and further testing, if needed, to determine an individual’s health. For example, compare two people of the same height with different BMIs and lifestyles. Current studies support that a person flagged as having a high adjusted BMI but practicing a healthy lifestyle and having no metabolic diseases is less at risk than a person with a “normal” BMI but high waist circumference and an unhealthy lifestyle.

Regardless of your personal feelings, the facts are clear. Technology empowers us with better tools than BMI to determine health status. Therefore, it’s not a matter of if we will stop using BMI but when.

Sylvia Gonsahn-Bollie, MD, DipABOM, is an integrative obesity specialist who specializes in individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Connect with her at www.embraceyouweightloss.com or on Instagram @embraceyoumd. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness,” is Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s picks for the 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

We can’t affect most of the world’s big problems, but we can continue to do what pediatric providers have always done well – share the best science-based knowledge with families and be strong vaccine advocates.

You can read about some new aspects of science-based 2021-2022 data in this digital issue. For example, there are newer international data on the longer-acting and more effective anti-RSV monoclonal antibody nirsevimab, which may soon replace palivizumab. Closer to home, check out the article on lower antibody concentrations in infants related to the number and class of antibiotics that they had received. Measles outbreaks in areas of the world with the lowest measles vaccine uptake will likely produce more imported measles in the United States. If you have never heard of Lone-star virus, an article tells us it occurs mostly in Southern and Atlantic coastal regions; no specific treatment exists, but it is now in the differential diagnosis for endemic tick-borne febrile infections.

A bit of good news is the World Health Organization recommending a shorter course of treatment for pediatric tuberculosis. Pediatric TB has a long history of poor treatment adherence, so shorter, simpler regimens are certainly welcome. And finally, prospects for a norovirus vaccine are looking brighter with new approaches generating mucosal antibodies – a key in protection against gastrointestinal infections.

Again, no articles in this digital supplement feature SARS-CoV-2 this year, but a summer surge continues because of third-generation Omicron viruses BA.4/BA.5. The surge exists because the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is being underutilized; plus BA.4/BA.5 is the most contagious variant yet.

A major reason deaths are not surging is COVID-19 vaccines. Having multiple vaccines authorized within 9 months of SARS-CoV-2 hitting U.S. shores is amazing despite the hiccups and politicization that accompanied implementation. Each vaccine more than met the original goal: greater than or equal to 50% effectiveness with an acceptable adverse effect profile. In the United States, two mRMA-vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer) are now authorized for use down to 6 months of age; Novavax’s more traditional protein-based vaccine was more recently given an emergency use authorization for those 18 years and older. Ongoing trials indicate that Omicron-based mRNA vaccines are highly immunogenic and safe even if blended with the original strain vaccine. Fall boosters will have an Omicron component. We need to immunize and boost enough folks so that SARS-CoV-2 variants arise infrequently, allowing high-risk persons to be able to go out in public without masks.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor, University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Medicine, department of medicine, infectious diseases section. He has no conflicts of interest.

We can’t affect most of the world’s big problems, but we can continue to do what pediatric providers have always done well – share the best science-based knowledge with families and be strong vaccine advocates.

You can read about some new aspects of science-based 2021-2022 data in this digital issue. For example, there are newer international data on the longer-acting and more effective anti-RSV monoclonal antibody nirsevimab, which may soon replace palivizumab. Closer to home, check out the article on lower antibody concentrations in infants related to the number and class of antibiotics that they had received. Measles outbreaks in areas of the world with the lowest measles vaccine uptake will likely produce more imported measles in the United States. If you have never heard of Lone-star virus, an article tells us it occurs mostly in Southern and Atlantic coastal regions; no specific treatment exists, but it is now in the differential diagnosis for endemic tick-borne febrile infections.

A bit of good news is the World Health Organization recommending a shorter course of treatment for pediatric tuberculosis. Pediatric TB has a long history of poor treatment adherence, so shorter, simpler regimens are certainly welcome. And finally, prospects for a norovirus vaccine are looking brighter with new approaches generating mucosal antibodies – a key in protection against gastrointestinal infections.

Again, no articles in this digital supplement feature SARS-CoV-2 this year, but a summer surge continues because of third-generation Omicron viruses BA.4/BA.5. The surge exists because the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is being underutilized; plus BA.4/BA.5 is the most contagious variant yet.

A major reason deaths are not surging is COVID-19 vaccines. Having multiple vaccines authorized within 9 months of SARS-CoV-2 hitting U.S. shores is amazing despite the hiccups and politicization that accompanied implementation. Each vaccine more than met the original goal: greater than or equal to 50% effectiveness with an acceptable adverse effect profile. In the United States, two mRMA-vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer) are now authorized for use down to 6 months of age; Novavax’s more traditional protein-based vaccine was more recently given an emergency use authorization for those 18 years and older. Ongoing trials indicate that Omicron-based mRNA vaccines are highly immunogenic and safe even if blended with the original strain vaccine. Fall boosters will have an Omicron component. We need to immunize and boost enough folks so that SARS-CoV-2 variants arise infrequently, allowing high-risk persons to be able to go out in public without masks.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor, University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Medicine, department of medicine, infectious diseases section. He has no conflicts of interest.

We can’t affect most of the world’s big problems, but we can continue to do what pediatric providers have always done well – share the best science-based knowledge with families and be strong vaccine advocates.

You can read about some new aspects of science-based 2021-2022 data in this digital issue. For example, there are newer international data on the longer-acting and more effective anti-RSV monoclonal antibody nirsevimab, which may soon replace palivizumab. Closer to home, check out the article on lower antibody concentrations in infants related to the number and class of antibiotics that they had received. Measles outbreaks in areas of the world with the lowest measles vaccine uptake will likely produce more imported measles in the United States. If you have never heard of Lone-star virus, an article tells us it occurs mostly in Southern and Atlantic coastal regions; no specific treatment exists, but it is now in the differential diagnosis for endemic tick-borne febrile infections.

A bit of good news is the World Health Organization recommending a shorter course of treatment for pediatric tuberculosis. Pediatric TB has a long history of poor treatment adherence, so shorter, simpler regimens are certainly welcome. And finally, prospects for a norovirus vaccine are looking brighter with new approaches generating mucosal antibodies – a key in protection against gastrointestinal infections.

Again, no articles in this digital supplement feature SARS-CoV-2 this year, but a summer surge continues because of third-generation Omicron viruses BA.4/BA.5. The surge exists because the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is being underutilized; plus BA.4/BA.5 is the most contagious variant yet.

A major reason deaths are not surging is COVID-19 vaccines. Having multiple vaccines authorized within 9 months of SARS-CoV-2 hitting U.S. shores is amazing despite the hiccups and politicization that accompanied implementation. Each vaccine more than met the original goal: greater than or equal to 50% effectiveness with an acceptable adverse effect profile. In the United States, two mRMA-vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer) are now authorized for use down to 6 months of age; Novavax’s more traditional protein-based vaccine was more recently given an emergency use authorization for those 18 years and older. Ongoing trials indicate that Omicron-based mRNA vaccines are highly immunogenic and safe even if blended with the original strain vaccine. Fall boosters will have an Omicron component. We need to immunize and boost enough folks so that SARS-CoV-2 variants arise infrequently, allowing high-risk persons to be able to go out in public without masks.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor, University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Medicine, department of medicine, infectious diseases section. He has no conflicts of interest.

Let’s pretend for a moment that you receive a call from one of your college roommates who thanks to his family connections has become a venture capitalist in California. His group is considering investing in a start-up that is developing a handheld instrument that it claims will use artificial intelligence to diagnose ear infections far more accurately than the human eye. He wonders if you would like to help him evaluate the company’s proposal and offers you a small percentage of the profits for your efforts should they choose to invest.

Your former roommate has done enough research on his own to understand that otitis media makes up a large chunk of a pediatrician’s workload and that making an accurate diagnosis can often be difficult in a struggling child. He describes his own experience watching a frustrated pediatrician attempting to remove wax from his child’s ear and eventually prescribing antibiotics “to be safe.”

You agree and review the prospectus, which includes a paper from a peer-reviewed journal. What you discover is that the investigators used more than 600 high-resolution images of tympanic membranes taken “during operative myringotomy and tympanostomy tube placement” and the findings at tympanocentesis to train a neural network.

Once trained, the model they developed could differentiate with 95% accuracy between an image of a tympanic membrane that covered a normal middle ear from one that merely contained fluid and from one that contained infected fluid. When these same images were shown to 39 clinicians, more than half of which were pediatricians and included both faculty-level staff and trainees, the average diagnostic accuracy was 65%.

The prospectus includes prediction that this technology could easily be developed into a handheld instrument similar to a traditional otoscope, which could then be linked to the operator’s smartphone, giving the clinician an instant treat or no-treat answer.

Now, remember you have nothing to lose except maybe a friendship. How would you advise your old college roommate?

My advice to your college buddy would be one of caution! Yes, there is a potential big upside because there is a real need for a device that could provide a diagnostic accuracy that this AI model promises. While I suspect that AI will always be more accurate in diagnosis using static images, I bet that most people, clinicians and nonclinicians, could improve their accuracy by linking photos with diagnoses with an hour of practice.

However, evaluating a high-resolution photograph taken through an operative scope inserted into the cerumenless ear canal of a sedated, afrebrile child is several orders of magnitude less difficult than the real-world environment in which the diagnosis of otitis media is usually made.

If the venture capitalists were still interested in getting into the otitis media marketplace, you might suggest they look into companies that have already developed image capture otoscopes. At this point I could only find one on the Internet that was portable and it certainly isn’t small-child friendly. Once we have a tool that can capture images in real-world situations, the next step is to train AI systems to interpret them using the approach these researchers have developed. I bet it can be done. It will be only a matter of time ... and money.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Let’s pretend for a moment that you receive a call from one of your college roommates who thanks to his family connections has become a venture capitalist in California. His group is considering investing in a start-up that is developing a handheld instrument that it claims will use artificial intelligence to diagnose ear infections far more accurately than the human eye. He wonders if you would like to help him evaluate the company’s proposal and offers you a small percentage of the profits for your efforts should they choose to invest.

Your former roommate has done enough research on his own to understand that otitis media makes up a large chunk of a pediatrician’s workload and that making an accurate diagnosis can often be difficult in a struggling child. He describes his own experience watching a frustrated pediatrician attempting to remove wax from his child’s ear and eventually prescribing antibiotics “to be safe.”

You agree and review the prospectus, which includes a paper from a peer-reviewed journal. What you discover is that the investigators used more than 600 high-resolution images of tympanic membranes taken “during operative myringotomy and tympanostomy tube placement” and the findings at tympanocentesis to train a neural network.

Once trained, the model they developed could differentiate with 95% accuracy between an image of a tympanic membrane that covered a normal middle ear from one that merely contained fluid and from one that contained infected fluid. When these same images were shown to 39 clinicians, more than half of which were pediatricians and included both faculty-level staff and trainees, the average diagnostic accuracy was 65%.

The prospectus includes prediction that this technology could easily be developed into a handheld instrument similar to a traditional otoscope, which could then be linked to the operator’s smartphone, giving the clinician an instant treat or no-treat answer.

Now, remember you have nothing to lose except maybe a friendship. How would you advise your old college roommate?

My advice to your college buddy would be one of caution! Yes, there is a potential big upside because there is a real need for a device that could provide a diagnostic accuracy that this AI model promises. While I suspect that AI will always be more accurate in diagnosis using static images, I bet that most people, clinicians and nonclinicians, could improve their accuracy by linking photos with diagnoses with an hour of practice.

However, evaluating a high-resolution photograph taken through an operative scope inserted into the cerumenless ear canal of a sedated, afrebrile child is several orders of magnitude less difficult than the real-world environment in which the diagnosis of otitis media is usually made.

