User login
News and Views that Matter to Pediatricians
The leading independent newspaper covering news and commentary in pediatrics.
Are Women Better Doctors Than Men?
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
It’s a battle of the sexes today as we dive into a paper that makes you say, “Wow, what an interesting study” and also “Boy, am I glad I didn’t do that study.” That’s because studies like this are always somewhat fraught; they say something about medicine but also something about society — and that makes this a bit precarious. But that’s never stopped us before. So, let’s go ahead and try to answer the question: Do women make better doctors than men?
On the surface, this question seems nearly impossible to answer. It’s too broad; what does it mean to be a “better” doctor? At first blush it seems that there are just too many variables to control for here: the type of doctor, the type of patient, the clinical scenario, and so on.
But this study, “Comparison of hospital mortality and readmission rates by physician and patient sex,” which appears in Annals of Internal Medicine, uses a fairly ingenious method to cut through all the bias by leveraging two simple facts: First, hospital medicine is largely conducted by hospitalists these days; second, due to the shift-based nature of hospitalist work, the hospitalist you get when you are admitted to the hospital is pretty much random.
In other words, if you are admitted to the hospital for an acute illness and get a hospitalist as your attending, you have no control over whether it is a man or a woman. Is this a randomized trial? No, but it’s not bad.
Researchers used Medicare claims data to identify adults over age 65 who had nonelective hospital admissions throughout the United States. The claims revealed the sex of the patient and the name of the attending physician. By linking to a medical provider database, they could determine the sex of the provider.
The goal was to look at outcomes across four dyads:
- Male patient – male doctor
- Male patient – female doctor
- Female patient – male doctor
- Female patient – female doctor
The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.
I told you that focusing on hospitalists produces some pseudorandomization, but let’s look at the data to be sure. Just under a million patients were treated by approximately 50,000 physicians, 30% of whom were female. And, though female patients and male patients differed, they did not differ with respect to the sex of their hospitalist. So, by physician sex, patients were similar in mean age, race, ethnicity, household income, eligibility for Medicaid, and comorbid conditions. The authors even created a “predicted mortality” score which was similar across the groups as well.
Now, the female physicians were a bit different from the male physicians. The female hospitalists were slightly more likely to have an osteopathic degree, had slightly fewer admissions per year, and were a bit younger.
So, we have broadly similar patients regardless of who their hospitalist was, but hospitalists differ by factors other than their sex. Fine.
I’ve graphed the results here. 
This is a relatively small effect, to be sure, but if you multiply it across the millions of hospitalist admissions per year, you can start to put up some real numbers.
So, what is going on here? I see four broad buckets of possibilities.
Let’s start with the obvious explanation: Women, on average, are better doctors than men. I am married to a woman doctor, and based on my personal experience, this explanation is undoubtedly true. But why would that be?
The authors cite data that suggest that female physicians are less likely than male physicians to dismiss patient concerns — and in particular, the concerns of female patients — perhaps leading to fewer missed diagnoses. But this is impossible to measure with administrative data, so this study can no more tell us whether these female hospitalists are more attentive than their male counterparts than it can suggest that the benefit is mediated by the shorter average height of female physicians. Perhaps the key is being closer to the patient?
The second possibility here is that this has nothing to do with the sex of the physician at all; it has to do with those other things that associate with the sex of the physician. We know, for example, that the female physicians saw fewer patients per year than the male physicians, but the study authors adjusted for this in the statistical models. Still, other unmeasured factors (confounders) could be present. By the way, confounders wouldn’t necessarily change the primary finding — you are better off being cared for by female physicians. It’s just not because they are female; it’s a convenient marker for some other quality, such as age.
The third possibility is that the study represents a phenomenon called collider bias. The idea here is that physicians only get into the study if they are hospitalists, and the quality of physicians who choose to become a hospitalist may differ by sex. When deciding on a specialty, a talented resident considering certain lifestyle issues may find hospital medicine particularly attractive — and that draw toward a more lifestyle-friendly specialty may differ by sex, as some prior studies have shown. If true, the pool of women hospitalists may be better than their male counterparts because male physicians of that caliber don’t become hospitalists.
Okay, don’t write in. I’m just trying to cite examples of how to think about collider bias. I can’t prove that this is the case, and in fact the authors do a sensitivity analysis of all physicians, not just hospitalists, and show the same thing. So this is probably not true, but epidemiology is fun, right?
And the fourth possibility: This is nothing but statistical noise. The effect size is incredibly small and just on the border of statistical significance. Especially when you’re working with very large datasets like this, you’ve got to be really careful about overinterpreting statistically significant findings that are nevertheless of small magnitude.
Regardless, it’s an interesting study, one that made me think and, of course, worry a bit about how I would present it. Forgive me if I’ve been indelicate in handling the complex issues of sex, gender, and society here. But I’m not sure what you expect; after all, I’m only a male doctor.
Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
It’s a battle of the sexes today as we dive into a paper that makes you say, “Wow, what an interesting study” and also “Boy, am I glad I didn’t do that study.” That’s because studies like this are always somewhat fraught; they say something about medicine but also something about society — and that makes this a bit precarious. But that’s never stopped us before. So, let’s go ahead and try to answer the question: Do women make better doctors than men?
On the surface, this question seems nearly impossible to answer. It’s too broad; what does it mean to be a “better” doctor? At first blush it seems that there are just too many variables to control for here: the type of doctor, the type of patient, the clinical scenario, and so on.
But this study, “Comparison of hospital mortality and readmission rates by physician and patient sex,” which appears in Annals of Internal Medicine, uses a fairly ingenious method to cut through all the bias by leveraging two simple facts: First, hospital medicine is largely conducted by hospitalists these days; second, due to the shift-based nature of hospitalist work, the hospitalist you get when you are admitted to the hospital is pretty much random.
In other words, if you are admitted to the hospital for an acute illness and get a hospitalist as your attending, you have no control over whether it is a man or a woman. Is this a randomized trial? No, but it’s not bad.
Researchers used Medicare claims data to identify adults over age 65 who had nonelective hospital admissions throughout the United States. The claims revealed the sex of the patient and the name of the attending physician. By linking to a medical provider database, they could determine the sex of the provider.
The goal was to look at outcomes across four dyads:
- Male patient – male doctor
- Male patient – female doctor
- Female patient – male doctor
- Female patient – female doctor
The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.
I told you that focusing on hospitalists produces some pseudorandomization, but let’s look at the data to be sure. Just under a million patients were treated by approximately 50,000 physicians, 30% of whom were female. And, though female patients and male patients differed, they did not differ with respect to the sex of their hospitalist. So, by physician sex, patients were similar in mean age, race, ethnicity, household income, eligibility for Medicaid, and comorbid conditions. The authors even created a “predicted mortality” score which was similar across the groups as well.
Now, the female physicians were a bit different from the male physicians. The female hospitalists were slightly more likely to have an osteopathic degree, had slightly fewer admissions per year, and were a bit younger.
So, we have broadly similar patients regardless of who their hospitalist was, but hospitalists differ by factors other than their sex. Fine.
I’ve graphed the results here.
This is a relatively small effect, to be sure, but if you multiply it across the millions of hospitalist admissions per year, you can start to put up some real numbers.
So, what is going on here? I see four broad buckets of possibilities.
Let’s start with the obvious explanation: Women, on average, are better doctors than men. I am married to a woman doctor, and based on my personal experience, this explanation is undoubtedly true. But why would that be?
The authors cite data that suggest that female physicians are less likely than male physicians to dismiss patient concerns — and in particular, the concerns of female patients — perhaps leading to fewer missed diagnoses. But this is impossible to measure with administrative data, so this study can no more tell us whether these female hospitalists are more attentive than their male counterparts than it can suggest that the benefit is mediated by the shorter average height of female physicians. Perhaps the key is being closer to the patient?
The second possibility here is that this has nothing to do with the sex of the physician at all; it has to do with those other things that associate with the sex of the physician. We know, for example, that the female physicians saw fewer patients per year than the male physicians, but the study authors adjusted for this in the statistical models. Still, other unmeasured factors (confounders) could be present. By the way, confounders wouldn’t necessarily change the primary finding — you are better off being cared for by female physicians. It’s just not because they are female; it’s a convenient marker for some other quality, such as age.
The third possibility is that the study represents a phenomenon called collider bias. The idea here is that physicians only get into the study if they are hospitalists, and the quality of physicians who choose to become a hospitalist may differ by sex. When deciding on a specialty, a talented resident considering certain lifestyle issues may find hospital medicine particularly attractive — and that draw toward a more lifestyle-friendly specialty may differ by sex, as some prior studies have shown. If true, the pool of women hospitalists may be better than their male counterparts because male physicians of that caliber don’t become hospitalists.
Okay, don’t write in. I’m just trying to cite examples of how to think about collider bias. I can’t prove that this is the case, and in fact the authors do a sensitivity analysis of all physicians, not just hospitalists, and show the same thing. So this is probably not true, but epidemiology is fun, right?
And the fourth possibility: This is nothing but statistical noise. The effect size is incredibly small and just on the border of statistical significance. Especially when you’re working with very large datasets like this, you’ve got to be really careful about overinterpreting statistically significant findings that are nevertheless of small magnitude.
Regardless, it’s an interesting study, one that made me think and, of course, worry a bit about how I would present it. Forgive me if I’ve been indelicate in handling the complex issues of sex, gender, and society here. But I’m not sure what you expect; after all, I’m only a male doctor.
Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
It’s a battle of the sexes today as we dive into a paper that makes you say, “Wow, what an interesting study” and also “Boy, am I glad I didn’t do that study.” That’s because studies like this are always somewhat fraught; they say something about medicine but also something about society — and that makes this a bit precarious. But that’s never stopped us before. So, let’s go ahead and try to answer the question: Do women make better doctors than men?
On the surface, this question seems nearly impossible to answer. It’s too broad; what does it mean to be a “better” doctor? At first blush it seems that there are just too many variables to control for here: the type of doctor, the type of patient, the clinical scenario, and so on.
But this study, “Comparison of hospital mortality and readmission rates by physician and patient sex,” which appears in Annals of Internal Medicine, uses a fairly ingenious method to cut through all the bias by leveraging two simple facts: First, hospital medicine is largely conducted by hospitalists these days; second, due to the shift-based nature of hospitalist work, the hospitalist you get when you are admitted to the hospital is pretty much random.
In other words, if you are admitted to the hospital for an acute illness and get a hospitalist as your attending, you have no control over whether it is a man or a woman. Is this a randomized trial? No, but it’s not bad.
Researchers used Medicare claims data to identify adults over age 65 who had nonelective hospital admissions throughout the United States. The claims revealed the sex of the patient and the name of the attending physician. By linking to a medical provider database, they could determine the sex of the provider.
The goal was to look at outcomes across four dyads:
- Male patient – male doctor
- Male patient – female doctor
- Female patient – male doctor
- Female patient – female doctor
The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.
I told you that focusing on hospitalists produces some pseudorandomization, but let’s look at the data to be sure. Just under a million patients were treated by approximately 50,000 physicians, 30% of whom were female. And, though female patients and male patients differed, they did not differ with respect to the sex of their hospitalist. So, by physician sex, patients were similar in mean age, race, ethnicity, household income, eligibility for Medicaid, and comorbid conditions. The authors even created a “predicted mortality” score which was similar across the groups as well.
Now, the female physicians were a bit different from the male physicians. The female hospitalists were slightly more likely to have an osteopathic degree, had slightly fewer admissions per year, and were a bit younger.
So, we have broadly similar patients regardless of who their hospitalist was, but hospitalists differ by factors other than their sex. Fine.
I’ve graphed the results here.
This is a relatively small effect, to be sure, but if you multiply it across the millions of hospitalist admissions per year, you can start to put up some real numbers.
So, what is going on here? I see four broad buckets of possibilities.
Let’s start with the obvious explanation: Women, on average, are better doctors than men. I am married to a woman doctor, and based on my personal experience, this explanation is undoubtedly true. But why would that be?
The authors cite data that suggest that female physicians are less likely than male physicians to dismiss patient concerns — and in particular, the concerns of female patients — perhaps leading to fewer missed diagnoses. But this is impossible to measure with administrative data, so this study can no more tell us whether these female hospitalists are more attentive than their male counterparts than it can suggest that the benefit is mediated by the shorter average height of female physicians. Perhaps the key is being closer to the patient?
The second possibility here is that this has nothing to do with the sex of the physician at all; it has to do with those other things that associate with the sex of the physician. We know, for example, that the female physicians saw fewer patients per year than the male physicians, but the study authors adjusted for this in the statistical models. Still, other unmeasured factors (confounders) could be present. By the way, confounders wouldn’t necessarily change the primary finding — you are better off being cared for by female physicians. It’s just not because they are female; it’s a convenient marker for some other quality, such as age.
The third possibility is that the study represents a phenomenon called collider bias. The idea here is that physicians only get into the study if they are hospitalists, and the quality of physicians who choose to become a hospitalist may differ by sex. When deciding on a specialty, a talented resident considering certain lifestyle issues may find hospital medicine particularly attractive — and that draw toward a more lifestyle-friendly specialty may differ by sex, as some prior studies have shown. If true, the pool of women hospitalists may be better than their male counterparts because male physicians of that caliber don’t become hospitalists.
Okay, don’t write in. I’m just trying to cite examples of how to think about collider bias. I can’t prove that this is the case, and in fact the authors do a sensitivity analysis of all physicians, not just hospitalists, and show the same thing. So this is probably not true, but epidemiology is fun, right?