If the venture capitalists were still interested in getting into the otitis media marketplace, you might suggest they look into companies that have already developed image capture otoscopes. At this point I could only find one on the Internet that was portable and it certainly isn’t small-child friendly. Once we have a tool that can capture images in real-world situations, the next step is to train AI systems to interpret them using the approach these researchers have developed. I bet it can be done. It will be only a matter of time ... and money.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Let’s pretend for a moment that you receive a call from one of your college roommates who thanks to his family connections has become a venture capitalist in California. His group is considering investing in a start-up that is developing a handheld instrument that it claims will use artificial intelligence to diagnose ear infections far more accurately than the human eye. He wonders if you would like to help him evaluate the company’s proposal and offers you a small percentage of the profits for your efforts should they choose to invest.

Your former roommate has done enough research on his own to understand that otitis media makes up a large chunk of a pediatrician’s workload and that making an accurate diagnosis can often be difficult in a struggling child. He describes his own experience watching a frustrated pediatrician attempting to remove wax from his child’s ear and eventually prescribing antibiotics “to be safe.”

You agree and review the prospectus, which includes a paper from a peer-reviewed journal. What you discover is that the investigators used more than 600 high-resolution images of tympanic membranes taken “during operative myringotomy and tympanostomy tube placement” and the findings at tympanocentesis to train a neural network.

Once trained, the model they developed could differentiate with 95% accuracy between an image of a tympanic membrane that covered a normal middle ear from one that merely contained fluid and from one that contained infected fluid. When these same images were shown to 39 clinicians, more than half of which were pediatricians and included both faculty-level staff and trainees, the average diagnostic accuracy was 65%.

The prospectus includes prediction that this technology could easily be developed into a handheld instrument similar to a traditional otoscope, which could then be linked to the operator’s smartphone, giving the clinician an instant treat or no-treat answer.

Now, remember you have nothing to lose except maybe a friendship. How would you advise your old college roommate?

My advice to your college buddy would be one of caution! Yes, there is a potential big upside because there is a real need for a device that could provide a diagnostic accuracy that this AI model promises. While I suspect that AI will always be more accurate in diagnosis using static images, I bet that most people, clinicians and nonclinicians, could improve their accuracy by linking photos with diagnoses with an hour of practice.

However, evaluating a high-resolution photograph taken through an operative scope inserted into the cerumenless ear canal of a sedated, afrebrile child is several orders of magnitude less difficult than the real-world environment in which the diagnosis of otitis media is usually made.

If the venture capitalists were still interested in getting into the otitis media marketplace, you might suggest they look into companies that have already developed image capture otoscopes. At this point I could only find one on the Internet that was portable and it certainly isn’t small-child friendly. Once we have a tool that can capture images in real-world situations, the next step is to train AI systems to interpret them using the approach these researchers have developed. I bet it can be done. It will be only a matter of time ... and money.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

We’ve been told for decades that a child who doesn’t start the day with a good breakfast is entering school at a serious disadvantage. The brain needs a good supply of energy to learn optimally. So the standard wisdom goes. Subsidized school breakfast programs have been built around this chestnut. But, is there solid evidence to support the notion that simply adding a morning meal to a child’s schedule will improve his or her school performance? It sounds like common sense, but is it just one of those old grandmother’s nuggets that doesn’t stand up under close scrutiny?

A recent study from Spain suggests that the relationship between breakfast and school performance is not merely related to the nutritional needs of a growing brain. Using data from nearly 4,000 Spanish children aged 4-14 collected in a 2017 national health survey, the investigators found “skipping breakfast and eating breakfast out of the home were linked to greater odds of psychosocial behavioral problems than eating breakfast at home.” And, we already know that, in general, children who misbehave in school don’t thrive academically.

There were also associations between the absence or presence of certain food groups in the morning meal with behavioral problems. But the data lacked the granularity to draw any firm conclusions – although the authors felt that what they consider a healthy Spanish diet may have had a positive influence on behavior.

The findings in this study may simply be another example of the many positive influences that have been associated with family meals and have little to do with what is actually consumed. The association may not have much to do with the family gathering together at a single Norman Rockwell sitting, a reality that I suspect seldom occurs. The apparent positive influence of breakfast may be that it reflects a family’s priorities: that food is important, that sleep is important, and that school is important – so important that scheduling the morning should focus on sending the child off well prepared. The child who is allowed to stay up to an unhealthy hour is likely to be difficult to arouse in the morning for breakfast and getting off to school.

It may be that the child’s behavior problems are so disruptive and taxing for the family that even with their best efforts, the parents can’t find the time and energy to provide a breakfast in the home.

On the other hand, the study doesn’t tell us how many children aren’t offered breakfast at home because their families simply can’t afford it. Obviously, the answer depends on the socioeconomic mix of a given community. In some localities this may represent a sizable percentage of the population.

So where does this leave us? Unfortunately, as I read through the discussion at the end of this paper I felt that the authors were leaning too much toward further research based on the potential associations between behavior and specific food groups their data suggested.

For me, the take-home message from this paper is that our existing efforts to improve academic success with food offered in school should also include strategies that promote eating breakfast at home. For example, the backpack take-home food distribution programs that seem to have been effective could include breakfast-targeted items packaged in a way that encourage families to provide breakfast at home.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

We’ve been told for decades that a child who doesn’t start the day with a good breakfast is entering school at a serious disadvantage. The brain needs a good supply of energy to learn optimally. So the standard wisdom goes. Subsidized school breakfast programs have been built around this chestnut. But, is there solid evidence to support the notion that simply adding a morning meal to a child’s schedule will improve his or her school performance? It sounds like common sense, but is it just one of those old grandmother’s nuggets that doesn’t stand up under close scrutiny?

A recent study from Spain suggests that the relationship between breakfast and school performance is not merely related to the nutritional needs of a growing brain. Using data from nearly 4,000 Spanish children aged 4-14 collected in a 2017 national health survey, the investigators found “skipping breakfast and eating breakfast out of the home were linked to greater odds of psychosocial behavioral problems than eating breakfast at home.” And, we already know that, in general, children who misbehave in school don’t thrive academically.

There were also associations between the absence or presence of certain food groups in the morning meal with behavioral problems. But the data lacked the granularity to draw any firm conclusions – although the authors felt that what they consider a healthy Spanish diet may have had a positive influence on behavior.

The findings in this study may simply be another example of the many positive influences that have been associated with family meals and have little to do with what is actually consumed. The association may not have much to do with the family gathering together at a single Norman Rockwell sitting, a reality that I suspect seldom occurs. The apparent positive influence of breakfast may be that it reflects a family’s priorities: that food is important, that sleep is important, and that school is important – so important that scheduling the morning should focus on sending the child off well prepared. The child who is allowed to stay up to an unhealthy hour is likely to be difficult to arouse in the morning for breakfast and getting off to school.

It may be that the child’s behavior problems are so disruptive and taxing for the family that even with their best efforts, the parents can’t find the time and energy to provide a breakfast in the home.

On the other hand, the study doesn’t tell us how many children aren’t offered breakfast at home because their families simply can’t afford it. Obviously, the answer depends on the socioeconomic mix of a given community. In some localities this may represent a sizable percentage of the population.

So where does this leave us? Unfortunately, as I read through the discussion at the end of this paper I felt that the authors were leaning too much toward further research based on the potential associations between behavior and specific food groups their data suggested.

For me, the take-home message from this paper is that our existing efforts to improve academic success with food offered in school should also include strategies that promote eating breakfast at home. For example, the backpack take-home food distribution programs that seem to have been effective could include breakfast-targeted items packaged in a way that encourage families to provide breakfast at home.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

We’ve been told for decades that a child who doesn’t start the day with a good breakfast is entering school at a serious disadvantage. The brain needs a good supply of energy to learn optimally. So the standard wisdom goes. Subsidized school breakfast programs have been built around this chestnut. But, is there solid evidence to support the notion that simply adding a morning meal to a child’s schedule will improve his or her school performance? It sounds like common sense, but is it just one of those old grandmother’s nuggets that doesn’t stand up under close scrutiny?

A recent study from Spain suggests that the relationship between breakfast and school performance is not merely related to the nutritional needs of a growing brain. Using data from nearly 4,000 Spanish children aged 4-14 collected in a 2017 national health survey, the investigators found “skipping breakfast and eating breakfast out of the home were linked to greater odds of psychosocial behavioral problems than eating breakfast at home.” And, we already know that, in general, children who misbehave in school don’t thrive academically.

There were also associations between the absence or presence of certain food groups in the morning meal with behavioral problems. But the data lacked the granularity to draw any firm conclusions – although the authors felt that what they consider a healthy Spanish diet may have had a positive influence on behavior.

The findings in this study may simply be another example of the many positive influences that have been associated with family meals and have little to do with what is actually consumed. The association may not have much to do with the family gathering together at a single Norman Rockwell sitting, a reality that I suspect seldom occurs. The apparent positive influence of breakfast may be that it reflects a family’s priorities: that food is important, that sleep is important, and that school is important – so important that scheduling the morning should focus on sending the child off well prepared. The child who is allowed to stay up to an unhealthy hour is likely to be difficult to arouse in the morning for breakfast and getting off to school.

It may be that the child’s behavior problems are so disruptive and taxing for the family that even with their best efforts, the parents can’t find the time and energy to provide a breakfast in the home.

On the other hand, the study doesn’t tell us how many children aren’t offered breakfast at home because their families simply can’t afford it. Obviously, the answer depends on the socioeconomic mix of a given community. In some localities this may represent a sizable percentage of the population.

So where does this leave us? Unfortunately, as I read through the discussion at the end of this paper I felt that the authors were leaning too much toward further research based on the potential associations between behavior and specific food groups their data suggested.

For me, the take-home message from this paper is that our existing efforts to improve academic success with food offered in school should also include strategies that promote eating breakfast at home. For example, the backpack take-home food distribution programs that seem to have been effective could include breakfast-targeted items packaged in a way that encourage families to provide breakfast at home.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Recruiting health care workers is a challenge these days for both private practice and hospital employers, and competition can be fierce. In order to be competitive, employers need to review the package they are offering potential candidates and understand that it’s more than just compensation and benefits that matter.

When all else is equal, contract language can end up being the difference between capturing or losing a candidate.

As someone who reviews physician contracts extensively, there are some common examples of language that may cause a candidate to choose a different position.
 

Probationary period

Although every employer wants to find out if they like the physician or midlevel employee that they have just hired before fully committing, the inclusion of a probationary period (usually 90 days) is offensive to a candidate, especially one with a choice of contracts.

Essentially, the employer is asking the employee to (potentially) relocate, go through the credentialing process, and turn down other potential offers, all for the possibility that they could easily be terminated. Probationary periods typically allow an employee to be immediately terminated without notice or cause, which can then leave them stranded without a paycheck (and with a new home and/or other recent commitments).

Moreover, contracts with probationary periods tend to terminate the employee without covering any tail costs or clarifying that the employer will not enforce restrictive provisions (even if unlikely to be legally enforceable based on the short relationship).

It is important to understand that the process of a person finding a new position, which includes interviewing, contract negotiation, and credentialing, can take up to 6 months. For this reason, probationary provisions create real job insecurity for a candidate.

Entering into a new affiliation is a leap of faith both for the employer and the employee. If the circumstances do not work out, the employer should fairly compensate the employee for the notice period and ask them not to return to work or otherwise allow them to keep working the notice period while they search for a new position.
 

Acceleration of notice

Another objectionable provision that employers like to include in their contracts is one which allows the employer to accelerate and immediately terminate an employee who has given proper notice.

The contract will contain a standard notice provision, but when the health care professional submits notice, their last date is suddenly accelerated, and they are released without further compensation, notice, or benefits. This type of provision is particularly offensive to health care employees who take the step of giving proper contractual notice and, similar to the probationary language, can create real job insecurity for an employee who suddenly loses their paycheck and has no new job to start.

Medical workers should be paid for the entire notice period whether or not they are allowed to work. Unfortunately, this type of provision is sometimes hidden in contracts and not noticed by employees, who tend to focus on the notice provision itself. I consider this provision to be a red flag about the employer when I review clients’ contracts.
 

Malpractice tail

Although many employers will claim it is not unusual for an employee to pay for their own malpractice tail, in the current marketplace, the payment of tail can be a deciding factor in whether a candidate accepts a contract.