And the fourth possibility: This is nothing but statistical noise. The effect size is incredibly small and just on the border of statistical significance. Especially when you’re working with very large datasets like this, you’ve got to be really careful about overinterpreting statistically significant findings that are nevertheless of small magnitude.
Regardless, it’s an interesting study, one that made me think and, of course, worry a bit about how I would present it. Forgive me if I’ve been indelicate in handling the complex issues of sex, gender, and society here. But I’m not sure what you expect; after all, I’m only a male doctor.
Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The Obesogenic Environment of Preschool and Day Care
Thirty years ago I had an experience in the office that influenced my approach to obesity for the rest of my career. The patient was a 4-year-old whom I had been seeing since her birth. At her annual well-child visit her weight had jumped up significantly from the previous year’s visit. She appeared well, but the change in her growth trajectory prompted a bit more in-depth history taking.
It turned out that finances had forced the family to employ one of the child’s grandmothers as the day care provider. Unfortunately, this grandmother’s passion was cooking and she was particularly adept at baking. She had no other hobbies and a sore hip limited her mobility, so she seldom went outside. When I eventually met her she was a cheerful, overweight, and delightful woman.
Deconstructing this obesogenic environment without disrupting this otherwise healthy family was an exercise that required tact, patience, and creativity. Fortunately, the young girl’s mother had already harbored some concerns about her child’s weight and was more than willing to participate in this environmental re-engineering project. It’s a long story, but she and I achieved our goals and the child eventually coasted back toward her previous growth curve.
I have always suspected that this scenario is being replayed hundreds of thousands of time across this country. But, sadly most don’t share this one’s happy ending. Parents don’t alway perceive the seriousness of the problem. The economic hurdles are often too steep to overcome, even when the most creative minds are involved.
How prevalent are obesogenic day care environments? We certainly know childhood obesity is a problem and the statistics in the preschool age group are particularly concerning. More than 14 million children are in non-parental early care and education programs; these environments would seem to be a logical place to target our prevention strategies. Understandably, there seems to be a hesitancy to point fingers, but how many day care providers are similar to the well-intentioned grandmother in the scenario I described? We must at least suspect that the example set by the adults in the preschool and day care environment might be having some influence on the children under their care.
There has been some research that sheds some light on this question. A paper from the University of Oklahoma has looked at the predictors of overweight and obesity in early care and education (ECE) teachers in hopes of “finding modifiable opportunities to enhance the health of this critical workforce.” In their paper, the investigators refer to other research that has found the prevalence of overweight and obesity among ECE teachers is higher than our national average and their waist circumference is significantly greater than the standard recommendation for women.
A study from Norway has looked at the association between preschool staff’s activity level and that of the children under their care using accelerometers. This particular investigation couldn’t determine whether it was the staff’s activity level that influenced the children or vice versa because it wasn’t an observational study. Common sense would lead one to believe it was the staff’s relative inactivity that was being reflected in the children’s.
It is interesting that in this Norwegian study when the teachers were asked about their attitudes toward activity and their self-perception of their own activity, there was no relationship between the staff’s and the children’s level of activity. In other words, the educators and caregivers bought into the importance of activity but had difficulty translating this philosophy into own behavior.
So where does this leave us? It turns out my experience decades ago was not a one-off event, but instead represents the tip of very large iceberg. Should we immediately create a system of day care provider boot camps? Let’s remember that each educator and caregiver is one of us. They may be slight outliers but not a group of individuals deserving of forced marches and half-rations to get them in shape.
ECEs have listened to the same message we have all heard about diet and activity and their importance for a child’s health. It’s for their own health and that of their charges. This could be as simple as providing accelerometers or step-counting smartwatches. Or, by having physical educators perform on-site audits that could then be used to create site-specific plans for increasing both teacher and student activity.
Modifying the educators’ diet is a more complex procedure and can quickly become entangled in the socio-economic background of each individual teacher. A healthy diet is not always equally available to everyone. The solution may involve providing the teachers with food to be eaten at work and to be prepared at home. But, creative answers can be found if we look for them.
Before we get too far down the obesity-is-a-disease pathway, we must take a closer look at the role the early care and early school milieu are playing in the obesity problem. A little common sense behavior modification when children are in the controlled environment of school/day care may allow us to be less reliant on the those new wonder drugs in the long run.
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].
Thirty years ago I had an experience in the office that influenced my approach to obesity for the rest of my career. The patient was a 4-year-old whom I had been seeing since her birth. At her annual well-child visit her weight had jumped up significantly from the previous year’s visit. She appeared well, but the change in her growth trajectory prompted a bit more in-depth history taking.
It turned out that finances had forced the family to employ one of the child’s grandmothers as the day care provider. Unfortunately, this grandmother’s passion was cooking and she was particularly adept at baking. She had no other hobbies and a sore hip limited her mobility, so she seldom went outside. When I eventually met her she was a cheerful, overweight, and delightful woman.
Deconstructing this obesogenic environment without disrupting this otherwise healthy family was an exercise that required tact, patience, and creativity. Fortunately, the young girl’s mother had already harbored some concerns about her child’s weight and was more than willing to participate in this environmental re-engineering project. It’s a long story, but she and I achieved our goals and the child eventually coasted back toward her previous growth curve.
I have always suspected that this scenario is being replayed hundreds of thousands of time across this country. But, sadly most don’t share this one’s happy ending. Parents don’t alway perceive the seriousness of the problem. The economic hurdles are often too steep to overcome, even when the most creative minds are involved.
How prevalent are obesogenic day care environments? We certainly know childhood obesity is a problem and the statistics in the preschool age group are particularly concerning. More than 14 million children are in non-parental early care and education programs; these environments would seem to be a logical place to target our prevention strategies. Understandably, there seems to be a hesitancy to point fingers, but how many day care providers are similar to the well-intentioned grandmother in the scenario I described? We must at least suspect that the example set by the adults in the preschool and day care environment might be having some influence on the children under their care.
There has been some research that sheds some light on this question. A paper from the University of Oklahoma has looked at the predictors of overweight and obesity in early care and education (ECE) teachers in hopes of “finding modifiable opportunities to enhance the health of this critical workforce.” In their paper, the investigators refer to other research that has found the prevalence of overweight and obesity among ECE teachers is higher than our national average and their waist circumference is significantly greater than the standard recommendation for women.
A study from Norway has looked at the association between preschool staff’s activity level and that of the children under their care using accelerometers. This particular investigation couldn’t determine whether it was the staff’s activity level that influenced the children or vice versa because it wasn’t an observational study. Common sense would lead one to believe it was the staff’s relative inactivity that was being reflected in the children’s.
It is interesting that in this Norwegian study when the teachers were asked about their attitudes toward activity and their self-perception of their own activity, there was no relationship between the staff’s and the children’s level of activity. In other words, the educators and caregivers bought into the importance of activity but had difficulty translating this philosophy into own behavior.
So where does this leave us? It turns out my experience decades ago was not a one-off event, but instead represents the tip of very large iceberg. Should we immediately create a system of day care provider boot camps? Let’s remember that each educator and caregiver is one of us. They may be slight outliers but not a group of individuals deserving of forced marches and half-rations to get them in shape.
ECEs have listened to the same message we have all heard about diet and activity and their importance for a child’s health. It’s for their own health and that of their charges. This could be as simple as providing accelerometers or step-counting smartwatches. Or, by having physical educators perform on-site audits that could then be used to create site-specific plans for increasing both teacher and student activity.
Modifying the educators’ diet is a more complex procedure and can quickly become entangled in the socio-economic background of each individual teacher. A healthy diet is not always equally available to everyone. The solution may involve providing the teachers with food to be eaten at work and to be prepared at home. But, creative answers can be found if we look for them.
Before we get too far down the obesity-is-a-disease pathway, we must take a closer look at the role the early care and early school milieu are playing in the obesity problem. A little common sense behavior modification when children are in the controlled environment of school/day care may allow us to be less reliant on the those new wonder drugs in the long run.
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].
Thirty years ago I had an experience in the office that influenced my approach to obesity for the rest of my career. The patient was a 4-year-old whom I had been seeing since her birth. At her annual well-child visit her weight had jumped up significantly from the previous year’s visit. She appeared well, but the change in her growth trajectory prompted a bit more in-depth history taking.
It turned out that finances had forced the family to employ one of the child’s grandmothers as the day care provider. Unfortunately, this grandmother’s passion was cooking and she was particularly adept at baking. She had no other hobbies and a sore hip limited her mobility, so she seldom went outside. When I eventually met her she was a cheerful, overweight, and delightful woman.
Deconstructing this obesogenic environment without disrupting this otherwise healthy family was an exercise that required tact, patience, and creativity. Fortunately, the young girl’s mother had already harbored some concerns about her child’s weight and was more than willing to participate in this environmental re-engineering project. It’s a long story, but she and I achieved our goals and the child eventually coasted back toward her previous growth curve.
I have always suspected that this scenario is being replayed hundreds of thousands of time across this country. But, sadly most don’t share this one’s happy ending. Parents don’t alway perceive the seriousness of the problem. The economic hurdles are often too steep to overcome, even when the most creative minds are involved.
How prevalent are obesogenic day care environments? We certainly know childhood obesity is a problem and the statistics in the preschool age group are particularly concerning. More than 14 million children are in non-parental early care and education programs; these environments would seem to be a logical place to target our prevention strategies. Understandably, there seems to be a hesitancy to point fingers, but how many day care providers are similar to the well-intentioned grandmother in the scenario I described? We must at least suspect that the example set by the adults in the preschool and day care environment might be having some influence on the children under their care.
There has been some research that sheds some light on this question. A paper from the University of Oklahoma has looked at the predictors of overweight and obesity in early care and education (ECE) teachers in hopes of “finding modifiable opportunities to enhance the health of this critical workforce.” In their paper, the investigators refer to other research that has found the prevalence of overweight and obesity among ECE teachers is higher than our national average and their waist circumference is significantly greater than the standard recommendation for women.
A study from Norway has looked at the association between preschool staff’s activity level and that of the children under their care using accelerometers. This particular investigation couldn’t determine whether it was the staff’s activity level that influenced the children or vice versa because it wasn’t an observational study. Common sense would lead one to believe it was the staff’s relative inactivity that was being reflected in the children’s.
It is interesting that in this Norwegian study when the teachers were asked about their attitudes toward activity and their self-perception of their own activity, there was no relationship between the staff’s and the children’s level of activity. In other words, the educators and caregivers bought into the importance of activity but had difficulty translating this philosophy into own behavior.
So where does this leave us? It turns out my experience decades ago was not a one-off event, but instead represents the tip of very large iceberg. Should we immediately create a system of day care provider boot camps? Let’s remember that each educator and caregiver is one of us. They may be slight outliers but not a group of individuals deserving of forced marches and half-rations to get them in shape.
ECEs have listened to the same message we have all heard about diet and activity and their importance for a child’s health. It’s for their own health and that of their charges. This could be as simple as providing accelerometers or step-counting smartwatches. Or, by having physical educators perform on-site audits that could then be used to create site-specific plans for increasing both teacher and student activity.
Modifying the educators’ diet is a more complex procedure and can quickly become entangled in the socio-economic background of each individual teacher. A healthy diet is not always equally available to everyone. The solution may involve providing the teachers with food to be eaten at work and to be prepared at home. But, creative answers can be found if we look for them.
Before we get too far down the obesity-is-a-disease pathway, we must take a closer look at the role the early care and early school milieu are playing in the obesity problem. A little common sense behavior modification when children are in the controlled environment of school/day care may allow us to be less reliant on the those new wonder drugs in the long run.
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].
How to Play Like a Masters Champ
You know what the happiest animal in the world is? A goldfish. You know why? It’s got a 10-second memory. Be a goldfish. — Ted Lasso
I don’t play much golf. When I do, it’s when my dad is in town. He shoots his age (78). I shoot double mine (52). He was recently here. We played and watched the Masters where he pointed out how I looked a lot like Scottie Scheffler, the now two-time Masters champion. On the 10th hole of his third round, you could see the resemblance. Scheffler’s third shot flew past the hole into the galley. He rifled the fourth past the hole on its way back toward the fairway. It was now a good distance further from the cup than a minute ago. He proceeded to misread his bogey putt, ending his misery with a double bogey. Scheffler went on to bogey the next hole and dropped from first on the leaderboard to fifth. Yes, I looked just like that on my last round. But here is where Scheffler and I differ. After a hole like that, I’d have been apoplectic, seething with self loathing. Scheffler was not. He kept moving. Head up, he sauntered to the next hole as if he had no awareness of what just transpired.
The ability to compartmentalize is useful not only to become the Masters champion, but also to become master of your day. In this way, golf is a nice approximation for life. The best golfers in the world will always have horrible shots and dreadful holes. The winning ones are often those who recover rather than continue in a downward spiral of one bad shot after another.
It’s easy to think of regular days that went just like Scheffler’s atrocious 10th hole. Getting pimped in front of distinguished faculty at Grand Rounds and whiffing (it was Sweet Syndrome). Calling a patient to let him know that his syphilis test did in fact come back positive (it was his father on the phone, also Mr. Rodham). Arguing with a patient that a biopsy was not needed for me to diagnose her with zoster (you’ve lost once, you’ve lost your temper). Each of these made me feel like slamming my club down, quitting the round right then and there. Losing control though, leads to flubbing the next question or arguing with the following patient. The masters let it go. Like goldfish, they live in the present without any thought of what happened 10 seconds ago.
We don’t have to take advice just from Ted Lasso here; there is plenty of research to support this concept of the critical relationship between resilience and psychological flexibility. Specifically, flexible cognitive control allows us to guide attention and to choose appropriate appraisal and good coping strategies. Ultimately, this leads to better performance. You might be a skilled athlete or presenter, but if you can’t regulate your emotions and something goes wrong, then you’ll perform as poorly as an amateur.
Scheffler went on to eagle the 13th hole on that round. He eventually won the 2024 Masters Tournament. Remember that the next time you find yourself in a day that feels like it is spiraling toward disaster. Close the door on the compartment that was the last miserable hole and saunter to the next patient like it never happened.
And maybe close the clubface a bit on address for your next drive.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].
You know what the happiest animal in the world is? A goldfish. You know why? It’s got a 10-second memory. Be a goldfish. — Ted Lasso
I don’t play much golf. When I do, it’s when my dad is in town. He shoots his age (78). I shoot double mine (52). He was recently here. We played and watched the Masters where he pointed out how I looked a lot like Scottie Scheffler, the now two-time Masters champion. On the 10th hole of his third round, you could see the resemblance. Scheffler’s third shot flew past the hole into the galley. He rifled the fourth past the hole on its way back toward the fairway. It was now a good distance further from the cup than a minute ago. He proceeded to misread his bogey putt, ending his misery with a double bogey. Scheffler went on to bogey the next hole and dropped from first on the leaderboard to fifth. Yes, I looked just like that on my last round. But here is where Scheffler and I differ. After a hole like that, I’d have been apoplectic, seething with self loathing. Scheffler was not. He kept moving. Head up, he sauntered to the next hole as if he had no awareness of what just transpired.
The ability to compartmentalize is useful not only to become the Masters champion, but also to become master of your day. In this way, golf is a nice approximation for life. The best golfers in the world will always have horrible shots and dreadful holes. The winning ones are often those who recover rather than continue in a downward spiral of one bad shot after another.
It’s easy to think of regular days that went just like Scheffler’s atrocious 10th hole. Getting pimped in front of distinguished faculty at Grand Rounds and whiffing (it was Sweet Syndrome). Calling a patient to let him know that his syphilis test did in fact come back positive (it was his father on the phone, also Mr. Rodham). Arguing with a patient that a biopsy was not needed for me to diagnose her with zoster (you’ve lost once, you’ve lost your temper). Each of these made me feel like slamming my club down, quitting the round right then and there. Losing control though, leads to flubbing the next question or arguing with the following patient. The masters let it go. Like goldfish, they live in the present without any thought of what happened 10 seconds ago.
We don’t have to take advice just from Ted Lasso here; there is plenty of research to support this concept of the critical relationship between resilience and psychological flexibility. Specifically, flexible cognitive control allows us to guide attention and to choose appropriate appraisal and good coping strategies. Ultimately, this leads to better performance. You might be a skilled athlete or presenter, but if you can’t regulate your emotions and something goes wrong, then you’ll perform as poorly as an amateur.
Scheffler went on to eagle the 13th hole on that round. He eventually won the 2024 Masters Tournament. Remember that the next time you find yourself in a day that feels like it is spiraling toward disaster. Close the door on the compartment that was the last miserable hole and saunter to the next patient like it never happened.
And maybe close the clubface a bit on address for your next drive.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].
You know what the happiest animal in the world is? A goldfish. You know why? It’s got a 10-second memory. Be a goldfish. — Ted Lasso
I don’t play much golf. When I do, it’s when my dad is in town. He shoots his age (78). I shoot double mine (52). He was recently here. We played and watched the Masters where he pointed out how I looked a lot like Scottie Scheffler, the now two-time Masters champion. On the 10th hole of his third round, you could see the resemblance. Scheffler’s third shot flew past the hole into the galley. He rifled the fourth past the hole on its way back toward the fairway. It was now a good distance further from the cup than a minute ago. He proceeded to misread his bogey putt, ending his misery with a double bogey. Scheffler went on to bogey the next hole and dropped from first on the leaderboard to fifth. Yes, I looked just like that on my last round. But here is where Scheffler and I differ. After a hole like that, I’d have been apoplectic, seething with self loathing. Scheffler was not. He kept moving. Head up, he sauntered to the next hole as if he had no awareness of what just transpired.
The ability to compartmentalize is useful not only to become the Masters champion, but also to become master of your day. In this way, golf is a nice approximation for life. The best golfers in the world will always have horrible shots and dreadful holes. The winning ones are often those who recover rather than continue in a downward spiral of one bad shot after another.
It’s easy to think of regular days that went just like Scheffler’s atrocious 10th hole. Getting pimped in front of distinguished faculty at Grand Rounds and whiffing (it was Sweet Syndrome). Calling a patient to let him know that his syphilis test did in fact come back positive (it was his father on the phone, also Mr. Rodham). Arguing with a patient that a biopsy was not needed for me to diagnose her with zoster (you’ve lost once, you’ve lost your temper). Each of these made me feel like slamming my club down, quitting the round right then and there. Losing control though, leads to flubbing the next question or arguing with the following patient. The masters let it go. Like goldfish, they live in the present without any thought of what happened 10 seconds ago.
We don’t have to take advice just from Ted Lasso here; there is plenty of research to support this concept of the critical relationship between resilience and psychological flexibility. Specifically, flexible cognitive control allows us to guide attention and to choose appropriate appraisal and good coping strategies. Ultimately, this leads to better performance. You might be a skilled athlete or presenter, but if you can’t regulate your emotions and something goes wrong, then you’ll perform as poorly as an amateur.
Scheffler went on to eagle the 13th hole on that round. He eventually won the 2024 Masters Tournament. Remember that the next time you find yourself in a day that feels like it is spiraling toward disaster. Close the door on the compartment that was the last miserable hole and saunter to the next patient like it never happened.
And maybe close the clubface a bit on address for your next drive.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].
Weighing the Benefits of Integrating AI-based Clinical Notes Into Your Practice
Picture a healthcare system where physicians aren’t bogged down by excessive charting but are instead fully present with their patients, offering undivided attention and personalized care. In a recent X post, Stuart Blitz, COO and co-founder of Hone Health, sparked a thought-provoking conversation. “The problem with US healthcare is physicians are burned out since they spend way too much time charting, not enough with patients,” he wrote. “If you created a health system that did zero charting, you’d attract the best physicians and all patients would go there. Who is working on this?”
This resonates with many in the medical community, myself included, because the strain of extensive documentation detracts from patient care. Having worked in both large and small healthcare systems, I know the burden of extensive charting is a palpable challenge, often detracting from the time we can devote to our patients.
The first part of this two-part series examines the overarching benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)–based clinical documentation in modern healthcare, a field witnessing a paradigm shift thanks to advancements in AI.
Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation
The transition from manual documentation to AI-driven solutions marks a significant shift in the field, with a number of products in development including Nuance, Abridge, Ambience, ScribeAmerica, 3M, and DeepScribe. These tools use ambient clinical intelligence (ACI) to automate documentation, capturing patient conversations and translating them into structured clinical summaries. This innovation aligns with the vision of reducing charting burdens and enhancing patient-physician interactions.
How does it work? ACI refers to a sophisticated form of AI applied in healthcare settings, particularly focusing on enhancing the clinical documentation process without disrupting the natural flow of the consultation. Here’s a technical yet practical breakdown of ACI and the algorithms it typically employs:
Data capture and processing: ACI systems employ various sensors and processing units, typically integrated into clinical settings. These sensors, like microphones and cameras, gather diverse data such as audio from patient-doctor dialogues and visual cues. This information is then processed in real-time or near–real-time.
Natural language processing (NLP): A core component of ACI is advanced NLP algorithms. These algorithms analyze the captured audio data, transcribing spoken words into text. NLP goes beyond mere transcription; it involves understanding context, extracting relevant medical information (like symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment plans), and interpreting the nuances of human language.
Deep learning: Machine learning, particularly deep-learning techniques, are employed to improve the accuracy of ACI systems continually. These algorithms can learn from vast datasets of clinical interactions, enhancing their ability to transcribe and interpret future conversations accurately. As they learn, they become better at understanding different accents, complex medical terms, and variations in speech patterns.
Integration with electronic health records (EHRs): ACI systems are often designed to integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems. They can automatically populate patient records with information from patient-clinician interactions, reducing manual entry and potential errors.
Customization and personalization: Many ACI systems offer customizable templates or allow clinicians to tailor documentation workflows. This flexibility ensures that the output aligns with the specific needs and preferences of healthcare providers.
Ethical and privacy considerations: ACI systems must navigate significant ethical and privacy concerns, especially related to patient consent and data security. These systems need to comply with healthcare privacy regulations such as HIPAA. They need to securely manage sensitive patient data and restrict access to authorized personnel only.
Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation
- Reducing clinician burnout: By automating the documentation process, AI tools like DAX Copilot alleviate a significant contributor to physician burnout, enabling clinicians to focus more on patient care.
- Enhanced patient care: With AI handling documentation, clinicians can engage more with their patients, leading to improved care quality and patient satisfaction.
- Data accuracy and quality: AI-driven documentation captures detailed patient encounters accurately, ensuring high-quality and comprehensive medical records.
- Response to the growing need for efficient healthcare: AI-based documentation is a direct response to the growing call for more efficient healthcare practices, where clinicians spend less time on paperwork and more with patients.
The shift toward AI-based clinical documentation represents a critical step in addressing the inefficiencies in healthcare systems. It’s a move towards a more patient-centered approach, where clinicians can focus more on patient care by reducing the time spent on excessive charting. Hopefully, we can integrate these solutions into our clinics at a large enough scale to make such an impact.
In the next column, we will explore in-depth insights from Kenneth Harper at Nuance on the technical implementation of these tools, with DAX as an example.
I would love to read your comments on AI in clinical trials as well as other AI-related topics. Write me at [email protected] or find me on X @DrBonillaOnc.
Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has served as a consultant for Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Guardant; served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Amgen, Guardant, Eisai, Ipsen, Natera, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. He holds a 5% or greater equity interest in Massive Bio.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Picture a healthcare system where physicians aren’t bogged down by excessive charting but are instead fully present with their patients, offering undivided attention and personalized care. In a recent X post, Stuart Blitz, COO and co-founder of Hone Health, sparked a thought-provoking conversation. “The problem with US healthcare is physicians are burned out since they spend way too much time charting, not enough with patients,” he wrote. “If you created a health system that did zero charting, you’d attract the best physicians and all patients would go there. Who is working on this?”
This resonates with many in the medical community, myself included, because the strain of extensive documentation detracts from patient care. Having worked in both large and small healthcare systems, I know the burden of extensive charting is a palpable challenge, often detracting from the time we can devote to our patients.
The first part of this two-part series examines the overarching benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)–based clinical documentation in modern healthcare, a field witnessing a paradigm shift thanks to advancements in AI.
Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation
The transition from manual documentation to AI-driven solutions marks a significant shift in the field, with a number of products in development including Nuance, Abridge, Ambience, ScribeAmerica, 3M, and DeepScribe. These tools use ambient clinical intelligence (ACI) to automate documentation, capturing patient conversations and translating them into structured clinical summaries. This innovation aligns with the vision of reducing charting burdens and enhancing patient-physician interactions.
How does it work? ACI refers to a sophisticated form of AI applied in healthcare settings, particularly focusing on enhancing the clinical documentation process without disrupting the natural flow of the consultation. Here’s a technical yet practical breakdown of ACI and the algorithms it typically employs:
Data capture and processing: ACI systems employ various sensors and processing units, typically integrated into clinical settings. These sensors, like microphones and cameras, gather diverse data such as audio from patient-doctor dialogues and visual cues. This information is then processed in real-time or near–real-time.
Natural language processing (NLP): A core component of ACI is advanced NLP algorithms. These algorithms analyze the captured audio data, transcribing spoken words into text. NLP goes beyond mere transcription; it involves understanding context, extracting relevant medical information (like symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment plans), and interpreting the nuances of human language.
Deep learning: Machine learning, particularly deep-learning techniques, are employed to improve the accuracy of ACI systems continually. These algorithms can learn from vast datasets of clinical interactions, enhancing their ability to transcribe and interpret future conversations accurately. As they learn, they become better at understanding different accents, complex medical terms, and variations in speech patterns.
Integration with electronic health records (EHRs): ACI systems are often designed to integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems. They can automatically populate patient records with information from patient-clinician interactions, reducing manual entry and potential errors.
Customization and personalization: Many ACI systems offer customizable templates or allow clinicians to tailor documentation workflows. This flexibility ensures that the output aligns with the specific needs and preferences of healthcare providers.
Ethical and privacy considerations: ACI systems must navigate significant ethical and privacy concerns, especially related to patient consent and data security. These systems need to comply with healthcare privacy regulations such as HIPAA. They need to securely manage sensitive patient data and restrict access to authorized personnel only.
Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation
- Reducing clinician burnout: By automating the documentation process, AI tools like DAX Copilot alleviate a significant contributor to physician burnout, enabling clinicians to focus more on patient care.
- Enhanced patient care: With AI handling documentation, clinicians can engage more with their patients, leading to improved care quality and patient satisfaction.
- Data accuracy and quality: AI-driven documentation captures detailed patient encounters accurately, ensuring high-quality and comprehensive medical records.
- Response to the growing need for efficient healthcare: AI-based documentation is a direct response to the growing call for more efficient healthcare practices, where clinicians spend less time on paperwork and more with patients.