At a minimum, employers should consider paying for the tail under circumstances where they non-renew a contract, terminate without cause, or the contract is terminated for the employer’s breach. Similarly, I like to seek out payment of the tail by the employer where the contract is terminated owing to a change in the law, use of a force majeure provision, loss of the employer’s hospital contract, or similar provisions where termination is outside the control of the employee.

Employers should also consider a provision where they share the cost of a tail or cover the entire cost on the basis of years of service in order to stand out to a potential candidate.
 

Noncompete provisions

I do not find noncompete provisions to be generally unacceptable when properly written; however, employers should reevaluate the reasonableness of their noncompete language frequently, because such language can make the difference in whether a candidate accepts a contract.

A reasonable noncompete that only protects the employer as necessary and does not restrict the reasonable practice of medicine is always preferable and can be the deciding factor for a candidate. Tying enforcement of a noncompete to reasons for termination (similar to the tail) can also make a positive difference in a candidate’s review of a contract.

Egregious noncompetes, where the candidate is simply informed that the language is “not negotiable,” are unlikely to be compelling to a candidate with other options.
 

Specifics on location, call, schedule

One item potential employees find extremely frustrating about contracts is when it fails to include promises made regarding location, call, and schedule.

These particular items affect a physician’s expectations about a job, including commute time, family life, and lifestyle. An employer or recruiter that makes a lot of promises on these points but won’t commit to the details in writing (or at least offer mutual agreement on these issues) can cause an uncertain candidate to choose the job that offers greater certainty.

There are many provisions of a contract that can make a difference to a particular job applicant. A savvy employer seeking to capture a particular health care professional should find out what the specific goals and needs of the candidate might be and consider adjusting the contract to best satisfy the candidate.

At the end of the day, however, at least for those physicians and others reviewing contracts that are fairly equivalent, it may be the fairness of the contract provisions that end up being the deciding factor.

Ms. Adler is Health Law Group Practice Leader for the law firm Roetzel in Chicago. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Recruiting health care workers is a challenge these days for both private practice and hospital employers, and competition can be fierce. In order to be competitive, employers need to review the package they are offering potential candidates and understand that it’s more than just compensation and benefits that matter.

When all else is equal, contract language can end up being the difference between capturing or losing a candidate.

As someone who reviews physician contracts extensively, there are some common examples of language that may cause a candidate to choose a different position.
 

Probationary period

Although every employer wants to find out if they like the physician or midlevel employee that they have just hired before fully committing, the inclusion of a probationary period (usually 90 days) is offensive to a candidate, especially one with a choice of contracts.

Essentially, the employer is asking the employee to (potentially) relocate, go through the credentialing process, and turn down other potential offers, all for the possibility that they could easily be terminated. Probationary periods typically allow an employee to be immediately terminated without notice or cause, which can then leave them stranded without a paycheck (and with a new home and/or other recent commitments).

Moreover, contracts with probationary periods tend to terminate the employee without covering any tail costs or clarifying that the employer will not enforce restrictive provisions (even if unlikely to be legally enforceable based on the short relationship).

It is important to understand that the process of a person finding a new position, which includes interviewing, contract negotiation, and credentialing, can take up to 6 months. For this reason, probationary provisions create real job insecurity for a candidate.

Entering into a new affiliation is a leap of faith both for the employer and the employee. If the circumstances do not work out, the employer should fairly compensate the employee for the notice period and ask them not to return to work or otherwise allow them to keep working the notice period while they search for a new position.
 

Acceleration of notice

Another objectionable provision that employers like to include in their contracts is one which allows the employer to accelerate and immediately terminate an employee who has given proper notice.

The contract will contain a standard notice provision, but when the health care professional submits notice, their last date is suddenly accelerated, and they are released without further compensation, notice, or benefits. This type of provision is particularly offensive to health care employees who take the step of giving proper contractual notice and, similar to the probationary language, can create real job insecurity for an employee who suddenly loses their paycheck and has no new job to start.

Medical workers should be paid for the entire notice period whether or not they are allowed to work. Unfortunately, this type of provision is sometimes hidden in contracts and not noticed by employees, who tend to focus on the notice provision itself. I consider this provision to be a red flag about the employer when I review clients’ contracts.
 

Malpractice tail

Although many employers will claim it is not unusual for an employee to pay for their own malpractice tail, in the current marketplace, the payment of tail can be a deciding factor in whether a candidate accepts a contract.

At a minimum, employers should consider paying for the tail under circumstances where they non-renew a contract, terminate without cause, or the contract is terminated for the employer’s breach. Similarly, I like to seek out payment of the tail by the employer where the contract is terminated owing to a change in the law, use of a force majeure provision, loss of the employer’s hospital contract, or similar provisions where termination is outside the control of the employee.

Employers should also consider a provision where they share the cost of a tail or cover the entire cost on the basis of years of service in order to stand out to a potential candidate.
 

Noncompete provisions

I do not find noncompete provisions to be generally unacceptable when properly written; however, employers should reevaluate the reasonableness of their noncompete language frequently, because such language can make the difference in whether a candidate accepts a contract.

A reasonable noncompete that only protects the employer as necessary and does not restrict the reasonable practice of medicine is always preferable and can be the deciding factor for a candidate. Tying enforcement of a noncompete to reasons for termination (similar to the tail) can also make a positive difference in a candidate’s review of a contract.

Egregious noncompetes, where the candidate is simply informed that the language is “not negotiable,” are unlikely to be compelling to a candidate with other options.
 

Specifics on location, call, schedule

One item potential employees find extremely frustrating about contracts is when it fails to include promises made regarding location, call, and schedule.

These particular items affect a physician’s expectations about a job, including commute time, family life, and lifestyle. An employer or recruiter that makes a lot of promises on these points but won’t commit to the details in writing (or at least offer mutual agreement on these issues) can cause an uncertain candidate to choose the job that offers greater certainty.

There are many provisions of a contract that can make a difference to a particular job applicant. A savvy employer seeking to capture a particular health care professional should find out what the specific goals and needs of the candidate might be and consider adjusting the contract to best satisfy the candidate.

At the end of the day, however, at least for those physicians and others reviewing contracts that are fairly equivalent, it may be the fairness of the contract provisions that end up being the deciding factor.

Ms. Adler is Health Law Group Practice Leader for the law firm Roetzel in Chicago. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Recruiting health care workers is a challenge these days for both private practice and hospital employers, and competition can be fierce. In order to be competitive, employers need to review the package they are offering potential candidates and understand that it’s more than just compensation and benefits that matter.

When all else is equal, contract language can end up being the difference between capturing or losing a candidate.

As someone who reviews physician contracts extensively, there are some common examples of language that may cause a candidate to choose a different position.
 

Probationary period

Although every employer wants to find out if they like the physician or midlevel employee that they have just hired before fully committing, the inclusion of a probationary period (usually 90 days) is offensive to a candidate, especially one with a choice of contracts.

Essentially, the employer is asking the employee to (potentially) relocate, go through the credentialing process, and turn down other potential offers, all for the possibility that they could easily be terminated. Probationary periods typically allow an employee to be immediately terminated without notice or cause, which can then leave them stranded without a paycheck (and with a new home and/or other recent commitments).

Moreover, contracts with probationary periods tend to terminate the employee without covering any tail costs or clarifying that the employer will not enforce restrictive provisions (even if unlikely to be legally enforceable based on the short relationship).

It is important to understand that the process of a person finding a new position, which includes interviewing, contract negotiation, and credentialing, can take up to 6 months. For this reason, probationary provisions create real job insecurity for a candidate.

Entering into a new affiliation is a leap of faith both for the employer and the employee. If the circumstances do not work out, the employer should fairly compensate the employee for the notice period and ask them not to return to work or otherwise allow them to keep working the notice period while they search for a new position.
 

Acceleration of notice

Another objectionable provision that employers like to include in their contracts is one which allows the employer to accelerate and immediately terminate an employee who has given proper notice.

The contract will contain a standard notice provision, but when the health care professional submits notice, their last date is suddenly accelerated, and they are released without further compensation, notice, or benefits. This type of provision is particularly offensive to health care employees who take the step of giving proper contractual notice and, similar to the probationary language, can create real job insecurity for an employee who suddenly loses their paycheck and has no new job to start.

Medical workers should be paid for the entire notice period whether or not they are allowed to work. Unfortunately, this type of provision is sometimes hidden in contracts and not noticed by employees, who tend to focus on the notice provision itself. I consider this provision to be a red flag about the employer when I review clients’ contracts.
 

Malpractice tail

Although many employers will claim it is not unusual for an employee to pay for their own malpractice tail, in the current marketplace, the payment of tail can be a deciding factor in whether a candidate accepts a contract.

At a minimum, employers should consider paying for the tail under circumstances where they non-renew a contract, terminate without cause, or the contract is terminated for the employer’s breach. Similarly, I like to seek out payment of the tail by the employer where the contract is terminated owing to a change in the law, use of a force majeure provision, loss of the employer’s hospital contract, or similar provisions where termination is outside the control of the employee.

Employers should also consider a provision where they share the cost of a tail or cover the entire cost on the basis of years of service in order to stand out to a potential candidate.
 

Noncompete provisions

I do not find noncompete provisions to be generally unacceptable when properly written; however, employers should reevaluate the reasonableness of their noncompete language frequently, because such language can make the difference in whether a candidate accepts a contract.

A reasonable noncompete that only protects the employer as necessary and does not restrict the reasonable practice of medicine is always preferable and can be the deciding factor for a candidate. Tying enforcement of a noncompete to reasons for termination (similar to the tail) can also make a positive difference in a candidate’s review of a contract.

Egregious noncompetes, where the candidate is simply informed that the language is “not negotiable,” are unlikely to be compelling to a candidate with other options.
 

Specifics on location, call, schedule

One item potential employees find extremely frustrating about contracts is when it fails to include promises made regarding location, call, and schedule.

These particular items affect a physician’s expectations about a job, including commute time, family life, and lifestyle. An employer or recruiter that makes a lot of promises on these points but won’t commit to the details in writing (or at least offer mutual agreement on these issues) can cause an uncertain candidate to choose the job that offers greater certainty.

There are many provisions of a contract that can make a difference to a particular job applicant. A savvy employer seeking to capture a particular health care professional should find out what the specific goals and needs of the candidate might be and consider adjusting the contract to best satisfy the candidate.

At the end of the day, however, at least for those physicians and others reviewing contracts that are fairly equivalent, it may be the fairness of the contract provisions that end up being the deciding factor.

Ms. Adler is Health Law Group Practice Leader for the law firm Roetzel in Chicago. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Statins have, overall, been a remarkably beneficial class of drugs. Yes, you occasionally get patients who see them as part of some huge pharma-government conspiracy (along with vaccines and 5G, presumably) but the data are there to support them.

One of the issues with them is myalgias. We all see this to varying degrees. We all warn patients about it, as do their pharmacists, the information sheets from the pharmacy, some TV show, a Facebook friend, that guy in their Tuesday bowling league ... etc.

It is a legitimate concern. Some people definitely do get muscle cramps from them and need to come off. Scanning the medication list of someone who comes in with muscle cramps is a key part of the case.

Recently, the Lancet published a meta-analysis on the subject and found that, in 9 out of 10 patients who complained of muscle cramps on statins, the symptoms were unrelated to the drug. While previous data suggested rates of myalgias as high as 29%, this paper found it was closer to 7% compared with placebo. Only one in 15 of the muscle-related reports by patients while taking statins were clearly caused by the drug.

The power of suggestion is remarkable indeed.

The study is interesting. It might be correct.

But try telling that to the patients.

We all have patients who will get pretty much any side effect we mention, or that they read about online. That’s just human nature for some. But even reasonable adults can confuse things. The guy who starts Lipitor one week then helps his daughter move into her apartment the next. The lady who starts Crestor while training for a half-marathon. And so on.

The fact is that a lot of people take statins. And a lot of people (like, pretty much all of us) do things that can cause muscle injuries. Sooner or later these lines are going to intersect, but that doesn’t mean they have anything to do with each other.