The shift toward AI-based clinical documentation represents a critical step in addressing the inefficiencies in healthcare systems. It’s a move towards a more patient-centered approach, where clinicians can focus more on patient care by reducing the time spent on excessive charting. Hopefully, we can integrate these solutions into our clinics at a large enough scale to make such an impact.
In the next column, we will explore in-depth insights from Kenneth Harper at Nuance on the technical implementation of these tools, with DAX as an example.
I would love to read your comments on AI in clinical trials as well as other AI-related topics. Write me at [email protected] or find me on X @DrBonillaOnc.
Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has served as a consultant for Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Guardant; served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Amgen, Guardant, Eisai, Ipsen, Natera, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. He holds a 5% or greater equity interest in Massive Bio.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Picture a healthcare system where physicians aren’t bogged down by excessive charting but are instead fully present with their patients, offering undivided attention and personalized care. In a recent X post, Stuart Blitz, COO and co-founder of Hone Health, sparked a thought-provoking conversation. “The problem with US healthcare is physicians are burned out since they spend way too much time charting, not enough with patients,” he wrote. “If you created a health system that did zero charting, you’d attract the best physicians and all patients would go there. Who is working on this?”
This resonates with many in the medical community, myself included, because the strain of extensive documentation detracts from patient care. Having worked in both large and small healthcare systems, I know the burden of extensive charting is a palpable challenge, often detracting from the time we can devote to our patients.
The first part of this two-part series examines the overarching benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)–based clinical documentation in modern healthcare, a field witnessing a paradigm shift thanks to advancements in AI.
Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation
The transition from manual documentation to AI-driven solutions marks a significant shift in the field, with a number of products in development including Nuance, Abridge, Ambience, ScribeAmerica, 3M, and DeepScribe. These tools use ambient clinical intelligence (ACI) to automate documentation, capturing patient conversations and translating them into structured clinical summaries. This innovation aligns with the vision of reducing charting burdens and enhancing patient-physician interactions.
How does it work? ACI refers to a sophisticated form of AI applied in healthcare settings, particularly focusing on enhancing the clinical documentation process without disrupting the natural flow of the consultation. Here’s a technical yet practical breakdown of ACI and the algorithms it typically employs:
Data capture and processing: ACI systems employ various sensors and processing units, typically integrated into clinical settings. These sensors, like microphones and cameras, gather diverse data such as audio from patient-doctor dialogues and visual cues. This information is then processed in real-time or near–real-time.
Natural language processing (NLP): A core component of ACI is advanced NLP algorithms. These algorithms analyze the captured audio data, transcribing spoken words into text. NLP goes beyond mere transcription; it involves understanding context, extracting relevant medical information (like symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment plans), and interpreting the nuances of human language.
Deep learning: Machine learning, particularly deep-learning techniques, are employed to improve the accuracy of ACI systems continually. These algorithms can learn from vast datasets of clinical interactions, enhancing their ability to transcribe and interpret future conversations accurately. As they learn, they become better at understanding different accents, complex medical terms, and variations in speech patterns.
Integration with electronic health records (EHRs): ACI systems are often designed to integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems. They can automatically populate patient records with information from patient-clinician interactions, reducing manual entry and potential errors.
Customization and personalization: Many ACI systems offer customizable templates or allow clinicians to tailor documentation workflows. This flexibility ensures that the output aligns with the specific needs and preferences of healthcare providers.
Ethical and privacy considerations: ACI systems must navigate significant ethical and privacy concerns, especially related to patient consent and data security. These systems need to comply with healthcare privacy regulations such as HIPAA. They need to securely manage sensitive patient data and restrict access to authorized personnel only.
Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation
- Reducing clinician burnout: By automating the documentation process, AI tools like DAX Copilot alleviate a significant contributor to physician burnout, enabling clinicians to focus more on patient care.
- Enhanced patient care: With AI handling documentation, clinicians can engage more with their patients, leading to improved care quality and patient satisfaction.
- Data accuracy and quality: AI-driven documentation captures detailed patient encounters accurately, ensuring high-quality and comprehensive medical records.
- Response to the growing need for efficient healthcare: AI-based documentation is a direct response to the growing call for more efficient healthcare practices, where clinicians spend less time on paperwork and more with patients.
The shift toward AI-based clinical documentation represents a critical step in addressing the inefficiencies in healthcare systems. It’s a move towards a more patient-centered approach, where clinicians can focus more on patient care by reducing the time spent on excessive charting. Hopefully, we can integrate these solutions into our clinics at a large enough scale to make such an impact.
In the next column, we will explore in-depth insights from Kenneth Harper at Nuance on the technical implementation of these tools, with DAX as an example.
I would love to read your comments on AI in clinical trials as well as other AI-related topics. Write me at [email protected] or find me on X @DrBonillaOnc.
Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has served as a consultant for Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Guardant; served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Amgen, Guardant, Eisai, Ipsen, Natera, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. He holds a 5% or greater equity interest in Massive Bio.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New Federal Rule Delivers Workplace Support, Time Off for Pregnant Docs
Pregnant physicians may receive more workplace accommodations and protection against discrimination thanks to an updated rule from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The guidelines could prevent women from losing critical career momentum.
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) aims to help workers balance professional demands with healthy pregnancies. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for a “worker’s known limitations,” including physical or mental conditions associated with “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”
Reasonable accommodations vary but may involve time off to attend healthcare appointments or recover from childbirth, extra breaks during a shift, shorter work hours, or the ability to sit instead of stand. Private and public sector employers, including state and local governments, federal agencies, and employment agencies, must abide by the new guidelines unless they can provide evidence that doing so will cause undue hardship.
Female doctors have historically encountered significant barriers to family planning. Years of training cause them to delay having children, often leading to higher rates of infertility, miscarriage, and pregnancy complications than in the general population.
Some specialties, like surgeons, are particularly at risk, with 42% reporting at least one pregnancy loss. Most surgeons work their regular schedules until delivery despite desiring workload reductions, commonly citing unsupportive workplaces as a reason for not seeking accommodations.
Trauma surgeon Qaali Hussein, MD, became pregnant with her first child during her intern year in 2008. She told this news organization that her residency program didn’t even have a maternity policy at the time, and her male supervisor was certain that motherhood would end her surgical career.
She shared how “women usually waited until the end of their training to get pregnant. No one had ever gotten pregnant during the program and returned from maternity leave. I was the first to do so, so there wasn’t a policy or any program support to say, ‘What can we do to help?’ ”
Dr. Hussein used her vacation and sick time, returning to work 4 weeks after delivery. She had five more children, including twins her chief year and another baby during fellowship training in 2014.
Each subsequent pregnancy was met with the same response from program leadership, she recalled. “They’d say, ‘This is it. You may have been able to do the first and second child, but this one will be impossible.’ ”
After the PWFA regulations first became enforceable in June, the EEOC accepted public feedback. The guidelines received nearly 100,000 comments, spurred mainly by the inclusion of abortion care as a qualifying condition for which an employee could receive accommodations. About 54,000 comments called for abortion to be excluded from the final rule, and 40,000 supported keeping the clause.
The EEOC issued the final rule on April 15. It includes abortion care. However, the updated rule “does not require any employee to have — or not to have — an abortion, does not require taxpayers to pay for any abortions, and does not compel health care providers to provide any abortions,” the unpublished version of the final rule said. It is scheduled to take effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register on April 19.
Increasing Support for Doctor-Moms
The PWFA supplements other EEOC protections, such as pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and access to reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, it builds upon Department of Labor regulations, like the PUMP Act for breastfeeding employees and the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for the arrival of a child or certain medical conditions.
FMLA applies only to employees who have worked full-time for at least 12 months for an employer with 50 or more employees. Meanwhile, the unpaid, job-protected leave under the PWFA has no waiting period, lowers the required number of employees to 15, and permits accommodations for up to 40 weeks.
Employers are encouraged to honor “common and simple” requests, like using a closer parking space or pumping or nursing at work, without requiring a doctor’s note, the rule said.
Efforts to improve family leave policies for physicians and residents have been gaining traction. In 2021, the American Board of Medical Specialties began requiring its member boards with training programs lasting 2 or more years to allow at least 6 weeks off for parental, caregiver, and medical leave. This time can be taken without exhausting vacation or sick leave or requiring an extension in training. Over half of the 24 member boards permit leave beyond 6 weeks, including the American Boards of Allergy and Immunology, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine, Radiology, and Surgery.
Estefania Oliveros, MD, MSc, cardiologist and assistant professor at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, told this news organization that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education also requires that residents and fellows receive 6 weeks of paid leave.
“We add to that vacation time, so it gives them at least 8 weeks,” she said. The school has created spaces for nursing mothers — something neither she nor Dr. Hussein had access to when breastfeeding — and encourages the attendings to be proactive in excusing pregnant fellows for appointments.
This differs significantly from her fellowship training experience 6 years ago at another institution, where she worked without accommodations until the day before her cesarean delivery. Dr. Oliveros had to use all her vacation time for recovery, returning to the program after 4 weeks instead of the recommended 6.
“And that’s the story you hear all the time. Not because people are ill-intended; I just don’t think the system is designed to accommodate women, so we lose a lot of talent that way,” said Dr. Oliveros, whose 2019 survey in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology called for more support and protections for pregnant doctors.
Both doctors believe the PWFA will be beneficial but only if leadership in the field takes up the cause.
“The cultures of these institutions determine whether women feel safe or even confident enough to have children in medical school or residency,” said Dr. Hussein.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Pregnant physicians may receive more workplace accommodations and protection against discrimination thanks to an updated rule from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The guidelines could prevent women from losing critical career momentum.
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) aims to help workers balance professional demands with healthy pregnancies. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for a “worker’s known limitations,” including physical or mental conditions associated with “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”
Reasonable accommodations vary but may involve time off to attend healthcare appointments or recover from childbirth, extra breaks during a shift, shorter work hours, or the ability to sit instead of stand. Private and public sector employers, including state and local governments, federal agencies, and employment agencies, must abide by the new guidelines unless they can provide evidence that doing so will cause undue hardship.
Female doctors have historically encountered significant barriers to family planning. Years of training cause them to delay having children, often leading to higher rates of infertility, miscarriage, and pregnancy complications than in the general population.
Some specialties, like surgeons, are particularly at risk, with 42% reporting at least one pregnancy loss. Most surgeons work their regular schedules until delivery despite desiring workload reductions, commonly citing unsupportive workplaces as a reason for not seeking accommodations.
Trauma surgeon Qaali Hussein, MD, became pregnant with her first child during her intern year in 2008. She told this news organization that her residency program didn’t even have a maternity policy at the time, and her male supervisor was certain that motherhood would end her surgical career.
She shared how “women usually waited until the end of their training to get pregnant. No one had ever gotten pregnant during the program and returned from maternity leave. I was the first to do so, so there wasn’t a policy or any program support to say, ‘What can we do to help?’ ”
Dr. Hussein used her vacation and sick time, returning to work 4 weeks after delivery. She had five more children, including twins her chief year and another baby during fellowship training in 2014.
Each subsequent pregnancy was met with the same response from program leadership, she recalled. “They’d say, ‘This is it. You may have been able to do the first and second child, but this one will be impossible.’ ”
After the PWFA regulations first became enforceable in June, the EEOC accepted public feedback. The guidelines received nearly 100,000 comments, spurred mainly by the inclusion of abortion care as a qualifying condition for which an employee could receive accommodations. About 54,000 comments called for abortion to be excluded from the final rule, and 40,000 supported keeping the clause.
The EEOC issued the final rule on April 15. It includes abortion care. However, the updated rule “does not require any employee to have — or not to have — an abortion, does not require taxpayers to pay for any abortions, and does not compel health care providers to provide any abortions,” the unpublished version of the final rule said. It is scheduled to take effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register on April 19.
Increasing Support for Doctor-Moms
The PWFA supplements other EEOC protections, such as pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and access to reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, it builds upon Department of Labor regulations, like the PUMP Act for breastfeeding employees and the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for the arrival of a child or certain medical conditions.
FMLA applies only to employees who have worked full-time for at least 12 months for an employer with 50 or more employees. Meanwhile, the unpaid, job-protected leave under the PWFA has no waiting period, lowers the required number of employees to 15, and permits accommodations for up to 40 weeks.
Employers are encouraged to honor “common and simple” requests, like using a closer parking space or pumping or nursing at work, without requiring a doctor’s note, the rule said.
Efforts to improve family leave policies for physicians and residents have been gaining traction. In 2021, the American Board of Medical Specialties began requiring its member boards with training programs lasting 2 or more years to allow at least 6 weeks off for parental, caregiver, and medical leave. This time can be taken without exhausting vacation or sick leave or requiring an extension in training. Over half of the 24 member boards permit leave beyond 6 weeks, including the American Boards of Allergy and Immunology, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine, Radiology, and Surgery.
Estefania Oliveros, MD, MSc, cardiologist and assistant professor at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, told this news organization that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education also requires that residents and fellows receive 6 weeks of paid leave.
“We add to that vacation time, so it gives them at least 8 weeks,” she said. The school has created spaces for nursing mothers — something neither she nor Dr. Hussein had access to when breastfeeding — and encourages the attendings to be proactive in excusing pregnant fellows for appointments.
This differs significantly from her fellowship training experience 6 years ago at another institution, where she worked without accommodations until the day before her cesarean delivery. Dr. Oliveros had to use all her vacation time for recovery, returning to the program after 4 weeks instead of the recommended 6.
“And that’s the story you hear all the time. Not because people are ill-intended; I just don’t think the system is designed to accommodate women, so we lose a lot of talent that way,” said Dr. Oliveros, whose 2019 survey in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology called for more support and protections for pregnant doctors.
Both doctors believe the PWFA will be beneficial but only if leadership in the field takes up the cause.
“The cultures of these institutions determine whether women feel safe or even confident enough to have children in medical school or residency,” said Dr. Hussein.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Pregnant physicians may receive more workplace accommodations and protection against discrimination thanks to an updated rule from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The guidelines could prevent women from losing critical career momentum.
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) aims to help workers balance professional demands with healthy pregnancies. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for a “worker’s known limitations,” including physical or mental conditions associated with “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”
Reasonable accommodations vary but may involve time off to attend healthcare appointments or recover from childbirth, extra breaks during a shift, shorter work hours, or the ability to sit instead of stand. Private and public sector employers, including state and local governments, federal agencies, and employment agencies, must abide by the new guidelines unless they can provide evidence that doing so will cause undue hardship.
Female doctors have historically encountered significant barriers to family planning. Years of training cause them to delay having children, often leading to higher rates of infertility, miscarriage, and pregnancy complications than in the general population.
Some specialties, like surgeons, are particularly at risk, with 42% reporting at least one pregnancy loss. Most surgeons work their regular schedules until delivery despite desiring workload reductions, commonly citing unsupportive workplaces as a reason for not seeking accommodations.
Trauma surgeon Qaali Hussein, MD, became pregnant with her first child during her intern year in 2008. She told this news organization that her residency program didn’t even have a maternity policy at the time, and her male supervisor was certain that motherhood would end her surgical career.
She shared how “women usually waited until the end of their training to get pregnant. No one had ever gotten pregnant during the program and returned from maternity leave. I was the first to do so, so there wasn’t a policy or any program support to say, ‘What can we do to help?’ ”
Dr. Hussein used her vacation and sick time, returning to work 4 weeks after delivery. She had five more children, including twins her chief year and another baby during fellowship training in 2014.
Each subsequent pregnancy was met with the same response from program leadership, she recalled. “They’d say, ‘This is it. You may have been able to do the first and second child, but this one will be impossible.’ ”
After the PWFA regulations first became enforceable in June, the EEOC accepted public feedback. The guidelines received nearly 100,000 comments, spurred mainly by the inclusion of abortion care as a qualifying condition for which an employee could receive accommodations. About 54,000 comments called for abortion to be excluded from the final rule, and 40,000 supported keeping the clause.
The EEOC issued the final rule on April 15. It includes abortion care. However, the updated rule “does not require any employee to have — or not to have — an abortion, does not require taxpayers to pay for any abortions, and does not compel health care providers to provide any abortions,” the unpublished version of the final rule said. It is scheduled to take effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register on April 19.
Increasing Support for Doctor-Moms
The PWFA supplements other EEOC protections, such as pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and access to reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, it builds upon Department of Labor regulations, like the PUMP Act for breastfeeding employees and the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for the arrival of a child or certain medical conditions.
FMLA applies only to employees who have worked full-time for at least 12 months for an employer with 50 or more employees. Meanwhile, the unpaid, job-protected leave under the PWFA has no waiting period, lowers the required number of employees to 15, and permits accommodations for up to 40 weeks.
Employers are encouraged to honor “common and simple” requests, like using a closer parking space or pumping or nursing at work, without requiring a doctor’s note, the rule said.
Efforts to improve family leave policies for physicians and residents have been gaining traction. In 2021, the American Board of Medical Specialties began requiring its member boards with training programs lasting 2 or more years to allow at least 6 weeks off for parental, caregiver, and medical leave. This time can be taken without exhausting vacation or sick leave or requiring an extension in training. Over half of the 24 member boards permit leave beyond 6 weeks, including the American Boards of Allergy and Immunology, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine, Radiology, and Surgery.
Estefania Oliveros, MD, MSc, cardiologist and assistant professor at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, told this news organization that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education also requires that residents and fellows receive 6 weeks of paid leave.
“We add to that vacation time, so it gives them at least 8 weeks,” she said. The school has created spaces for nursing mothers — something neither she nor Dr. Hussein had access to when breastfeeding — and encourages the attendings to be proactive in excusing pregnant fellows for appointments.
This differs significantly from her fellowship training experience 6 years ago at another institution, where she worked without accommodations until the day before her cesarean delivery. Dr. Oliveros had to use all her vacation time for recovery, returning to the program after 4 weeks instead of the recommended 6.
“And that’s the story you hear all the time. Not because people are ill-intended; I just don’t think the system is designed to accommodate women, so we lose a lot of talent that way,” said Dr. Oliveros, whose 2019 survey in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology called for more support and protections for pregnant doctors.
Both doctors believe the PWFA will be beneficial but only if leadership in the field takes up the cause.
“The cultures of these institutions determine whether women feel safe or even confident enough to have children in medical school or residency,” said Dr. Hussein.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
AI Surpasses Harvard Docs on Clinical Reasoning Test
TOPLINE:
The AI had more instances of incorrect reasoning than the doctors did but scored better overall.
METHODOLOGY:
- The study involved 39 physicians from two academic medical centers in Boston and the generative AI model GPT-4.
- Participants were presented with 20 simulated clinical cases involving common problems such as pharyngitis, headache, abdominal pain, cough, and chest pain. Each case included sections describing the triage presentation, review of systems, physical examination, and diagnostic testing.
- The primary outcome was the Revised-IDEA (R-IDEA) score, a 10-point scale evaluating clinical reasoning documentation across four domains: Interpretive summary, differential diagnosis, explanation of the lead diagnosis, and alternative diagnoses.
TAKEAWAY:
- AI achieved a median R-IDEA score of 10, higher than attending physicians (median score, 9) and residents (8).
- The chatbot had a significantly higher estimated probability of achieving a high R-IDEA score of 8-10 (0.99) compared with attendings (0.76) and residents (0.56).
- AI provided more responses that contained instances of incorrect clinical reasoning (13.8%) than residents (2.8%) and attending physicians (12.5%). It performed similarly to physicians in diagnostic accuracy and inclusion of cannot-miss diagnoses.
IN PRACTICE:
“Future research should assess clinical reasoning of the LLM-physician interaction, as LLMs will more likely augment, not replace, the human reasoning process,” the authors of the study wrote.
SOURCE:
Adam Rodman, MD, MPH, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, was the corresponding author on the paper. The research was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
Simulated clinical cases may not replicate performance in real-world scenarios. Further training could enhance the performance of the AI, so the study may underestimate its capabilities, the researchers noted.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center and Harvard University. Authors disclosed financial ties to publishing companies and Solera Health. Dr. Rodman received funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The AI had more instances of incorrect reasoning than the doctors did but scored better overall.
METHODOLOGY:
- The study involved 39 physicians from two academic medical centers in Boston and the generative AI model GPT-4.
- Participants were presented with 20 simulated clinical cases involving common problems such as pharyngitis, headache, abdominal pain, cough, and chest pain. Each case included sections describing the triage presentation, review of systems, physical examination, and diagnostic testing.
- The primary outcome was the Revised-IDEA (R-IDEA) score, a 10-point scale evaluating clinical reasoning documentation across four domains: Interpretive summary, differential diagnosis, explanation of the lead diagnosis, and alternative diagnoses.
TAKEAWAY:
- AI achieved a median R-IDEA score of 10, higher than attending physicians (median score, 9) and residents (8).
- The chatbot had a significantly higher estimated probability of achieving a high R-IDEA score of 8-10 (0.99) compared with attendings (0.76) and residents (0.56).
- AI provided more responses that contained instances of incorrect clinical reasoning (13.8%) than residents (2.8%) and attending physicians (12.5%). It performed similarly to physicians in diagnostic accuracy and inclusion of cannot-miss diagnoses.
IN PRACTICE:
“Future research should assess clinical reasoning of the LLM-physician interaction, as LLMs will more likely augment, not replace, the human reasoning process,” the authors of the study wrote.
SOURCE:
Adam Rodman, MD, MPH, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, was the corresponding author on the paper. The research was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
Simulated clinical cases may not replicate performance in real-world scenarios. Further training could enhance the performance of the AI, so the study may underestimate its capabilities, the researchers noted.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center and Harvard University. Authors disclosed financial ties to publishing companies and Solera Health. Dr. Rodman received funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The AI had more instances of incorrect reasoning than the doctors did but scored better overall.
METHODOLOGY:
- The study involved 39 physicians from two academic medical centers in Boston and the generative AI model GPT-4.
- Participants were presented with 20 simulated clinical cases involving common problems such as pharyngitis, headache, abdominal pain, cough, and chest pain. Each case included sections describing the triage presentation, review of systems, physical examination, and diagnostic testing.
- The primary outcome was the Revised-IDEA (R-IDEA) score, a 10-point scale evaluating clinical reasoning documentation across four domains: Interpretive summary, differential diagnosis, explanation of the lead diagnosis, and alternative diagnoses.
TAKEAWAY:
- AI achieved a median R-IDEA score of 10, higher than attending physicians (median score, 9) and residents (8).
- The chatbot had a significantly higher estimated probability of achieving a high R-IDEA score of 8-10 (0.99) compared with attendings (0.76) and residents (0.56).
- AI provided more responses that contained instances of incorrect clinical reasoning (13.8%) than residents (2.8%) and attending physicians (12.5%). It performed similarly to physicians in diagnostic accuracy and inclusion of cannot-miss diagnoses.
IN PRACTICE:
“Future research should assess clinical reasoning of the LLM-physician interaction, as LLMs will more likely augment, not replace, the human reasoning process,” the authors of the study wrote.
SOURCE:
Adam Rodman, MD, MPH, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, was the corresponding author on the paper. The research was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
Simulated clinical cases may not replicate performance in real-world scenarios. Further training could enhance the performance of the AI, so the study may underestimate its capabilities, the researchers noted.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center and Harvard University. Authors disclosed financial ties to publishing companies and Solera Health. Dr. Rodman received funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Pediatric Patients With MS May Do Best on High-Efficacy DMTs
DENVER — Patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) are often prescribed low-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), but a new retrospective analysis suggests that, like adults, this patient population may benefit from early treatment with high-efficacy DMTs.
“I think it’s very important to highlight that we are seeing that traditionally, kids are just started on lower-efficacy treatments and they keep relapsing. If we can show that when they get transitioned to high-efficacy treatments, the relapses are lessening, I’m hoping that can then push for better clinical trials with pediatric patients included,” said Frederick Bassal, DO, who presented the study during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. He is a pediatric neurologist at University of California, Davis.
The first line for POMS is generally low-efficacy DMTs like interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate, but these medications may not effectively control disease progression, according to the study authors, and this could lead to pediatric patients being changed to more potent therapies. That can include moderate-efficacy drugs like S1P inhibitors and fumarates, or high-efficacy DMTS such as B cell depletors and alpha 4 integrin receptor antibodies.
Treatment Strategies
“Right now what we’re seeing is the conservative approach — starting low and working up with the younger and adolescent patients. I’m speculating, and I want to look more into it. Is [it maybe] because of insurance approval?” said study coauthor Amara Miller, a medical student at the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Phoenix.
The findings aren’t surprising, according to Barbara Giesser, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. “It is in line with what we think we know about people with adult MS — that if you start early on with a more effective therapy, you tend to have better outcomes,” said Dr. Giesser, director of the MS program at the Pacific Neuroscience Institute.
Another reason to consider higher-efficacy DMTs is that children with MS can have cognitive problems and delays. “There’s a suggestion that if you treat with highly-effective DMT that you might be able to abrogate some of that,” said Dr. Giesser.
Among the approximately two dozen FDA-approved disease-modifying therapies for MS, only fingolimod (Gilenya, Novartis) is approved for children and adolescents. “All of the others are used off label, but I think perhaps, if you have more studies that [show] that children do better if you treat with more effective therapies early on, perhaps we might see more on-label indications for use in a pediatric population,” said Dr. Giesser.
The finding that obesity was associated with a higher likelihood of having multiple therapies is also interesting, she said. “We’re beginning to see that obesity in adults as well seems to portend less favorable neurologic outcomes.”
Study Methodology
The researchers analyzed data from 135 POMS patients between 2012 and 2023.
The mean age of participants was 15 years, 60% were female, and 120 of 135 were White, while 76 were of Hispanic ethnicity. Overweight and obesity were common, with 36 and 43 participants in each category. The initial therapy was a low-efficacy DMT in 23.0% of participants, moderate-efficacy in 37.0%, and high-efficacy in 24.4%, while 1.5% received some other kind of medication and 14.1% received no medication. The annualized relapse rate was 0.932, and the mean EDSS score was 0.88.
Patients who underwent three or medication changes had lower EDSS scores than those who underwent zero to 2 (P = .00607).
Over the course of the study, the percentage of patients who received high-efficacy DMTs rose from 25.9% to 48.9%, largely due to changes in medication. Of those initially prescribed low-efficacy DMTs, 77.4% were eventually switched to high-efficacy DMTs.
Every patient who underwent three or more medication changes was initially prescribed a low-efficacy DMT.
Patients started on low-efficacy drugs had a mean of 1.42 medication changes, compared with 0.94 in the moderate-efficacy group and 0.51 in the high-efficacy group. The reasons for changing from the first medication included relapse (36), side effects (11), patient choice or compliance (8), and pregnancy (2).
Patients 10 years or younger were more likely to be initially prescribed a low-efficacy therapy (odds ratio [OR], 5.72; P = .0366), while older patients were more likely to be prescribed moderate- or high-efficacy therapies (OR, 14.44; P = .0012).