It’s a lot harder to explain that, and have people believe it, once they’ve convinced themselves otherwise. Pravachol definitely did this, Dr. Google said so. It doesn’t help that trust in doctors, and health care science in general, has been eroded by political pundits and nonmedical experts during the COVID-19 pandemic. To some people our years of experience and training are nothing compared to what an anonymous guy on Parler told them.

Certainly this paper will help. A lot of people can benefit from statins. With this data maybe we can convince some to give them a fair shot.

But, as we’ve all experienced in practice, sometimes no amount of solid data will change the mind of someone who’s already made theirs up.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Statins have, overall, been a remarkably beneficial class of drugs. Yes, you occasionally get patients who see them as part of some huge pharma-government conspiracy (along with vaccines and 5G, presumably) but the data are there to support them.

One of the issues with them is myalgias. We all see this to varying degrees. We all warn patients about it, as do their pharmacists, the information sheets from the pharmacy, some TV show, a Facebook friend, that guy in their Tuesday bowling league ... etc.

It is a legitimate concern. Some people definitely do get muscle cramps from them and need to come off. Scanning the medication list of someone who comes in with muscle cramps is a key part of the case.

Recently, the Lancet published a meta-analysis on the subject and found that, in 9 out of 10 patients who complained of muscle cramps on statins, the symptoms were unrelated to the drug. While previous data suggested rates of myalgias as high as 29%, this paper found it was closer to 7% compared with placebo. Only one in 15 of the muscle-related reports by patients while taking statins were clearly caused by the drug.

The power of suggestion is remarkable indeed.

The study is interesting. It might be correct.

But try telling that to the patients.

We all have patients who will get pretty much any side effect we mention, or that they read about online. That’s just human nature for some. But even reasonable adults can confuse things. The guy who starts Lipitor one week then helps his daughter move into her apartment the next. The lady who starts Crestor while training for a half-marathon. And so on.

The fact is that a lot of people take statins. And a lot of people (like, pretty much all of us) do things that can cause muscle injuries. Sooner or later these lines are going to intersect, but that doesn’t mean they have anything to do with each other.

It’s a lot harder to explain that, and have people believe it, once they’ve convinced themselves otherwise. Pravachol definitely did this, Dr. Google said so. It doesn’t help that trust in doctors, and health care science in general, has been eroded by political pundits and nonmedical experts during the COVID-19 pandemic. To some people our years of experience and training are nothing compared to what an anonymous guy on Parler told them.

Certainly this paper will help. A lot of people can benefit from statins. With this data maybe we can convince some to give them a fair shot.

But, as we’ve all experienced in practice, sometimes no amount of solid data will change the mind of someone who’s already made theirs up.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Statins have, overall, been a remarkably beneficial class of drugs. Yes, you occasionally get patients who see them as part of some huge pharma-government conspiracy (along with vaccines and 5G, presumably) but the data are there to support them.

One of the issues with them is myalgias. We all see this to varying degrees. We all warn patients about it, as do their pharmacists, the information sheets from the pharmacy, some TV show, a Facebook friend, that guy in their Tuesday bowling league ... etc.

It is a legitimate concern. Some people definitely do get muscle cramps from them and need to come off. Scanning the medication list of someone who comes in with muscle cramps is a key part of the case.

Recently, the Lancet published a meta-analysis on the subject and found that, in 9 out of 10 patients who complained of muscle cramps on statins, the symptoms were unrelated to the drug. While previous data suggested rates of myalgias as high as 29%, this paper found it was closer to 7% compared with placebo. Only one in 15 of the muscle-related reports by patients while taking statins were clearly caused by the drug.

The power of suggestion is remarkable indeed.

The study is interesting. It might be correct.

But try telling that to the patients.

We all have patients who will get pretty much any side effect we mention, or that they read about online. That’s just human nature for some. But even reasonable adults can confuse things. The guy who starts Lipitor one week then helps his daughter move into her apartment the next. The lady who starts Crestor while training for a half-marathon. And so on.

The fact is that a lot of people take statins. And a lot of people (like, pretty much all of us) do things that can cause muscle injuries. Sooner or later these lines are going to intersect, but that doesn’t mean they have anything to do with each other.

It’s a lot harder to explain that, and have people believe it, once they’ve convinced themselves otherwise. Pravachol definitely did this, Dr. Google said so. It doesn’t help that trust in doctors, and health care science in general, has been eroded by political pundits and nonmedical experts during the COVID-19 pandemic. To some people our years of experience and training are nothing compared to what an anonymous guy on Parler told them.

Certainly this paper will help. A lot of people can benefit from statins. With this data maybe we can convince some to give them a fair shot.

But, as we’ve all experienced in practice, sometimes no amount of solid data will change the mind of someone who’s already made theirs up.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

The unfortunate death of Lori McClintock, wife of northern California congressman Tom McClintock, shortly after consuming the herbal remedy white mulberry leaf on Dec. 15, 2021, gives us the opportunity to discuss how to better protect the American public from nutritional supplements with claims to aid health. Mulberry leaf has been purported to lower blood glucose levels, cholesterol, and inflammation as well as promote weight loss.

Many people desire to improve their health with concoctions purported to be “natural” or “from nature” instead of seeing a doctor and taking a medication or other therapy that is evidenced-based and backed by approval from the Food and Drug Administration. With the burgeoning prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes in this country (and worldwide) and the lack of a magic bullet that can stop the progression of these life-threatening diseases, many Americans turn to herbal and nutritional supplements that claim to promote weight loss and improve health.

Passed in 1994, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) has allowed manufacturers of herbal and nutritional supplements to be “off the radar” of government regulators, unless their products have been shown to do harm – which is the government’s burden to prove.

A dietary supplement is defined as a product containing one or more vitamin, mineral, herb, or other botanical; amino acid; or other substance that would increase the total dietary intake of that product.

DSHEA exempted dietary supplements from the rigorous safety and efficacy testing that medications must undergo for various disease states, which is regulated by the FDA.
 

People with obesity may fall prey to dietary supplements’ claims

Persons suffering from obesity and its metabolic sequelae may be susceptible to the claims of dietary supplements because:

• The stigma associated with obesity, including the lack of understanding that obesity is a disease not under a person’s control, may make those with the disease wish to remedy it on their own out of shame and peer pressure.
• Clinicians and doctors traditionally have not been trained in obesity medicine so they aren’t comfortable treating obesity.
• It’s only fairly recently that obesity was recognized as a disease, so many insurance companies still don’t reimburse for obesity treatments, including the agents that can suppress appetite and result in weight loss.

For all of these reasons and more, only 2% or less of the millions of Americans suffering from obesity are treated with an antiobesity agent each year.

This has paved the way for the dietary supplement industry to prey on a desperate population, in much the same way that fad diets continue to attract multitudes of Americans. These supplements, however, carry much more risk than fad diets.

The solution, of course, is better regulation of the supplement industry, but it’s also improvement of how obesity is treated by the medical community.
 

How can clinicians and the community help?

Government, academic, community, clinical, and lay persons are more frequently recognizing obesity as a disease. Stigma will slowly come to a halt, as it has for other diseases such as depression and addiction to alcohol and drugs. Medications that have undergone rigorous testing for safety and efficacy eventually will be prescribed more and covered by healthcare insurance. Clinicians, and specifically physicians, are the most trusted persons in terms of giving medical advice. We need to ask patients whether they are taking supplements and be vocal about their lack of protection against harm, as allowed by DSHEA.

It would not be overkill to add prompts to the medical record to ask patients not only about smoking, alcohol, and drug use but also about supplements of all kinds. Some medical records do use these prompts but they are not as ubiquitous as those for smoking, alcohol, and drug use.

The supplement industry is powerful, but so is the medical industry when it comes to lobbying for change. It is ironic that Lori McClintock was the wife of a congressman. Perhaps the silver lining is future work toward legislation advocating for an end to these tragic deaths from poorly regulated supplements. Alignment with government in pushing for stricter regulations could save lives in the future.

Dr. Apovian is a faculty member, department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension; and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Boston. She disclosed ties with Abbott, Allergan, Altimmune, Bariatrix Nutrition, Cowen and Company, Curavit, Rhythm Pharma, Jazz, Nutrisystem, Roman, Novo Nordisk, EnteroMedics, Gelesis Srl, Zafgen, Xeno, L-Nutra, Tivity, and Real Appeal.



A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The unfortunate death of Lori McClintock, wife of northern California congressman Tom McClintock, shortly after consuming the herbal remedy white mulberry leaf on Dec. 15, 2021, gives us the opportunity to discuss how to better protect the American public from nutritional supplements with claims to aid health. Mulberry leaf has been purported to lower blood glucose levels, cholesterol, and inflammation as well as promote weight loss.

Many people desire to improve their health with concoctions purported to be “natural” or “from nature” instead of seeing a doctor and taking a medication or other therapy that is evidenced-based and backed by approval from the Food and Drug Administration. With the burgeoning prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes in this country (and worldwide) and the lack of a magic bullet that can stop the progression of these life-threatening diseases, many Americans turn to herbal and nutritional supplements that claim to promote weight loss and improve health.

Passed in 1994, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) has allowed manufacturers of herbal and nutritional supplements to be “off the radar” of government regulators, unless their products have been shown to do harm – which is the government’s burden to prove.

A dietary supplement is defined as a product containing one or more vitamin, mineral, herb, or other botanical; amino acid; or other substance that would increase the total dietary intake of that product.

DSHEA exempted dietary supplements from the rigorous safety and efficacy testing that medications must undergo for various disease states, which is regulated by the FDA.
 

People with obesity may fall prey to dietary supplements’ claims

Persons suffering from obesity and its metabolic sequelae may be susceptible to the claims of dietary supplements because:

• The stigma associated with obesity, including the lack of understanding that obesity is a disease not under a person’s control, may make those with the disease wish to remedy it on their own out of shame and peer pressure.
• Clinicians and doctors traditionally have not been trained in obesity medicine so they aren’t comfortable treating obesity.
• It’s only fairly recently that obesity was recognized as a disease, so many insurance companies still don’t reimburse for obesity treatments, including the agents that can suppress appetite and result in weight loss.

For all of these reasons and more, only 2% or less of the millions of Americans suffering from obesity are treated with an antiobesity agent each year.

This has paved the way for the dietary supplement industry to prey on a desperate population, in much the same way that fad diets continue to attract multitudes of Americans. These supplements, however, carry much more risk than fad diets.

The solution, of course, is better regulation of the supplement industry, but it’s also improvement of how obesity is treated by the medical community.
 

How can clinicians and the community help?

Government, academic, community, clinical, and lay persons are more frequently recognizing obesity as a disease. Stigma will slowly come to a halt, as it has for other diseases such as depression and addiction to alcohol and drugs. Medications that have undergone rigorous testing for safety and efficacy eventually will be prescribed more and covered by healthcare insurance. Clinicians, and specifically physicians, are the most trusted persons in terms of giving medical advice. We need to ask patients whether they are taking supplements and be vocal about their lack of protection against harm, as allowed by DSHEA.

It would not be overkill to add prompts to the medical record to ask patients not only about smoking, alcohol, and drug use but also about supplements of all kinds. Some medical records do use these prompts but they are not as ubiquitous as those for smoking, alcohol, and drug use.

The supplement industry is powerful, but so is the medical industry when it comes to lobbying for change. It is ironic that Lori McClintock was the wife of a congressman. Perhaps the silver lining is future work toward legislation advocating for an end to these tragic deaths from poorly regulated supplements. Alignment with government in pushing for stricter regulations could save lives in the future.

Dr. Apovian is a faculty member, department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension; and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Boston. She disclosed ties with Abbott, Allergan, Altimmune, Bariatrix Nutrition, Cowen and Company, Curavit, Rhythm Pharma, Jazz, Nutrisystem, Roman, Novo Nordisk, EnteroMedics, Gelesis Srl, Zafgen, Xeno, L-Nutra, Tivity, and Real Appeal.



A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The unfortunate death of Lori McClintock, wife of northern California congressman Tom McClintock, shortly after consuming the herbal remedy white mulberry leaf on Dec. 15, 2021, gives us the opportunity to discuss how to better protect the American public from nutritional supplements with claims to aid health. Mulberry leaf has been purported to lower blood glucose levels, cholesterol, and inflammation as well as promote weight loss.

Many people desire to improve their health with concoctions purported to be “natural” or “from nature” instead of seeing a doctor and taking a medication or other therapy that is evidenced-based and backed by approval from the Food and Drug Administration. With the burgeoning prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes in this country (and worldwide) and the lack of a magic bullet that can stop the progression of these life-threatening diseases, many Americans turn to herbal and nutritional supplements that claim to promote weight loss and improve health.

Passed in 1994, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) has allowed manufacturers of herbal and nutritional supplements to be “off the radar” of government regulators, unless their products have been shown to do harm – which is the government’s burden to prove.

A dietary supplement is defined as a product containing one or more vitamin, mineral, herb, or other botanical; amino acid; or other substance that would increase the total dietary intake of that product.

DSHEA exempted dietary supplements from the rigorous safety and efficacy testing that medications must undergo for various disease states, which is regulated by the FDA.
 

People with obesity may fall prey to dietary supplements’ claims

Persons suffering from obesity and its metabolic sequelae may be susceptible to the claims of dietary supplements because:

• The stigma associated with obesity, including the lack of understanding that obesity is a disease not under a person’s control, may make those with the disease wish to remedy it on their own out of shame and peer pressure.
• Clinicians and doctors traditionally have not been trained in obesity medicine so they aren’t comfortable treating obesity.
• It’s only fairly recently that obesity was recognized as a disease, so many insurance companies still don’t reimburse for obesity treatments, including the agents that can suppress appetite and result in weight loss.

For all of these reasons and more, only 2% or less of the millions of Americans suffering from obesity are treated with an antiobesity agent each year.

This has paved the way for the dietary supplement industry to prey on a desperate population, in much the same way that fad diets continue to attract multitudes of Americans. These supplements, however, carry much more risk than fad diets.

The solution, of course, is better regulation of the supplement industry, but it’s also improvement of how obesity is treated by the medical community.
 

How can clinicians and the community help?

Government, academic, community, clinical, and lay persons are more frequently recognizing obesity as a disease. Stigma will slowly come to a halt, as it has for other diseases such as depression and addiction to alcohol and drugs. Medications that have undergone rigorous testing for safety and efficacy eventually will be prescribed more and covered by healthcare insurance. Clinicians, and specifically physicians, are the most trusted persons in terms of giving medical advice. We need to ask patients whether they are taking supplements and be vocal about their lack of protection against harm, as allowed by DSHEA.

It would not be overkill to add prompts to the medical record to ask patients not only about smoking, alcohol, and drug use but also about supplements of all kinds. Some medical records do use these prompts but they are not as ubiquitous as those for smoking, alcohol, and drug use.

The supplement industry is powerful, but so is the medical industry when it comes to lobbying for change. It is ironic that Lori McClintock was the wife of a congressman. Perhaps the silver lining is future work toward legislation advocating for an end to these tragic deaths from poorly regulated supplements. Alignment with government in pushing for stricter regulations could save lives in the future.

Dr. Apovian is a faculty member, department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension; and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Boston. She disclosed ties with Abbott, Allergan, Altimmune, Bariatrix Nutrition, Cowen and Company, Curavit, Rhythm Pharma, Jazz, Nutrisystem, Roman, Novo Nordisk, EnteroMedics, Gelesis Srl, Zafgen, Xeno, L-Nutra, Tivity, and Real Appeal.



A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Dear colleagues,

Most of us engage with social media, whether actively tweeting, following friends on Facebook, or discussing TikTok videos with family. Many gastroenterologists leverage social media to build their professional brand and to reach a wider audience. Others remain wary of committing a social media faux paux or worry about patient confidentiality. In this Perspectives column, Dr. Stephen Chris Pappas and Dr. Mohammad Bilal discuss the risks and benefits of social media for the practicing gastroenterologist. Dr. Pappas has a unique perspective as a gastroenterologist who is also trained as a lawyer, and Dr. Bilal speaks from a wealth of experience leading educational activities on social media. We look forward to hearing your thoughts on Twitter @AGA_GIHN and by email at [email protected].

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, an associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and chief of endoscopy at West Haven (Conn.) VA Medical Center. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Carefully consider the plentiful risks, concerns

BY STEPHEN CHRIS PAPPAS, MD, JD, FAASLD, FACLM

Social media for gastroenterologists comes with benefits accompanied by pesky risks. The risks are pesky like a mosquito bite: An itching bite is annoying, but getting malaria is serious. Managing your unprofessional tweet to salvage your reputation is going to be annoying. Disclosing a patient's identity on social media is going to be serious; you could find yourself fired, fined, reprimanded, and without hospital privileges, as happened recently to a Rhode Island physician. I divide the risks of social media into legal risks (for example, disclosing patient identity or inadvertently creating a doctor-patient relationship), risks of compromising ethical standards (for example, impairing the doctor-patient relationship), and mixed legal/ethics risks (for example, inappropriate Twitter banter disparaging individuals, promotion of “fake news”). Fortunately, these risks are intuitive and can be mitigated by attention to some simple principles.

Disclosing a patient’s identity on social media is clearly in violation of privacy laws and other regulations. Since privacy compliance is drummed into us ad nauseum via annual compliance training, we could ask “how on earth could an inadvertent disclosure of identity occur?” We must remember that sites that are nominally termed “secure” may not be. As a general suggestion, I would regard social media of all types as open public forums with permanent postings. Even limited descriptions of a patient on social media may allow identification of the actual patient. The risk may be highest in smaller communities; in the past I assisted a small-town practitioner manage the fallout from inadvertently identifying a patient on his professional Facebook page by simply saying “I recently managed a 38-year-old pregnant woman with Crohn’s disease ...” That small amount of information allowed some members of his community to identify the specific patient. My suggestion would be to never talk about individual patients on social media. Phrase comments or questions generically; for example, “Crohn’s disease in pregnancy is managed with attention to ...”.

Another legal risk of social media engagement is to unknowingly create a patient-doctor relationship with a duty to treat, opening the door for exposure to malpractice litigation if something goes awry. A patient may interpret a social media interaction as establishing a patient-doctor relationship. While we think we know what defines a doctor-patient relationship, it’s not always clear and varies between jurisdictions. Indeed, a physician-patient relationship may not even be a necessary element of a claim for professional negligence (an issue shared with “curbside” consults). A recent court case in Minnesota ruled that a duty to care is established if “... it is reasonably foreseeable that the third party will rely on the physician’s acts and be harmed by a breach of the standard of care.” That case involved a telephone call, but you could see the standard easily morphing to apply to social media posts. Gastroenterologists should always talk about disease and treatment on social media in generic terms, preferably with appropriate caveats (for example, “Patients with cholestasis and intense itching may be treated with naloxone in selected cases after detailed assessment by a hepatologist”).

Impairing an established doctor-patient relationship by “friending” a patient on your personal Facebook risks a potential compromise of professional ethics, breaking the boundaries between profession and person for the gastroenterologist. The approach by most professional societies is that a “friend” on social media is equal to a friend in the real world; the same legal and ethical standards apply. Doctor-patient friendships may compromise objectivity, lead to preferential but not optimal therapy, and increase the risk of skirting around informed consent among other issues. Being friends on social media is discouraged, but not prohibited, by most professional societies and licensing bodies. In my opinion, that is sound advice. Over a career of more than 40 years, I have had patients who became friends, but only after I had transferred their care to another hepatologist.

More recently with escalating, aggressive, tones for social media communications, GI/hepatology practitioners must be aware of the serious risk of blurring their personal and professional online lives, particularly where Twitter is involved. The rapidity which people seem to want to reply to a tweet, the public and durable natures of a tweet, and the ability to significantly retweet and repost all spell potential disasters for the physician tweeting an inappropriate communication. Separation of personal and professional social media accounts is strongly encouraged but alone is not enough; you are never totally anonymous online. The reality is that a physician will be judged for an inappropriate communication whether it’s found on their professional or personal site. Either posting could result in reputation damage, reprimands, medical license restrictions or revocations, and litigation. Nationally, medical boards now regularly deal with disciplinary actions for inappropriate social media activity. The best preventive measures include pausing before you post, check the veracity of what you are posting, place your post in context, and assess the tone of your post and the tone of the site that you are posting to. A perfect storm for disaster is that the material is not clearly evidence based and could be construed as “fake,” you are personally emotionally charged, and the site you are posting to is a known cauldron of emotion and fake news.

In summary, social media affords benefits in a health care setting but it comes with some baggage. However, the risks of a social media presence are largely instinctive. An initial starting point is pausing to consider, “Would I say/do this in a public venue where everybody could hear/see me?” If there is any concern, don’t post. Subsequently, conduct yourself on social media with meticulous attention to protecting confidentiality, avoiding any impression of creating a doctor-patient relationship, avoiding doctor-friend relationships, being aware of key legal, institutional, and professional society guidance, separating personal and professional activities, and maintaining professionalism.

Dr. Pappas is in the GI and hepatology section of the department of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

Attai DJ et al. Semin Hematol. 2017 Oct; 54(4): 198-204.

Bal BS et al. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 Oct; 477(10): 2204-6.

Ekrem, D et al. 20111 Jun 6. https://www.kevinmd.com/2011/06/7-tips-avoid-hipaa-violations-social-media.html

Hallenbeck J. Doctor and Friend. 2005 Jun. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/doctor-and-friend/2005-06

Moses RE et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Aug;109(8):1128-32.

Understand its multifaceted importance

BY MOHAMMAD BILAL, MD, FACP

Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines social media as “forms of electronic communication (such as websites for social networking and microblogging) through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content.” Over the last few years, there has been an increase in use of social media by medical professionals. Whether we like it or not, social media is here to stay. Patients use social media to look up information regarding their doctors, medical practices use it to promote the services they offer, institutions share their programs and initiatives, and doctors use it for education, to engage with like-minded colleagues, collaborate, spread awareness, network, and combat medical misinformation. Social media is now rapidly being used by gastroenterologists and hepatologists, as well as majority of professional GI organizations, and hashtags such as “#MedTwitter”, “#GITwitter,” and “#LiverTwitter” have developed into popular academic forums.¹ Therefore, the impact of social media in GI is multifaceted and includes its role in medical education, promoting your practice or division, finding collaborations, building your network and establishing mentors and peer-mentors, disseminating your work, and building your brand.²

What is your goal?

Gastroenterologists could have one or more of the goals mentioned above for using social media. Determining the goals for social media use a priori will allow for determining which social media platform will be appropriate for you. Therefore, it is important to understand the users of various social media platforms. In 2017, Facebook was the highest used social media platform in all age groups, whereas Instagram was most popular amongst ages 18-29 years, while Twitter was used more commonly in ages 30-59 years as compared with Instagram. If your goal is to share scientific knowledge and literature with like-minded physicians and interact with leaders in the field, then Twitter may be ideal. If you want to connect with a younger, more diverse audience, Instagram might be a good option. While many physicians may have a Facebook account, this is often reserved for personal use. Many have separated of personal and professional social media use, although they do not need to exist in silos. Defining your goal with social media use will direct you to the best platform to reach your audience.

Medical education

The use of social media especially Twitter for medical education is continuously increasing. Several leaders in the field use “Tweetorials” as a means to educate others. Tweetorials are a collective set of tweets that systematically cover a specialized topic.³ Other educational forums such as @ScopingSundays, @MondayNightIBD, @IBDClub and @GIJournal provide structured platforms for GI focused discussion.⁴ @MondayNightIBD is also a source for official continued medical education. Other social media educational platforms include “Liver Fellow Network” which has wide variety of educational materials pertaining to hepatology. In addition, there is continuous opportunity to engage with leaders in the field and authors of published studies and guidelines. Several endoscopy educators have dedicated YouTube channels which have endless supply of educational videos.