There were more total medication changes in the low-efficacy group than the high initial DMT group (P = .000305).
Asked what advice they would give to physicians treating POMS patients, Ms. Miller suggested a top-down approach. “We want to look at if maybe we can start with higher efficacy DMT’s and maybe titering it down. That may be an option,” said Ms. Miller.
Dr. Bassal highlighted the importance of shared decision-making. “We want to go over the options, that we recommend higher-efficacy [DMTs] for these reasons. But every individual is different. And there may be fears that are very reasonable that families have. I think in those cases, it’s also reasonable to make a shared decision. And if that means going with something like an oral, moderate- to lower-efficacy [therapy], that’s okay, because compliance is key, and if you start something where the family is afraid of side effects, or there are side effects, then you kind of lost that opportunity,” he said.
Dr. Bassal, Dr. Giesser, and Ms. Miller have no relevant financial disclosures.
DENVER — Patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) are often prescribed low-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), but a new retrospective analysis suggests that, like adults, this patient population may benefit from early treatment with high-efficacy DMTs.
“I think it’s very important to highlight that we are seeing that traditionally, kids are just started on lower-efficacy treatments and they keep relapsing. If we can show that when they get transitioned to high-efficacy treatments, the relapses are lessening, I’m hoping that can then push for better clinical trials with pediatric patients included,” said Frederick Bassal, DO, who presented the study during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. He is a pediatric neurologist at University of California, Davis.
The first line for POMS is generally low-efficacy DMTs like interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate, but these medications may not effectively control disease progression, according to the study authors, and this could lead to pediatric patients being changed to more potent therapies. That can include moderate-efficacy drugs like S1P inhibitors and fumarates, or high-efficacy DMTS such as B cell depletors and alpha 4 integrin receptor antibodies.
Treatment Strategies
“Right now what we’re seeing is the conservative approach — starting low and working up with the younger and adolescent patients. I’m speculating, and I want to look more into it. Is [it maybe] because of insurance approval?” said study coauthor Amara Miller, a medical student at the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Phoenix.
The findings aren’t surprising, according to Barbara Giesser, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. “It is in line with what we think we know about people with adult MS — that if you start early on with a more effective therapy, you tend to have better outcomes,” said Dr. Giesser, director of the MS program at the Pacific Neuroscience Institute.
Another reason to consider higher-efficacy DMTs is that children with MS can have cognitive problems and delays. “There’s a suggestion that if you treat with highly-effective DMT that you might be able to abrogate some of that,” said Dr. Giesser.
Among the approximately two dozen FDA-approved disease-modifying therapies for MS, only fingolimod (Gilenya, Novartis) is approved for children and adolescents. “All of the others are used off label, but I think perhaps, if you have more studies that [show] that children do better if you treat with more effective therapies early on, perhaps we might see more on-label indications for use in a pediatric population,” said Dr. Giesser.
The finding that obesity was associated with a higher likelihood of having multiple therapies is also interesting, she said. “We’re beginning to see that obesity in adults as well seems to portend less favorable neurologic outcomes.”
Study Methodology
The researchers analyzed data from 135 POMS patients between 2012 and 2023.
The mean age of participants was 15 years, 60% were female, and 120 of 135 were White, while 76 were of Hispanic ethnicity. Overweight and obesity were common, with 36 and 43 participants in each category. The initial therapy was a low-efficacy DMT in 23.0% of participants, moderate-efficacy in 37.0%, and high-efficacy in 24.4%, while 1.5% received some other kind of medication and 14.1% received no medication. The annualized relapse rate was 0.932, and the mean EDSS score was 0.88.
Patients who underwent three or medication changes had lower EDSS scores than those who underwent zero to 2 (P = .00607).
Over the course of the study, the percentage of patients who received high-efficacy DMTs rose from 25.9% to 48.9%, largely due to changes in medication. Of those initially prescribed low-efficacy DMTs, 77.4% were eventually switched to high-efficacy DMTs.
Every patient who underwent three or more medication changes was initially prescribed a low-efficacy DMT.
Patients started on low-efficacy drugs had a mean of 1.42 medication changes, compared with 0.94 in the moderate-efficacy group and 0.51 in the high-efficacy group. The reasons for changing from the first medication included relapse (36), side effects (11), patient choice or compliance (8), and pregnancy (2).
Patients 10 years or younger were more likely to be initially prescribed a low-efficacy therapy (odds ratio [OR], 5.72; P = .0366), while older patients were more likely to be prescribed moderate- or high-efficacy therapies (OR, 14.44; P = .0012).
There were more total medication changes in the low-efficacy group than the high initial DMT group (P = .000305).
Asked what advice they would give to physicians treating POMS patients, Ms. Miller suggested a top-down approach. “We want to look at if maybe we can start with higher efficacy DMT’s and maybe titering it down. That may be an option,” said Ms. Miller.
Dr. Bassal highlighted the importance of shared decision-making. “We want to go over the options, that we recommend higher-efficacy [DMTs] for these reasons. But every individual is different. And there may be fears that are very reasonable that families have. I think in those cases, it’s also reasonable to make a shared decision. And if that means going with something like an oral, moderate- to lower-efficacy [therapy], that’s okay, because compliance is key, and if you start something where the family is afraid of side effects, or there are side effects, then you kind of lost that opportunity,” he said.
Dr. Bassal, Dr. Giesser, and Ms. Miller have no relevant financial disclosures.
DENVER — Patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) are often prescribed low-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), but a new retrospective analysis suggests that, like adults, this patient population may benefit from early treatment with high-efficacy DMTs.
“I think it’s very important to highlight that we are seeing that traditionally, kids are just started on lower-efficacy treatments and they keep relapsing. If we can show that when they get transitioned to high-efficacy treatments, the relapses are lessening, I’m hoping that can then push for better clinical trials with pediatric patients included,” said Frederick Bassal, DO, who presented the study during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. He is a pediatric neurologist at University of California, Davis.
The first line for POMS is generally low-efficacy DMTs like interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate, but these medications may not effectively control disease progression, according to the study authors, and this could lead to pediatric patients being changed to more potent therapies. That can include moderate-efficacy drugs like S1P inhibitors and fumarates, or high-efficacy DMTS such as B cell depletors and alpha 4 integrin receptor antibodies.
Treatment Strategies
“Right now what we’re seeing is the conservative approach — starting low and working up with the younger and adolescent patients. I’m speculating, and I want to look more into it. Is [it maybe] because of insurance approval?” said study coauthor Amara Miller, a medical student at the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Phoenix.
The findings aren’t surprising, according to Barbara Giesser, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. “It is in line with what we think we know about people with adult MS — that if you start early on with a more effective therapy, you tend to have better outcomes,” said Dr. Giesser, director of the MS program at the Pacific Neuroscience Institute.
Another reason to consider higher-efficacy DMTs is that children with MS can have cognitive problems and delays. “There’s a suggestion that if you treat with highly-effective DMT that you might be able to abrogate some of that,” said Dr. Giesser.
Among the approximately two dozen FDA-approved disease-modifying therapies for MS, only fingolimod (Gilenya, Novartis) is approved for children and adolescents. “All of the others are used off label, but I think perhaps, if you have more studies that [show] that children do better if you treat with more effective therapies early on, perhaps we might see more on-label indications for use in a pediatric population,” said Dr. Giesser.
The finding that obesity was associated with a higher likelihood of having multiple therapies is also interesting, she said. “We’re beginning to see that obesity in adults as well seems to portend less favorable neurologic outcomes.”
Study Methodology
The researchers analyzed data from 135 POMS patients between 2012 and 2023.
The mean age of participants was 15 years, 60% were female, and 120 of 135 were White, while 76 were of Hispanic ethnicity. Overweight and obesity were common, with 36 and 43 participants in each category. The initial therapy was a low-efficacy DMT in 23.0% of participants, moderate-efficacy in 37.0%, and high-efficacy in 24.4%, while 1.5% received some other kind of medication and 14.1% received no medication. The annualized relapse rate was 0.932, and the mean EDSS score was 0.88.
Patients who underwent three or medication changes had lower EDSS scores than those who underwent zero to 2 (P = .00607).
Over the course of the study, the percentage of patients who received high-efficacy DMTs rose from 25.9% to 48.9%, largely due to changes in medication. Of those initially prescribed low-efficacy DMTs, 77.4% were eventually switched to high-efficacy DMTs.
Every patient who underwent three or more medication changes was initially prescribed a low-efficacy DMT.
Patients started on low-efficacy drugs had a mean of 1.42 medication changes, compared with 0.94 in the moderate-efficacy group and 0.51 in the high-efficacy group. The reasons for changing from the first medication included relapse (36), side effects (11), patient choice or compliance (8), and pregnancy (2).
Patients 10 years or younger were more likely to be initially prescribed a low-efficacy therapy (odds ratio [OR], 5.72; P = .0366), while older patients were more likely to be prescribed moderate- or high-efficacy therapies (OR, 14.44; P = .0012).
There were more total medication changes in the low-efficacy group than the high initial DMT group (P = .000305).
Asked what advice they would give to physicians treating POMS patients, Ms. Miller suggested a top-down approach. “We want to look at if maybe we can start with higher efficacy DMT’s and maybe titering it down. That may be an option,” said Ms. Miller.
Dr. Bassal highlighted the importance of shared decision-making. “We want to go over the options, that we recommend higher-efficacy [DMTs] for these reasons. But every individual is different. And there may be fears that are very reasonable that families have. I think in those cases, it’s also reasonable to make a shared decision. And if that means going with something like an oral, moderate- to lower-efficacy [therapy], that’s okay, because compliance is key, and if you start something where the family is afraid of side effects, or there are side effects, then you kind of lost that opportunity,” he said.
Dr. Bassal, Dr. Giesser, and Ms. Miller have no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM AAN 2024
How Does Moderate to Severe Eczema Affect Growth in Children?
FROM AAD 2024
SAN DIEGO — , results from an ongoing 10-year observational study showed.
“We need to sort out whether this is reversed by newer treatments, especially in the 6- to 11-year-olds, as well as the factors that underlie it in atopic dermatitis,” said the study’s first author Amy S. Paller, MD, chair of dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, following the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session.
Atopic Dermatitis Impacts Growth
In the ongoing international study called PEDISTAD, researchers enrolled 1326 children younger than 12 years with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis inadequately controlled by topical therapies who were candidates to receive systemic medications. They assessed the percentage of patients above the 50th percentile and the mean percentiles for height, weight, and body mass index (BMI) at baseline against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Learning Management System reference healthy population, by age in months, and compared results to the CDC’s standardized growth curves for healthy children aged 0-12 years.
The investigators found that at baseline, compared with the age-specific population norms, 50% of men and 51% of women in the PEDISTAD study were above the 50th percentile for weight, but only 38% and 52%, respectively, were above the 50th percentile for height. Among patients aged 5-12 years, only 28% of men and 47% of women were above the 50th percentile for height, while 69% of men and 71% of women were above the 50th percentile for BMI.
Dr. Paller said that she was “not really surprised by the reduction in linear growth, since there are so many factors that may contribute,” including chronic inflammation, poor sleep, and the use of topical and systemic steroids. “But [it’s] good to have this data as an opportunity to see if our improved therapies can reverse this.”
She said that she was “a bit surprised by the increase in weight and body mass index, but this could reflect less physical activity/sports [participation and] deserves more investigation,” and added that the findings “mesh nicely with new attention on bone growth with good control of atopic dermatitis in this age group.”
Dr. Paller acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that those enrolled are a heterogeneous cohort with variable treatment regimens.
Some Answers, More Questions
Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, who was asked to comment on the findings, said that atopic dermatitis “should be considered the cutaneous manifestations of a systemic inflammatory disease, though even if it were not, the impact on daily and nightly activities [such as sleep] could indirectly have systemic medical consequences.”
The data presented “highlights that children with moderate to severe disease have higher BMIs and shorter height than matched counterparts, likely owing to the treasure trove of direct and indirect consequences of uncontrolled type 2 inflammation,” he said. “What I would like to know, and as the authors astutely noted, could treatment, and especially early intervention, prevent or even alter this impact?”
Dr. Paller disclosed that she is a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, including Sanofi and Regeneron, the study sponsor. She is also an investigator for AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Krystal, LEO Pharma, and UCB and is a member of the data monitoring safety board for AbbVie, Abeona, Catawba, Galderma, and InMed. Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study, had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAD 2024
SAN DIEGO — , results from an ongoing 10-year observational study showed.
“We need to sort out whether this is reversed by newer treatments, especially in the 6- to 11-year-olds, as well as the factors that underlie it in atopic dermatitis,” said the study’s first author Amy S. Paller, MD, chair of dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, following the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session.
Atopic Dermatitis Impacts Growth
In the ongoing international study called PEDISTAD, researchers enrolled 1326 children younger than 12 years with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis inadequately controlled by topical therapies who were candidates to receive systemic medications. They assessed the percentage of patients above the 50th percentile and the mean percentiles for height, weight, and body mass index (BMI) at baseline against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Learning Management System reference healthy population, by age in months, and compared results to the CDC’s standardized growth curves for healthy children aged 0-12 years.
The investigators found that at baseline, compared with the age-specific population norms, 50% of men and 51% of women in the PEDISTAD study were above the 50th percentile for weight, but only 38% and 52%, respectively, were above the 50th percentile for height. Among patients aged 5-12 years, only 28% of men and 47% of women were above the 50th percentile for height, while 69% of men and 71% of women were above the 50th percentile for BMI.