Networking

As mentioned above, platforms such as #GITwitter and #LiverTwitter have become popular forums for engaging and connecting with like minded colleagues. Social media provides a space to share ideas and build collaborations with colleagues working on similar projects. The concept “#Twitter2Paper” has been proposed which signifies an idea that generated on Twitter and was eventually converted to a manuscript.⁵

Institutional, divisional, and practice promotion

Social media is a great tool to showcase the clinical, educational and scholarship services and efforts by programs, practices or divisions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, recruitment efforts at all stages were mainly shifted to virtual platforms, and social media was an instrumental way for programs to highlight their culture and initiatives. Prospective applicants can often refer to social media to get a better understanding of what the program offers. Similarly, if a new clinical service is being provided, targeted efforts can be made to ensure that patients are aware of the available services.

Patient education and combating misinformation

Several gastroenterologists also use social media to spread awareness regarding GI diseases. Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok are effective mediums where one can reach a wider audience. It is important for gastroenterologists to provide accurate information since there is a sea of misinformation available on the internet as well. Posts regarding colonoscopy and colon cancer awareness can help alleviate myths regarding role of colonoscopy. In addition, patient advocates use social media to provide peer support to others who deal with challenges related to chronic illnesses such as inflammatory bowel disease.

Sharing your work

Sharing your work on social media can help your work reach a broader audience. Studies have shown that work shared on social media has higher altmetric scores and can also lead to increased citations.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion

Social media offers a platform where one can promote or showcase their support for causes they believe in. The hashtag “#DiversityinGI” has been instrumental in promoting causes pertaining to diversity and inclusion in GI.

Pitfalls

As gastroenterologists continue to use social media, it is important to be mindful of potential pitfalls. The most critical aspect is to always remember that no post should intentionally or unintentionally violate HIPAA. It is advisable to know your institutional and state social media policies.

Social media is beaming with knowledge, education, science and inspiration. There are endless opportunities for professional and personal growth with effective and responsible use of social media. Its never to late to join the conversation.

Dr. Bilal is an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis and an advanced endoscopist in the division of gastroenterology at Minneapolis VA Medical Center. He has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

1. Mikolajczyk AE et al. Hepatol Commun. 2020 Jul 5;4(8):1229-33.

2. Bilal M and Oxentenko AS. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 Oct;115(10):1549-52.

3. Breu AC. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 19;381(12):1097-8.

4. Bilal M et al. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Aug;18(8):519-20.

5. Pawlak KM et al. United European Gastroenterol J. 2021 Feb;9(1):129-32.




 

Dear colleagues,

Most of us engage with social media, whether actively tweeting, following friends on Facebook, or discussing TikTok videos with family. Many gastroenterologists leverage social media to build their professional brand and to reach a wider audience. Others remain wary of committing a social media faux paux or worry about patient confidentiality. In this Perspectives column, Dr. Stephen Chris Pappas and Dr. Mohammad Bilal discuss the risks and benefits of social media for the practicing gastroenterologist. Dr. Pappas has a unique perspective as a gastroenterologist who is also trained as a lawyer, and Dr. Bilal speaks from a wealth of experience leading educational activities on social media. We look forward to hearing your thoughts on Twitter @AGA_GIHN and by email at [email protected].

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, an associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and chief of endoscopy at West Haven (Conn.) VA Medical Center. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Carefully consider the plentiful risks, concerns

BY STEPHEN CHRIS PAPPAS, MD, JD, FAASLD, FACLM

Social media for gastroenterologists comes with benefits accompanied by pesky risks. The risks are pesky like a mosquito bite: An itching bite is annoying, but getting malaria is serious. Managing your unprofessional tweet to salvage your reputation is going to be annoying. Disclosing a patient's identity on social media is going to be serious; you could find yourself fired, fined, reprimanded, and without hospital privileges, as happened recently to a Rhode Island physician. I divide the risks of social media into legal risks (for example, disclosing patient identity or inadvertently creating a doctor-patient relationship), risks of compromising ethical standards (for example, impairing the doctor-patient relationship), and mixed legal/ethics risks (for example, inappropriate Twitter banter disparaging individuals, promotion of “fake news”). Fortunately, these risks are intuitive and can be mitigated by attention to some simple principles.

Disclosing a patient’s identity on social media is clearly in violation of privacy laws and other regulations. Since privacy compliance is drummed into us ad nauseum via annual compliance training, we could ask “how on earth could an inadvertent disclosure of identity occur?” We must remember that sites that are nominally termed “secure” may not be. As a general suggestion, I would regard social media of all types as open public forums with permanent postings. Even limited descriptions of a patient on social media may allow identification of the actual patient. The risk may be highest in smaller communities; in the past I assisted a small-town practitioner manage the fallout from inadvertently identifying a patient on his professional Facebook page by simply saying “I recently managed a 38-year-old pregnant woman with Crohn’s disease ...” That small amount of information allowed some members of his community to identify the specific patient. My suggestion would be to never talk about individual patients on social media. Phrase comments or questions generically; for example, “Crohn’s disease in pregnancy is managed with attention to ...”.

Another legal risk of social media engagement is to unknowingly create a patient-doctor relationship with a duty to treat, opening the door for exposure to malpractice litigation if something goes awry. A patient may interpret a social media interaction as establishing a patient-doctor relationship. While we think we know what defines a doctor-patient relationship, it’s not always clear and varies between jurisdictions. Indeed, a physician-patient relationship may not even be a necessary element of a claim for professional negligence (an issue shared with “curbside” consults). A recent court case in Minnesota ruled that a duty to care is established if “... it is reasonably foreseeable that the third party will rely on the physician’s acts and be harmed by a breach of the standard of care.” That case involved a telephone call, but you could see the standard easily morphing to apply to social media posts. Gastroenterologists should always talk about disease and treatment on social media in generic terms, preferably with appropriate caveats (for example, “Patients with cholestasis and intense itching may be treated with naloxone in selected cases after detailed assessment by a hepatologist”).

Impairing an established doctor-patient relationship by “friending” a patient on your personal Facebook risks a potential compromise of professional ethics, breaking the boundaries between profession and person for the gastroenterologist. The approach by most professional societies is that a “friend” on social media is equal to a friend in the real world; the same legal and ethical standards apply. Doctor-patient friendships may compromise objectivity, lead to preferential but not optimal therapy, and increase the risk of skirting around informed consent among other issues. Being friends on social media is discouraged, but not prohibited, by most professional societies and licensing bodies. In my opinion, that is sound advice. Over a career of more than 40 years, I have had patients who became friends, but only after I had transferred their care to another hepatologist.

More recently with escalating, aggressive, tones for social media communications, GI/hepatology practitioners must be aware of the serious risk of blurring their personal and professional online lives, particularly where Twitter is involved. The rapidity which people seem to want to reply to a tweet, the public and durable natures of a tweet, and the ability to significantly retweet and repost all spell potential disasters for the physician tweeting an inappropriate communication. Separation of personal and professional social media accounts is strongly encouraged but alone is not enough; you are never totally anonymous online. The reality is that a physician will be judged for an inappropriate communication whether it’s found on their professional or personal site. Either posting could result in reputation damage, reprimands, medical license restrictions or revocations, and litigation. Nationally, medical boards now regularly deal with disciplinary actions for inappropriate social media activity. The best preventive measures include pausing before you post, check the veracity of what you are posting, place your post in context, and assess the tone of your post and the tone of the site that you are posting to. A perfect storm for disaster is that the material is not clearly evidence based and could be construed as “fake,” you are personally emotionally charged, and the site you are posting to is a known cauldron of emotion and fake news.

In summary, social media affords benefits in a health care setting but it comes with some baggage. However, the risks of a social media presence are largely instinctive. An initial starting point is pausing to consider, “Would I say/do this in a public venue where everybody could hear/see me?” If there is any concern, don’t post. Subsequently, conduct yourself on social media with meticulous attention to protecting confidentiality, avoiding any impression of creating a doctor-patient relationship, avoiding doctor-friend relationships, being aware of key legal, institutional, and professional society guidance, separating personal and professional activities, and maintaining professionalism.

Dr. Pappas is in the GI and hepatology section of the department of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

Attai DJ et al. Semin Hematol. 2017 Oct; 54(4): 198-204.

Bal BS et al. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 Oct; 477(10): 2204-6.

Ekrem, D et al. 20111 Jun 6. https://www.kevinmd.com/2011/06/7-tips-avoid-hipaa-violations-social-media.html

Hallenbeck J. Doctor and Friend. 2005 Jun. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/doctor-and-friend/2005-06

Moses RE et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Aug;109(8):1128-32.

Understand its multifaceted importance

BY MOHAMMAD BILAL, MD, FACP

Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines social media as “forms of electronic communication (such as websites for social networking and microblogging) through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content.” Over the last few years, there has been an increase in use of social media by medical professionals. Whether we like it or not, social media is here to stay. Patients use social media to look up information regarding their doctors, medical practices use it to promote the services they offer, institutions share their programs and initiatives, and doctors use it for education, to engage with like-minded colleagues, collaborate, spread awareness, network, and combat medical misinformation. Social media is now rapidly being used by gastroenterologists and hepatologists, as well as majority of professional GI organizations, and hashtags such as “#MedTwitter”, “#GITwitter,” and “#LiverTwitter” have developed into popular academic forums.¹ Therefore, the impact of social media in GI is multifaceted and includes its role in medical education, promoting your practice or division, finding collaborations, building your network and establishing mentors and peer-mentors, disseminating your work, and building your brand.²

What is your goal?

Gastroenterologists could have one or more of the goals mentioned above for using social media. Determining the goals for social media use a priori will allow for determining which social media platform will be appropriate for you. Therefore, it is important to understand the users of various social media platforms. In 2017, Facebook was the highest used social media platform in all age groups, whereas Instagram was most popular amongst ages 18-29 years, while Twitter was used more commonly in ages 30-59 years as compared with Instagram. If your goal is to share scientific knowledge and literature with like-minded physicians and interact with leaders in the field, then Twitter may be ideal. If you want to connect with a younger, more diverse audience, Instagram might be a good option. While many physicians may have a Facebook account, this is often reserved for personal use. Many have separated of personal and professional social media use, although they do not need to exist in silos. Defining your goal with social media use will direct you to the best platform to reach your audience.

Medical education

The use of social media especially Twitter for medical education is continuously increasing. Several leaders in the field use “Tweetorials” as a means to educate others. Tweetorials are a collective set of tweets that systematically cover a specialized topic.³ Other educational forums such as @ScopingSundays, @MondayNightIBD, @IBDClub and @GIJournal provide structured platforms for GI focused discussion.⁴ @MondayNightIBD is also a source for official continued medical education. Other social media educational platforms include “Liver Fellow Network” which has wide variety of educational materials pertaining to hepatology. In addition, there is continuous opportunity to engage with leaders in the field and authors of published studies and guidelines. Several endoscopy educators have dedicated YouTube channels which have endless supply of educational videos.

Networking

As mentioned above, platforms such as #GITwitter and #LiverTwitter have become popular forums for engaging and connecting with like minded colleagues. Social media provides a space to share ideas and build collaborations with colleagues working on similar projects. The concept “#Twitter2Paper” has been proposed which signifies an idea that generated on Twitter and was eventually converted to a manuscript.⁵

Institutional, divisional, and practice promotion

Social media is a great tool to showcase the clinical, educational and scholarship services and efforts by programs, practices or divisions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, recruitment efforts at all stages were mainly shifted to virtual platforms, and social media was an instrumental way for programs to highlight their culture and initiatives. Prospective applicants can often refer to social media to get a better understanding of what the program offers. Similarly, if a new clinical service is being provided, targeted efforts can be made to ensure that patients are aware of the available services.

Patient education and combating misinformation

Several gastroenterologists also use social media to spread awareness regarding GI diseases. Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok are effective mediums where one can reach a wider audience. It is important for gastroenterologists to provide accurate information since there is a sea of misinformation available on the internet as well. Posts regarding colonoscopy and colon cancer awareness can help alleviate myths regarding role of colonoscopy. In addition, patient advocates use social media to provide peer support to others who deal with challenges related to chronic illnesses such as inflammatory bowel disease.

Sharing your work

Sharing your work on social media can help your work reach a broader audience. Studies have shown that work shared on social media has higher altmetric scores and can also lead to increased citations.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion

Social media offers a platform where one can promote or showcase their support for causes they believe in. The hashtag “#DiversityinGI” has been instrumental in promoting causes pertaining to diversity and inclusion in GI.

Pitfalls

As gastroenterologists continue to use social media, it is important to be mindful of potential pitfalls. The most critical aspect is to always remember that no post should intentionally or unintentionally violate HIPAA. It is advisable to know your institutional and state social media policies.

Social media is beaming with knowledge, education, science and inspiration. There are endless opportunities for professional and personal growth with effective and responsible use of social media. Its never to late to join the conversation.

Dr. Bilal is an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis and an advanced endoscopist in the division of gastroenterology at Minneapolis VA Medical Center. He has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

1. Mikolajczyk AE et al. Hepatol Commun. 2020 Jul 5;4(8):1229-33.

2. Bilal M and Oxentenko AS. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 Oct;115(10):1549-52.

3. Breu AC. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 19;381(12):1097-8.

4. Bilal M et al. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Aug;18(8):519-20.

5. Pawlak KM et al. United European Gastroenterol J. 2021 Feb;9(1):129-32.




 

Dear colleagues,

Most of us engage with social media, whether actively tweeting, following friends on Facebook, or discussing TikTok videos with family. Many gastroenterologists leverage social media to build their professional brand and to reach a wider audience. Others remain wary of committing a social media faux paux or worry about patient confidentiality. In this Perspectives column, Dr. Stephen Chris Pappas and Dr. Mohammad Bilal discuss the risks and benefits of social media for the practicing gastroenterologist. Dr. Pappas has a unique perspective as a gastroenterologist who is also trained as a lawyer, and Dr. Bilal speaks from a wealth of experience leading educational activities on social media. We look forward to hearing your thoughts on Twitter @AGA_GIHN and by email at [email protected].

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, an associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and chief of endoscopy at West Haven (Conn.) VA Medical Center. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Carefully consider the plentiful risks, concerns

BY STEPHEN CHRIS PAPPAS, MD, JD, FAASLD, FACLM

Social media for gastroenterologists comes with benefits accompanied by pesky risks. The risks are pesky like a mosquito bite: An itching bite is annoying, but getting malaria is serious. Managing your unprofessional tweet to salvage your reputation is going to be annoying. Disclosing a patient's identity on social media is going to be serious; you could find yourself fired, fined, reprimanded, and without hospital privileges, as happened recently to a Rhode Island physician. I divide the risks of social media into legal risks (for example, disclosing patient identity or inadvertently creating a doctor-patient relationship), risks of compromising ethical standards (for example, impairing the doctor-patient relationship), and mixed legal/ethics risks (for example, inappropriate Twitter banter disparaging individuals, promotion of “fake news”). Fortunately, these risks are intuitive and can be mitigated by attention to some simple principles.

Disclosing a patient’s identity on social media is clearly in violation of privacy laws and other regulations. Since privacy compliance is drummed into us ad nauseum via annual compliance training, we could ask “how on earth could an inadvertent disclosure of identity occur?” We must remember that sites that are nominally termed “secure” may not be. As a general suggestion, I would regard social media of all types as open public forums with permanent postings. Even limited descriptions of a patient on social media may allow identification of the actual patient. The risk may be highest in smaller communities; in the past I assisted a small-town practitioner manage the fallout from inadvertently identifying a patient on his professional Facebook page by simply saying “I recently managed a 38-year-old pregnant woman with Crohn’s disease ...” That small amount of information allowed some members of his community to identify the specific patient. My suggestion would be to never talk about individual patients on social media. Phrase comments or questions generically; for example, “Crohn’s disease in pregnancy is managed with attention to ...”.

Another legal risk of social media engagement is to unknowingly create a patient-doctor relationship with a duty to treat, opening the door for exposure to malpractice litigation if something goes awry. A patient may interpret a social media interaction as establishing a patient-doctor relationship. While we think we know what defines a doctor-patient relationship, it’s not always clear and varies between jurisdictions. Indeed, a physician-patient relationship may not even be a necessary element of a claim for professional negligence (an issue shared with “curbside” consults). A recent court case in Minnesota ruled that a duty to care is established if “... it is reasonably foreseeable that the third party will rely on the physician’s acts and be harmed by a breach of the standard of care.” That case involved a telephone call, but you could see the standard easily morphing to apply to social media posts. Gastroenterologists should always talk about disease and treatment on social media in generic terms, preferably with appropriate caveats (for example, “Patients with cholestasis and intense itching may be treated with naloxone in selected cases after detailed assessment by a hepatologist”).

Impairing an established doctor-patient relationship by “friending” a patient on your personal Facebook risks a potential compromise of professional ethics, breaking the boundaries between profession and person for the gastroenterologist. The approach by most professional societies is that a “friend” on social media is equal to a friend in the real world; the same legal and ethical standards apply. Doctor-patient friendships may compromise objectivity, lead to preferential but not optimal therapy, and increase the risk of skirting around informed consent among other issues. Being friends on social media is discouraged, but not prohibited, by most professional societies and licensing bodies. In my opinion, that is sound advice. Over a career of more than 40 years, I have had patients who became friends, but only after I had transferred their care to another hepatologist.

More recently with escalating, aggressive, tones for social media communications, GI/hepatology practitioners must be aware of the serious risk of blurring their personal and professional online lives, particularly where Twitter is involved. The rapidity which people seem to want to reply to a tweet, the public and durable natures of a tweet, and the ability to significantly retweet and repost all spell potential disasters for the physician tweeting an inappropriate communication. Separation of personal and professional social media accounts is strongly encouraged but alone is not enough; you are never totally anonymous online. The reality is that a physician will be judged for an inappropriate communication whether it’s found on their professional or personal site. Either posting could result in reputation damage, reprimands, medical license restrictions or revocations, and litigation. Nationally, medical boards now regularly deal with disciplinary actions for inappropriate social media activity. The best preventive measures include pausing before you post, check the veracity of what you are posting, place your post in context, and assess the tone of your post and the tone of the site that you are posting to. A perfect storm for disaster is that the material is not clearly evidence based and could be construed as “fake,” you are personally emotionally charged, and the site you are posting to is a known cauldron of emotion and fake news.

In summary, social media affords benefits in a health care setting but it comes with some baggage. However, the risks of a social media presence are largely instinctive. An initial starting point is pausing to consider, “Would I say/do this in a public venue where everybody could hear/see me?” If there is any concern, don’t post. Subsequently, conduct yourself on social media with meticulous attention to protecting confidentiality, avoiding any impression of creating a doctor-patient relationship, avoiding doctor-friend relationships, being aware of key legal, institutional, and professional society guidance, separating personal and professional activities, and maintaining professionalism.

Dr. Pappas is in the GI and hepatology section of the department of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

Attai DJ et al. Semin Hematol. 2017 Oct; 54(4): 198-204.

Bal BS et al. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 Oct; 477(10): 2204-6.

Ekrem, D et al. 20111 Jun 6. https://www.kevinmd.com/2011/06/7-tips-avoid-hipaa-violations-social-media.html

Hallenbeck J. Doctor and Friend. 2005 Jun. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/doctor-and-friend/2005-06

Moses RE et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Aug;109(8):1128-32.

Understand its multifaceted importance

BY MOHAMMAD BILAL, MD, FACP

Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines social media as “forms of electronic communication (such as websites for social networking and microblogging) through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content.” Over the last few years, there has been an increase in use of social media by medical professionals. Whether we like it or not, social media is here to stay. Patients use social media to look up information regarding their doctors, medical practices use it to promote the services they offer, institutions share their programs and initiatives, and doctors use it for education, to engage with like-minded colleagues, collaborate, spread awareness, network, and combat medical misinformation. Social media is now rapidly being used by gastroenterologists and hepatologists, as well as majority of professional GI organizations, and hashtags such as “#MedTwitter”, “#GITwitter,” and “#LiverTwitter” have developed into popular academic forums.¹ Therefore, the impact of social media in GI is multifaceted and includes its role in medical education, promoting your practice or division, finding collaborations, building your network and establishing mentors and peer-mentors, disseminating your work, and building your brand.²

What is your goal?

Gastroenterologists could have one or more of the goals mentioned above for using social media. Determining the goals for social media use a priori will allow for determining which social media platform will be appropriate for you. Therefore, it is important to understand the users of various social media platforms. In 2017, Facebook was the highest used social media platform in all age groups, whereas Instagram was most popular amongst ages 18-29 years, while Twitter was used more commonly in ages 30-59 years as compared with Instagram. If your goal is to share scientific knowledge and literature with like-minded physicians and interact with leaders in the field, then Twitter may be ideal. If you want to connect with a younger, more diverse audience, Instagram might be a good option. While many physicians may have a Facebook account, this is often reserved for personal use. Many have separated of personal and professional social media use, although they do not need to exist in silos. Defining your goal with social media use will direct you to the best platform to reach your audience.

Medical education

The use of social media especially Twitter for medical education is continuously increasing. Several leaders in the field use “Tweetorials” as a means to educate others. Tweetorials are a collective set of tweets that systematically cover a specialized topic.³ Other educational forums such as @ScopingSundays, @MondayNightIBD, @IBDClub and @GIJournal provide structured platforms for GI focused discussion.⁴ @MondayNightIBD is also a source for official continued medical education. Other social media educational platforms include “Liver Fellow Network” which has wide variety of educational materials pertaining to hepatology. In addition, there is continuous opportunity to engage with leaders in the field and authors of published studies and guidelines. Several endoscopy educators have dedicated YouTube channels which have endless supply of educational videos.

Networking

As mentioned above, platforms such as #GITwitter and #LiverTwitter have become popular forums for engaging and connecting with like minded colleagues. Social media provides a space to share ideas and build collaborations with colleagues working on similar projects. The concept “#Twitter2Paper” has been proposed which signifies an idea that generated on Twitter and was eventually converted to a manuscript.⁵

Institutional, divisional, and practice promotion

Social media is a great tool to showcase the clinical, educational and scholarship services and efforts by programs, practices or divisions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, recruitment efforts at all stages were mainly shifted to virtual platforms, and social media was an instrumental way for programs to highlight their culture and initiatives. Prospective applicants can often refer to social media to get a better understanding of what the program offers. Similarly, if a new clinical service is being provided, targeted efforts can be made to ensure that patients are aware of the available services.

Patient education and combating misinformation

Several gastroenterologists also use social media to spread awareness regarding GI diseases. Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok are effective mediums where one can reach a wider audience. It is important for gastroenterologists to provide accurate information since there is a sea of misinformation available on the internet as well. Posts regarding colonoscopy and colon cancer awareness can help alleviate myths regarding role of colonoscopy. In addition, patient advocates use social media to provide peer support to others who deal with challenges related to chronic illnesses such as inflammatory bowel disease.

Sharing your work

Sharing your work on social media can help your work reach a broader audience. Studies have shown that work shared on social media has higher altmetric scores and can also lead to increased citations.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion

Social media offers a platform where one can promote or showcase their support for causes they believe in. The hashtag “#DiversityinGI” has been instrumental in promoting causes pertaining to diversity and inclusion in GI.

Pitfalls

As gastroenterologists continue to use social media, it is important to be mindful of potential pitfalls. The most critical aspect is to always remember that no post should intentionally or unintentionally violate HIPAA. It is advisable to know your institutional and state social media policies.

Social media is beaming with knowledge, education, science and inspiration. There are endless opportunities for professional and personal growth with effective and responsible use of social media. Its never to late to join the conversation.

Dr. Bilal is an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis and an advanced endoscopist in the division of gastroenterology at Minneapolis VA Medical Center. He has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

1. Mikolajczyk AE et al. Hepatol Commun. 2020 Jul 5;4(8):1229-33.

2. Bilal M and Oxentenko AS. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 Oct;115(10):1549-52.

3. Breu AC. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 19;381(12):1097-8.

4. Bilal M et al. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Aug;18(8):519-20.

5. Pawlak KM et al. United European Gastroenterol J. 2021 Feb;9(1):129-32.




 

Since the first issue of GI & Hepatology News was published 15 years ago, the field of hepatology has undergone a tremendous transformation.