Dr. Paller said that she was “not really surprised by the reduction in linear growth, since there are so many factors that may contribute,” including chronic inflammation, poor sleep, and the use of topical and systemic steroids. “But [it’s] good to have this data as an opportunity to see if our improved therapies can reverse this.”
She said that she was “a bit surprised by the increase in weight and body mass index, but this could reflect less physical activity/sports [participation and] deserves more investigation,” and added that the findings “mesh nicely with new attention on bone growth with good control of atopic dermatitis in this age group.”
Dr. Paller acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that those enrolled are a heterogeneous cohort with variable treatment regimens.
Some Answers, More Questions
Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, who was asked to comment on the findings, said that atopic dermatitis “should be considered the cutaneous manifestations of a systemic inflammatory disease, though even if it were not, the impact on daily and nightly activities [such as sleep] could indirectly have systemic medical consequences.”
The data presented “highlights that children with moderate to severe disease have higher BMIs and shorter height than matched counterparts, likely owing to the treasure trove of direct and indirect consequences of uncontrolled type 2 inflammation,” he said. “What I would like to know, and as the authors astutely noted, could treatment, and especially early intervention, prevent or even alter this impact?”
Dr. Paller disclosed that she is a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, including Sanofi and Regeneron, the study sponsor. She is also an investigator for AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Krystal, LEO Pharma, and UCB and is a member of the data monitoring safety board for AbbVie, Abeona, Catawba, Galderma, and InMed. Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study, had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAD 2024
SAN DIEGO — , results from an ongoing 10-year observational study showed.
“We need to sort out whether this is reversed by newer treatments, especially in the 6- to 11-year-olds, as well as the factors that underlie it in atopic dermatitis,” said the study’s first author Amy S. Paller, MD, chair of dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, following the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session.
Atopic Dermatitis Impacts Growth
In the ongoing international study called PEDISTAD, researchers enrolled 1326 children younger than 12 years with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis inadequately controlled by topical therapies who were candidates to receive systemic medications. They assessed the percentage of patients above the 50th percentile and the mean percentiles for height, weight, and body mass index (BMI) at baseline against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Learning Management System reference healthy population, by age in months, and compared results to the CDC’s standardized growth curves for healthy children aged 0-12 years.
The investigators found that at baseline, compared with the age-specific population norms, 50% of men and 51% of women in the PEDISTAD study were above the 50th percentile for weight, but only 38% and 52%, respectively, were above the 50th percentile for height. Among patients aged 5-12 years, only 28% of men and 47% of women were above the 50th percentile for height, while 69% of men and 71% of women were above the 50th percentile for BMI.
Dr. Paller said that she was “not really surprised by the reduction in linear growth, since there are so many factors that may contribute,” including chronic inflammation, poor sleep, and the use of topical and systemic steroids. “But [it’s] good to have this data as an opportunity to see if our improved therapies can reverse this.”
She said that she was “a bit surprised by the increase in weight and body mass index, but this could reflect less physical activity/sports [participation and] deserves more investigation,” and added that the findings “mesh nicely with new attention on bone growth with good control of atopic dermatitis in this age group.”
Dr. Paller acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that those enrolled are a heterogeneous cohort with variable treatment regimens.
Some Answers, More Questions
Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, who was asked to comment on the findings, said that atopic dermatitis “should be considered the cutaneous manifestations of a systemic inflammatory disease, though even if it were not, the impact on daily and nightly activities [such as sleep] could indirectly have systemic medical consequences.”
The data presented “highlights that children with moderate to severe disease have higher BMIs and shorter height than matched counterparts, likely owing to the treasure trove of direct and indirect consequences of uncontrolled type 2 inflammation,” he said. “What I would like to know, and as the authors astutely noted, could treatment, and especially early intervention, prevent or even alter this impact?”
Dr. Paller disclosed that she is a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, including Sanofi and Regeneron, the study sponsor. She is also an investigator for AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Krystal, LEO Pharma, and UCB and is a member of the data monitoring safety board for AbbVie, Abeona, Catawba, Galderma, and InMed. Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study, had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Childhood Loneliness Predictive of Subsequent Psychosis?
BUDAPEST, HUNGARY — Self-perceived loneliness during childhood is linked to a more than twofold increased risk for subsequent first-episode psychosis (FEP) — new findings that may point to a novel marker for the disorder.
The association between loneliness and FEP “appears to extend beyond the effects of objective social isolation,” said study presenter Covadonga M. Díaz-Caneja, MD, PhD, Institute of Psychiatry and Mental Health, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, and “is particularly pronounced in females.”
“These findings suggest the potential of childhood loneliness as an early risk marker for psychosis that could help guide targeted interventions,” she added.
The results were presented at the European Psychiatric Association 2024 Congress.
Isolation a Major Risk Factor
There are two components to isolation, both of which are “major risk factors” for morbidity, mortality, and the onset of mental disorders, said Dr. Díaz-Caneja.
The first is “objective social isolation,” which consists of a demonstrable lack of social connections, including social interactions, contacts, and relationships, while the other is a perceived sense of isolation, or “loneliness,” defined as a “subjective feeling of distress associated with a lack of meaningful relationships,” regardless of the amount of actual social contact an individual experiences.
Childhood loneliness occurs before age 12 and is becoming increasingly prevalent, said Dr. Díaz-Caneja. A recent survey shows that approximately one third of children report they often feel lonely.
Genetic and observational research has shown there is a bidirectional relationship between loneliness and psychosis and that patients with schizophrenia are more likely to report loneliness than is the general population.
Dr. Díaz-Caneja noted that there is no previous research that has assessed the potential association between childhood loneliness and subsequent psychosis.
To investigate, the researchers conducted an observational, case-control study in seven university hospitals in Madrid. It included individuals aged 7-40 years, including FEP patients with a psychosis duration of less than 2 years, and healthy controls from the same geographic areas.
They assessed childhood objective social isolation using the Premorbid Adjustment Scale and examined childhood loneliness with the single item: “Have you ever felt lonely for more than 6 months before the age of 12?”
A range of measures and questionnaires were also administered to assess participants’ symptom scores, alongside the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF).
Alone vs Lonely
Two hundred eighty-five patients with FEP participated in the study. They had a mean age of 24.5 years, and 32.6% were female. The study also included 261 healthy controls (average age, 25.9 years; 48.7% female).
After the researchers adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, loneliness during childhood was associated with a significantly increased risk for FEP (odds ratio [OR], 2.17; 95% CI, 1.40-3.51), which increased (OR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.58-4.62) after further adjustment for objective social isolation.
Further analysis revealed that in those who did not have objective social isolation in childhood, loneliness was associated with a significantly increased risk for FEP (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.56-4.60).
However, the relationship between loneliness and FEP was not significant in participants who were objectively socially isolated during childhood (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.08-1.45).
Compared with males, females reporting loneliness had a markedly increased risk for FEP (OR, 4.74; 95% CI, 2.23-10.05 vs OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.63-2.19).
However, females had a reduced risk of receiving a diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum disorder (OR, 0.155; 95% CI, 0.048-0.506), indicating that loneliness influenced the type of diagnosis, she noted.
There was a significant positive relationship between loneliness in childhood and symptom scores in men, and a negative association with GAF scores in men.
Dr. Díaz-Caneja noted that the study is preliminary and a “work in progress.” The investigators plan to increase the sample size and will conduct more complex analyses, she said.
“We also of course have to bear in mind that it is a cross-sectional study and that there may be some kind of recall biases [because] we are asking patients now about what happened in the past.”
She noted that it’s unclear whether the results can be extrapolated to individuals who are currently experiencing loneliness because “the determinants of loneliness 10 years ago or 15 years ago may be different.”
How, When to Intervene
Session chair Judit Lazáry, MD, PhD, Department of Clinical and Theoretical Mental Health, Kútvölgyi Clinical Center, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary, told this news organization that the association between loneliness and FEP was “not surprising.”
She explained there are a lot of data indicating that premorbid symptoms in childhood are “predictive signs for the later onset of psychosis,” and loneliness may be “a part of that.”
Individuals experiencing loneliness are more anxious and have difficulties in cultivating and maintaining relationships. In addition, they tend to socially isolate, she said.
The key question, said Dr. Lazáry, is: “How can we intervene to prevent the onset of psychosis? What is the point at which we can support the young person?”
This is challenging, she added, because while “you can detect that a kid is always alone, you cannot detect the feeling of loneliness,” and children can’t always easily express themselves.
Another potential confounder is that in adults with current psychosis, the self-perception that they were lonely during childhood may be a consequence of the disorder.
In addition, she said, individuals with psychosis often experience cognitive impairment, which could affect memory reliability.
Nevertheless, said Dr. Lazáry, the study’s findings suggest that a young person reporting loneliness in childhood may be “another symptom that we have to investigate.”
No funding was declared.
Dr. Díaz-Caneja declared a relationship with Angelini, Janssen, and Viatris and grant support from Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, and the European Commission.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
BUDAPEST, HUNGARY — Self-perceived loneliness during childhood is linked to a more than twofold increased risk for subsequent first-episode psychosis (FEP) — new findings that may point to a novel marker for the disorder.
The association between loneliness and FEP “appears to extend beyond the effects of objective social isolation,” said study presenter Covadonga M. Díaz-Caneja, MD, PhD, Institute of Psychiatry and Mental Health, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, and “is particularly pronounced in females.”
“These findings suggest the potential of childhood loneliness as an early risk marker for psychosis that could help guide targeted interventions,” she added.
The results were presented at the European Psychiatric Association 2024 Congress.
Isolation a Major Risk Factor
There are two components to isolation, both of which are “major risk factors” for morbidity, mortality, and the onset of mental disorders, said Dr. Díaz-Caneja.
The first is “objective social isolation,” which consists of a demonstrable lack of social connections, including social interactions, contacts, and relationships, while the other is a perceived sense of isolation, or “loneliness,” defined as a “subjective feeling of distress associated with a lack of meaningful relationships,” regardless of the amount of actual social contact an individual experiences.
Childhood loneliness occurs before age 12 and is becoming increasingly prevalent, said Dr. Díaz-Caneja. A recent survey shows that approximately one third of children report they often feel lonely.
Genetic and observational research has shown there is a bidirectional relationship between loneliness and psychosis and that patients with schizophrenia are more likely to report loneliness than is the general population.
Dr. Díaz-Caneja noted that there is no previous research that has assessed the potential association between childhood loneliness and subsequent psychosis.
To investigate, the researchers conducted an observational, case-control study in seven university hospitals in Madrid. It included individuals aged 7-40 years, including FEP patients with a psychosis duration of less than 2 years, and healthy controls from the same geographic areas.
They assessed childhood objective social isolation using the Premorbid Adjustment Scale and examined childhood loneliness with the single item: “Have you ever felt lonely for more than 6 months before the age of 12?”
A range of measures and questionnaires were also administered to assess participants’ symptom scores, alongside the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF).
Alone vs Lonely
Two hundred eighty-five patients with FEP participated in the study. They had a mean age of 24.5 years, and 32.6% were female. The study also included 261 healthy controls (average age, 25.9 years; 48.7% female).
After the researchers adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, loneliness during childhood was associated with a significantly increased risk for FEP (odds ratio [OR], 2.17; 95% CI, 1.40-3.51), which increased (OR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.58-4.62) after further adjustment for objective social isolation.
Further analysis revealed that in those who did not have objective social isolation in childhood, loneliness was associated with a significantly increased risk for FEP (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.56-4.60).
However, the relationship between loneliness and FEP was not significant in participants who were objectively socially isolated during childhood (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.08-1.45).
Compared with males, females reporting loneliness had a markedly increased risk for FEP (OR, 4.74; 95% CI, 2.23-10.05 vs OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.63-2.19).
However, females had a reduced risk of receiving a diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum disorder (OR, 0.155; 95% CI, 0.048-0.506), indicating that loneliness influenced the type of diagnosis, she noted.
There was a significant positive relationship between loneliness in childhood and symptom scores in men, and a negative association with GAF scores in men.
Dr. Díaz-Caneja noted that the study is preliminary and a “work in progress.” The investigators plan to increase the sample size and will conduct more complex analyses, she said.
“We also of course have to bear in mind that it is a cross-sectional study and that there may be some kind of recall biases [because] we are asking patients now about what happened in the past.”
She noted that it’s unclear whether the results can be extrapolated to individuals who are currently experiencing loneliness because “the determinants of loneliness 10 years ago or 15 years ago may be different.”
How, When to Intervene
Session chair Judit Lazáry, MD, PhD, Department of Clinical and Theoretical Mental Health, Kútvölgyi Clinical Center, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary, told this news organization that the association between loneliness and FEP was “not surprising.”
She explained there are a lot of data indicating that premorbid symptoms in childhood are “predictive signs for the later onset of psychosis,” and loneliness may be “a part of that.”
Individuals experiencing loneliness are more anxious and have difficulties in cultivating and maintaining relationships. In addition, they tend to socially isolate, she said.
The key question, said Dr. Lazáry, is: “How can we intervene to prevent the onset of psychosis? What is the point at which we can support the young person?”
This is challenging, she added, because while “you can detect that a kid is always alone, you cannot detect the feeling of loneliness,” and children can’t always easily express themselves.
Another potential confounder is that in adults with current psychosis, the self-perception that they were lonely during childhood may be a consequence of the disorder.
In addition, she said, individuals with psychosis often experience cognitive impairment, which could affect memory reliability.
Nevertheless, said Dr. Lazáry, the study’s findings suggest that a young person reporting loneliness in childhood may be “another symptom that we have to investigate.”
No funding was declared.