In the late 2000s, we witnessed revolutionary discoveries and advances in our understanding and management of chronic hepatitis C. Who knew that when IL-28B was first described in 2009, providing a genetic basis for patients’ response to interferon-based therapies, its impact would also be so swiftly supplanted by the introduction of direct acting antivirals a few years later? The pipeline for HCV treatment was feverish for several years, which resulted in a complete transformation of HCV treatment from a long, exhausting, side-effect filled course to a simple 8-to-12-week regimen. Furthermore, we now have established protocols for organ transplantation for patients without active HCV infection to receive HCV-positive organs due to the effectiveness of treatments for HCV. This kind of progress in our field demonstrates how awe-inspiring medical advances can be and how fortunate we are to have witnessed and lived this progress in such a short period of time.

Dr. Jou is associate professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, School of Medicine Fellowship program director, Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. She reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

Since the first issue of GI & Hepatology News was published 15 years ago, the field of hepatology has undergone a tremendous transformation.

In the late 2000s, we witnessed revolutionary discoveries and advances in our understanding and management of chronic hepatitis C. Who knew that when IL-28B was first described in 2009, providing a genetic basis for patients’ response to interferon-based therapies, its impact would also be so swiftly supplanted by the introduction of direct acting antivirals a few years later? The pipeline for HCV treatment was feverish for several years, which resulted in a complete transformation of HCV treatment from a long, exhausting, side-effect filled course to a simple 8-to-12-week regimen. Furthermore, we now have established protocols for organ transplantation for patients without active HCV infection to receive HCV-positive organs due to the effectiveness of treatments for HCV. This kind of progress in our field demonstrates how awe-inspiring medical advances can be and how fortunate we are to have witnessed and lived this progress in such a short period of time.

Dr. Jou is associate professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, School of Medicine Fellowship program director, Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. She reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

Since the first issue of GI & Hepatology News was published 15 years ago, the field of hepatology has undergone a tremendous transformation.

In the late 2000s, we witnessed revolutionary discoveries and advances in our understanding and management of chronic hepatitis C. Who knew that when IL-28B was first described in 2009, providing a genetic basis for patients’ response to interferon-based therapies, its impact would also be so swiftly supplanted by the introduction of direct acting antivirals a few years later? The pipeline for HCV treatment was feverish for several years, which resulted in a complete transformation of HCV treatment from a long, exhausting, side-effect filled course to a simple 8-to-12-week regimen. Furthermore, we now have established protocols for organ transplantation for patients without active HCV infection to receive HCV-positive organs due to the effectiveness of treatments for HCV. This kind of progress in our field demonstrates how awe-inspiring medical advances can be and how fortunate we are to have witnessed and lived this progress in such a short period of time.

Dr. Jou is associate professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, School of Medicine Fellowship program director, Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. She reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

At the risk of losing a digit or two I am going to dip my toes into the murky waters of gender-affirming care, sometimes referred to as trans care. Recently, Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, released two statements, one in the Aug. 22, 2022, Wall Street Journal, the other summarized in the Aug. 25, 2022, AAP Daily Briefing, in which she attempts to clarify the academy’s position on gender-affirming care. They were well-worded and heroic attempts to clear the air. I fear these explanations will do little to encourage informed and courteous discussions between those entrenched on either side of a disagreement that is unfortunately being played out on media outlets and state legislatures instead of the offices of primary care physicians and specialists where it belongs.

The current mess is an example of what can happen when there is a paucity of reliable data, a superabundance of emotion, and a system that feeds on instant news and sound bites with little understanding of how science should work.

Some of the turmoil is a response to the notion that in certain situations gender dysphoria may be a condition that can be learned or mimicked from exposure to other gender-dysphoric individuals. Two papers anchor either side of the debate. The first paper was published in 2018 by a then–Brown University health expert who hypothesized the existence of a condition which she labeled “rapid-onset gender dysphoria [ROGD]”. One can imagine that “social contagion” might be considered as one of the potential contributors to this hypothesized condition. Unfortunately, the publication of the paper ignited a firestorm of criticism from a segment of the population that advocates for the transgender community, prompting the university and the online publisher to backpedal and reevaluate the quality of the research on which the paper was based.

One of the concerns voiced at the time of publication was that the research could be used to support the transphobic agenda by some state legislatures hoping to ban gender-affirming care. How large a role the paper played in the current spate of legislation in is unclear. I suspect it has been small. But, one can’t deny the potential exists.

Leaping forward to 2022, the second paper was published in the August issue of Pediatrics, in which the authors attempted to test the ROGD hypothesis and question the inference of social contagion.

The investigators found that in 2017 and 2019 the birth ratios of transgender-diverse (TGD) individuals did not favor assigned female-sex-at-birth (AFAB) individuals. They also discovered that in their sample overall there was a decrease in the percentage of adolescents who self-identified as TGD. Not surprisingly, “bullying victimization and suicidality were higher among TGD youth when compared with their cisgender peers.” The authors concluded that their findings were “incongruent with an ROGD hypothesis that posits social contagion” nor should it be used to restrict access to gender-affirming care.

There you have it. Are we any closer to understanding gender dysphoria and its origins? I don’t think so. The media is somewhat less confused. The NBC News online presence headline on Aug. 3, 2022, reads “‘Social contagion’ isn’t causing more youths to be transgender, study finds.”

My sense is that the general population perceives an increase in the prevalence of gender dysphoria. It is very likely that this perception is primarily a reflection of a more compassionate and educated attitude in a significant portion of the population making it less challenging for gender-dysphoric youth to surface. However, it should not surprise us that some parents and observers are concerned that a percentage of this increased prevalence is the result of social contagion. Nor should it surprise us that some advocates for the trans population feel threatened by this hypothesis.

Neither of these studies really answers the question of whether some cases of gender dysphoria are the result of social contagion. Both were small samples using methodology that has been called into question. The bottom line is that we need more studies and must remain open to considering their results. That’s how science should work.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

At the risk of losing a digit or two I am going to dip my toes into the murky waters of gender-affirming care, sometimes referred to as trans care. Recently, Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, released two statements, one in the Aug. 22, 2022, Wall Street Journal, the other summarized in the Aug. 25, 2022, AAP Daily Briefing, in which she attempts to clarify the academy’s position on gender-affirming care. They were well-worded and heroic attempts to clear the air. I fear these explanations will do little to encourage informed and courteous discussions between those entrenched on either side of a disagreement that is unfortunately being played out on media outlets and state legislatures instead of the offices of primary care physicians and specialists where it belongs.

The current mess is an example of what can happen when there is a paucity of reliable data, a superabundance of emotion, and a system that feeds on instant news and sound bites with little understanding of how science should work.

Some of the turmoil is a response to the notion that in certain situations gender dysphoria may be a condition that can be learned or mimicked from exposure to other gender-dysphoric individuals. Two papers anchor either side of the debate. The first paper was published in 2018 by a then–Brown University health expert who hypothesized the existence of a condition which she labeled “rapid-onset gender dysphoria [ROGD]”. One can imagine that “social contagion” might be considered as one of the potential contributors to this hypothesized condition. Unfortunately, the publication of the paper ignited a firestorm of criticism from a segment of the population that advocates for the transgender community, prompting the university and the online publisher to backpedal and reevaluate the quality of the research on which the paper was based.

One of the concerns voiced at the time of publication was that the research could be used to support the transphobic agenda by some state legislatures hoping to ban gender-affirming care. How large a role the paper played in the current spate of legislation in is unclear. I suspect it has been small. But, one can’t deny the potential exists.

Leaping forward to 2022, the second paper was published in the August issue of Pediatrics, in which the authors attempted to test the ROGD hypothesis and question the inference of social contagion.

The investigators found that in 2017 and 2019 the birth ratios of transgender-diverse (TGD) individuals did not favor assigned female-sex-at-birth (AFAB) individuals. They also discovered that in their sample overall there was a decrease in the percentage of adolescents who self-identified as TGD. Not surprisingly, “bullying victimization and suicidality were higher among TGD youth when compared with their cisgender peers.” The authors concluded that their findings were “incongruent with an ROGD hypothesis that posits social contagion” nor should it be used to restrict access to gender-affirming care.

There you have it. Are we any closer to understanding gender dysphoria and its origins? I don’t think so. The media is somewhat less confused. The NBC News online presence headline on Aug. 3, 2022, reads “‘Social contagion’ isn’t causing more youths to be transgender, study finds.”

My sense is that the general population perceives an increase in the prevalence of gender dysphoria. It is very likely that this perception is primarily a reflection of a more compassionate and educated attitude in a significant portion of the population making it less challenging for gender-dysphoric youth to surface. However, it should not surprise us that some parents and observers are concerned that a percentage of this increased prevalence is the result of social contagion. Nor should it surprise us that some advocates for the trans population feel threatened by this hypothesis.

Neither of these studies really answers the question of whether some cases of gender dysphoria are the result of social contagion. Both were small samples using methodology that has been called into question. The bottom line is that we need more studies and must remain open to considering their results. That’s how science should work.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

At the risk of losing a digit or two I am going to dip my toes into the murky waters of gender-affirming care, sometimes referred to as trans care. Recently, Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, released two statements, one in the Aug. 22, 2022, Wall Street Journal, the other summarized in the Aug. 25, 2022, AAP Daily Briefing, in which she attempts to clarify the academy’s position on gender-affirming care. They were well-worded and heroic attempts to clear the air. I fear these explanations will do little to encourage informed and courteous discussions between those entrenched on either side of a disagreement that is unfortunately being played out on media outlets and state legislatures instead of the offices of primary care physicians and specialists where it belongs.

The current mess is an example of what can happen when there is a paucity of reliable data, a superabundance of emotion, and a system that feeds on instant news and sound bites with little understanding of how science should work.

Some of the turmoil is a response to the notion that in certain situations gender dysphoria may be a condition that can be learned or mimicked from exposure to other gender-dysphoric individuals. Two papers anchor either side of the debate. The first paper was published in 2018 by a then–Brown University health expert who hypothesized the existence of a condition which she labeled “rapid-onset gender dysphoria [ROGD]”. One can imagine that “social contagion” might be considered as one of the potential contributors to this hypothesized condition. Unfortunately, the publication of the paper ignited a firestorm of criticism from a segment of the population that advocates for the transgender community, prompting the university and the online publisher to backpedal and reevaluate the quality of the research on which the paper was based.

One of the concerns voiced at the time of publication was that the research could be used to support the transphobic agenda by some state legislatures hoping to ban gender-affirming care. How large a role the paper played in the current spate of legislation in is unclear. I suspect it has been small. But, one can’t deny the potential exists.

Leaping forward to 2022, the second paper was published in the August issue of Pediatrics, in which the authors attempted to test the ROGD hypothesis and question the inference of social contagion.

The investigators found that in 2017 and 2019 the birth ratios of transgender-diverse (TGD) individuals did not favor assigned female-sex-at-birth (AFAB) individuals. They also discovered that in their sample overall there was a decrease in the percentage of adolescents who self-identified as TGD. Not surprisingly, “bullying victimization and suicidality were higher among TGD youth when compared with their cisgender peers.” The authors concluded that their findings were “incongruent with an ROGD hypothesis that posits social contagion” nor should it be used to restrict access to gender-affirming care.

There you have it. Are we any closer to understanding gender dysphoria and its origins? I don’t think so. The media is somewhat less confused. The NBC News online presence headline on Aug. 3, 2022, reads “‘Social contagion’ isn’t causing more youths to be transgender, study finds.”

My sense is that the general population perceives an increase in the prevalence of gender dysphoria. It is very likely that this perception is primarily a reflection of a more compassionate and educated attitude in a significant portion of the population making it less challenging for gender-dysphoric youth to surface. However, it should not surprise us that some parents and observers are concerned that a percentage of this increased prevalence is the result of social contagion. Nor should it surprise us that some advocates for the trans population feel threatened by this hypothesis.

Neither of these studies really answers the question of whether some cases of gender dysphoria are the result of social contagion. Both were small samples using methodology that has been called into question. The bottom line is that we need more studies and must remain open to considering their results. That’s how science should work.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].