Dr. Díaz-Caneja declared a relationship with Angelini, Janssen, and Viatris and grant support from Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, and the European Commission.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
BUDAPEST, HUNGARY — Self-perceived loneliness during childhood is linked to a more than twofold increased risk for subsequent first-episode psychosis (FEP) — new findings that may point to a novel marker for the disorder.
The association between loneliness and FEP “appears to extend beyond the effects of objective social isolation,” said study presenter Covadonga M. Díaz-Caneja, MD, PhD, Institute of Psychiatry and Mental Health, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, and “is particularly pronounced in females.”
“These findings suggest the potential of childhood loneliness as an early risk marker for psychosis that could help guide targeted interventions,” she added.
The results were presented at the European Psychiatric Association 2024 Congress.
Isolation a Major Risk Factor
There are two components to isolation, both of which are “major risk factors” for morbidity, mortality, and the onset of mental disorders, said Dr. Díaz-Caneja.
The first is “objective social isolation,” which consists of a demonstrable lack of social connections, including social interactions, contacts, and relationships, while the other is a perceived sense of isolation, or “loneliness,” defined as a “subjective feeling of distress associated with a lack of meaningful relationships,” regardless of the amount of actual social contact an individual experiences.
Childhood loneliness occurs before age 12 and is becoming increasingly prevalent, said Dr. Díaz-Caneja. A recent survey shows that approximately one third of children report they often feel lonely.
Genetic and observational research has shown there is a bidirectional relationship between loneliness and psychosis and that patients with schizophrenia are more likely to report loneliness than is the general population.
Dr. Díaz-Caneja noted that there is no previous research that has assessed the potential association between childhood loneliness and subsequent psychosis.
To investigate, the researchers conducted an observational, case-control study in seven university hospitals in Madrid. It included individuals aged 7-40 years, including FEP patients with a psychosis duration of less than 2 years, and healthy controls from the same geographic areas.
They assessed childhood objective social isolation using the Premorbid Adjustment Scale and examined childhood loneliness with the single item: “Have you ever felt lonely for more than 6 months before the age of 12?”
A range of measures and questionnaires were also administered to assess participants’ symptom scores, alongside the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF).
Alone vs Lonely
Two hundred eighty-five patients with FEP participated in the study. They had a mean age of 24.5 years, and 32.6% were female. The study also included 261 healthy controls (average age, 25.9 years; 48.7% female).
After the researchers adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, loneliness during childhood was associated with a significantly increased risk for FEP (odds ratio [OR], 2.17; 95% CI, 1.40-3.51), which increased (OR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.58-4.62) after further adjustment for objective social isolation.
Further analysis revealed that in those who did not have objective social isolation in childhood, loneliness was associated with a significantly increased risk for FEP (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.56-4.60).
However, the relationship between loneliness and FEP was not significant in participants who were objectively socially isolated during childhood (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.08-1.45).
Compared with males, females reporting loneliness had a markedly increased risk for FEP (OR, 4.74; 95% CI, 2.23-10.05 vs OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.63-2.19).
However, females had a reduced risk of receiving a diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum disorder (OR, 0.155; 95% CI, 0.048-0.506), indicating that loneliness influenced the type of diagnosis, she noted.
There was a significant positive relationship between loneliness in childhood and symptom scores in men, and a negative association with GAF scores in men.
Dr. Díaz-Caneja noted that the study is preliminary and a “work in progress.” The investigators plan to increase the sample size and will conduct more complex analyses, she said.
“We also of course have to bear in mind that it is a cross-sectional study and that there may be some kind of recall biases [because] we are asking patients now about what happened in the past.”
She noted that it’s unclear whether the results can be extrapolated to individuals who are currently experiencing loneliness because “the determinants of loneliness 10 years ago or 15 years ago may be different.”
How, When to Intervene
Session chair Judit Lazáry, MD, PhD, Department of Clinical and Theoretical Mental Health, Kútvölgyi Clinical Center, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary, told this news organization that the association between loneliness and FEP was “not surprising.”
She explained there are a lot of data indicating that premorbid symptoms in childhood are “predictive signs for the later onset of psychosis,” and loneliness may be “a part of that.”
Individuals experiencing loneliness are more anxious and have difficulties in cultivating and maintaining relationships. In addition, they tend to socially isolate, she said.
The key question, said Dr. Lazáry, is: “How can we intervene to prevent the onset of psychosis? What is the point at which we can support the young person?”
This is challenging, she added, because while “you can detect that a kid is always alone, you cannot detect the feeling of loneliness,” and children can’t always easily express themselves.
Another potential confounder is that in adults with current psychosis, the self-perception that they were lonely during childhood may be a consequence of the disorder.
In addition, she said, individuals with psychosis often experience cognitive impairment, which could affect memory reliability.
Nevertheless, said Dr. Lazáry, the study’s findings suggest that a young person reporting loneliness in childhood may be “another symptom that we have to investigate.”
No funding was declared.
Dr. Díaz-Caneja declared a relationship with Angelini, Janssen, and Viatris and grant support from Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, and the European Commission.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
First Consensus Statement on Improving Healthcare for Children with Neurodevelopmental Disabilities
The statement was published in Pediatrics.
The disparities in healthcare culture, mindset, and practice often start in childhood for young people with conditions including autism spectrum disorder (ASD), intellectual disability, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), wrote co–first authors Carol Weitzman, MD, co-director of the Autism Spectrum Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and Cy Nadler, PhD, section chief of Autism Psychology at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, and colleagues.
Without better access to safe and appropriate care, people with NDDs experience more seclusion, accidents, restraints, and injury in healthcare encounters, the researchers wrote.
‘Accessible, Humane, Effective Care’
“At the heart of this consensus statement is an affirmation that all people are entitled to healthcare that is accessible, humane, and effective,” they wrote.
The consensus statement was developed as part of the Supporting Access for Everyone (SAFE) Initiative, launched by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. The consensus panel comprised professionals, caregivers, and adults with NDDs. After a 2-day public forum, the consensus panel held a conference and developed a statement on SAFE care, an NDD Health Care Bill of Rights and Transition Considerations. They developed 10 statements across five domains: training; communication; access and planning; diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging, and anti-ableism; and policy and structural change.
Asking the Patient ‘What do You Need?’
One theme in the statement that may have the most impact is “the importance of asking the person in front of you what they need,” and building a care plan around that, said senior author Marilyn Augustyn, MD, Director of the Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. “The medical community hasn’t done that very well for individuals with neurodevelopmental disabilities.”
Dr. Weitzman added: “Traditionally in healthcare settings, we’ve asked people to check their disabilities at the door.” Many people with neurodevelopmental disabilities often have “invisible disabilities,” she said, explaining that patients may have accommodation needs that aren’t immediately obvious, but could improve their access to care, so asking them what they need is critical.
Examples of ‘Ableism’
The consensus statement also calls attention to structural “ableism” or policies or practices that favor able-bodied people over those with disabilities and details the need for more training and changed policies.
The paper gives some examples of ableism, such as inappropriately excluding people with NDDs from research; staff assuming nonspeaking patients have no capacity for communication; or lack of awareness of sensory needs before using cold stethoscopes or flashing direct light into eyes.
Dr. Weitzman says this work is just the beginning of a complex process. It is intended to be the driver for developing curriculum to train all clinicians and others working with patients about neurodevelopmental disabilities. The hope is it will lead to more research to formalize best practices and make policies mandatory rather than optional.
The urgency in highlighting these issues is partly related to the prevalence of children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disabilities, which the paper states is approximately 1 in 6.
But there are personal reasons as well for the team who developed the statement.
“We just believe that it is just a human right,” Dr. Weitzman said. “Having a neurodevelopmental disability does not make you any less entitled to good care. “
Dr. Augustyn added, “The children I’ve had the honor of caring for for the last 30 years deserve all this care and more. I think it’s time.”
This work was supported by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. Dr. Weitzman is a past consultant for Helios/Meliora. The other authors report no relevant financial relationships.
The statement was published in Pediatrics.
The disparities in healthcare culture, mindset, and practice often start in childhood for young people with conditions including autism spectrum disorder (ASD), intellectual disability, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), wrote co–first authors Carol Weitzman, MD, co-director of the Autism Spectrum Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and Cy Nadler, PhD, section chief of Autism Psychology at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, and colleagues.
Without better access to safe and appropriate care, people with NDDs experience more seclusion, accidents, restraints, and injury in healthcare encounters, the researchers wrote.
‘Accessible, Humane, Effective Care’
“At the heart of this consensus statement is an affirmation that all people are entitled to healthcare that is accessible, humane, and effective,” they wrote.
The consensus statement was developed as part of the Supporting Access for Everyone (SAFE) Initiative, launched by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. The consensus panel comprised professionals, caregivers, and adults with NDDs. After a 2-day public forum, the consensus panel held a conference and developed a statement on SAFE care, an NDD Health Care Bill of Rights and Transition Considerations. They developed 10 statements across five domains: training; communication; access and planning; diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging, and anti-ableism; and policy and structural change.
Asking the Patient ‘What do You Need?’
One theme in the statement that may have the most impact is “the importance of asking the person in front of you what they need,” and building a care plan around that, said senior author Marilyn Augustyn, MD, Director of the Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. “The medical community hasn’t done that very well for individuals with neurodevelopmental disabilities.”
Dr. Weitzman added: “Traditionally in healthcare settings, we’ve asked people to check their disabilities at the door.” Many people with neurodevelopmental disabilities often have “invisible disabilities,” she said, explaining that patients may have accommodation needs that aren’t immediately obvious, but could improve their access to care, so asking them what they need is critical.
Examples of ‘Ableism’
The consensus statement also calls attention to structural “ableism” or policies or practices that favor able-bodied people over those with disabilities and details the need for more training and changed policies.
The paper gives some examples of ableism, such as inappropriately excluding people with NDDs from research; staff assuming nonspeaking patients have no capacity for communication; or lack of awareness of sensory needs before using cold stethoscopes or flashing direct light into eyes.
Dr. Weitzman says this work is just the beginning of a complex process. It is intended to be the driver for developing curriculum to train all clinicians and others working with patients about neurodevelopmental disabilities. The hope is it will lead to more research to formalize best practices and make policies mandatory rather than optional.
The urgency in highlighting these issues is partly related to the prevalence of children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disabilities, which the paper states is approximately 1 in 6.
But there are personal reasons as well for the team who developed the statement.
“We just believe that it is just a human right,” Dr. Weitzman said. “Having a neurodevelopmental disability does not make you any less entitled to good care. “
Dr. Augustyn added, “The children I’ve had the honor of caring for for the last 30 years deserve all this care and more. I think it’s time.”
This work was supported by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. Dr. Weitzman is a past consultant for Helios/Meliora. The other authors report no relevant financial relationships.
The statement was published in Pediatrics.
The disparities in healthcare culture, mindset, and practice often start in childhood for young people with conditions including autism spectrum disorder (ASD), intellectual disability, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), wrote co–first authors Carol Weitzman, MD, co-director of the Autism Spectrum Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and Cy Nadler, PhD, section chief of Autism Psychology at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, and colleagues.
Without better access to safe and appropriate care, people with NDDs experience more seclusion, accidents, restraints, and injury in healthcare encounters, the researchers wrote.
‘Accessible, Humane, Effective Care’
“At the heart of this consensus statement is an affirmation that all people are entitled to healthcare that is accessible, humane, and effective,” they wrote.
The consensus statement was developed as part of the Supporting Access for Everyone (SAFE) Initiative, launched by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. The consensus panel comprised professionals, caregivers, and adults with NDDs. After a 2-day public forum, the consensus panel held a conference and developed a statement on SAFE care, an NDD Health Care Bill of Rights and Transition Considerations. They developed 10 statements across five domains: training; communication; access and planning; diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging, and anti-ableism; and policy and structural change.
Asking the Patient ‘What do You Need?’
One theme in the statement that may have the most impact is “the importance of asking the person in front of you what they need,” and building a care plan around that, said senior author Marilyn Augustyn, MD, Director of the Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. “The medical community hasn’t done that very well for individuals with neurodevelopmental disabilities.”
Dr. Weitzman added: “Traditionally in healthcare settings, we’ve asked people to check their disabilities at the door.” Many people with neurodevelopmental disabilities often have “invisible disabilities,” she said, explaining that patients may have accommodation needs that aren’t immediately obvious, but could improve their access to care, so asking them what they need is critical.
Examples of ‘Ableism’
The consensus statement also calls attention to structural “ableism” or policies or practices that favor able-bodied people over those with disabilities and details the need for more training and changed policies.
The paper gives some examples of ableism, such as inappropriately excluding people with NDDs from research; staff assuming nonspeaking patients have no capacity for communication; or lack of awareness of sensory needs before using cold stethoscopes or flashing direct light into eyes.
Dr. Weitzman says this work is just the beginning of a complex process. It is intended to be the driver for developing curriculum to train all clinicians and others working with patients about neurodevelopmental disabilities. The hope is it will lead to more research to formalize best practices and make policies mandatory rather than optional.
The urgency in highlighting these issues is partly related to the prevalence of children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disabilities, which the paper states is approximately 1 in 6.
But there are personal reasons as well for the team who developed the statement.
“We just believe that it is just a human right,” Dr. Weitzman said. “Having a neurodevelopmental disability does not make you any less entitled to good care. “
Dr. Augustyn added, “The children I’ve had the honor of caring for for the last 30 years deserve all this care and more. I think it’s time.”
This work was supported by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. Dr. Weitzman is a past consultant for Helios/Meliora. The other authors report no relevant financial relationships.