MDedge Pediatrics

It seems that everyone’s nerves are on edge right now, and people are often behaving in surprising ways. Physicians are no exception.

“The days of surgeons throwing retractors across the OR and screaming at nurses and medical students are hopefully gone now,” said Barron Lerner, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health and author of “The Good Doctor: A Father, a Son, and the Evolution of Medical Ethics” (Boston: Beacon Press, 2014). “We’re not going to tolerate that as an institution.”

But, Dr. Lerner said, bad behavior still happens. And according to a recent Medscape survey, it seems to be on the rise.

For the 2022 Physicians Behaving Badly Report, more than 1,500 physicians shared how often they see fellow doctors misbehaving in person or on social media, and shared some of the worse behavior they’ve seen.

Though misconduct is still relatively uncommon among doctors, and most physicians say they’re proud of the high standards and attitudes of their colleagues, respondents to the survey did say that they’re seeing more frequent incidents of other doctors acting disrespectfully toward patients and coworkers, taking too casual an approach to patient privacy, and even acting angrily or aggressively at work. While the uptick is not substantial, it’s nonetheless worrying.

“I have increased concern for my colleagues,” said Drew Ramsey, MD, an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York. “People forget that COVID has made the physician workplace incredibly stressful. Physicians are struggling with their mental health.”
 

Bullying and harassment top bad behavior

When it comes to what kind of bad behavior was reported, bullying or harassing clinicians and staff was the runaway winner, with 86% of respondents saying they’d seen this type of behavior at work at some time. Making fun of or disparaging patients behind their backs was a close second, at 82%.

Dr. Ramsey thinks that these figures may reflect a deeper understanding of and sensitivity to harassment and bullying. “Five years ago, we weren’t talking about microaggression,” he said. This heightened awareness might explain the fact that doctors reported witnessing physicians mistreating other medical personnel and/or bullying or harassing patients somewhat more often than in 2021’s report.

Docs were caught using racist language by 55% of respondents, and 44% reported seeing colleagues becoming physically aggressive with patients, clinicians, or staff. Other disturbing behaviors respondents witnessed included bullying or harassing patients (45%), inebriation at work (43%), lying about credentials (34%), trying to date a patient (30%), and committing a crime, such as embezzling or stealing (27%).

Women were seen misbehaving about one-third as often as their male counterparts. This could be because women are more likely to seek help, rather than the bottle, when the stress piles up. “Some misbehavior stems from alcohol abuse, and a higher percentage of men have an alcoholism problem,” Dr. Ramsey pointed out. “Also, male physicians have historically been reluctant to seek mental health assistance.”
 

Speaking up

Doctors are behaving badly slightly more often, and their colleagues are slightly more willing to speak up about that behavior. In 2021, 35% of physicians said they did nothing upon witnessing inappropriate behavior. In 2022’s survey, that number fell to 29%.

Respondents largely agreed (49%) that doctors should be verbally warned when they’ve behaved badly at work, yet only 39% reported speaking to a colleague who acted inappropriately, and only 27% reported the bad behavior to an authority.

Dr. Lerner pointed out that it is very difficult for doctors to speak up, even though they know they should. There are several reasons for their reticence.

“For one thing, we all have bad days, and the reporting physician may worry that he or she could do something similar in the future,” he said. “Also, there is the liability question. A doctor might think: ‘What if I’m wrong? What if I think someone has a drinking problem and they don’t, or I can’t prove it?’ If you’re the doctor who reported the misbehavior, you’re potentially opening a can of worms. So there’s all sorts of reasons people convince themselves they don’t have to report it.” But, he added, “if you see it and don’t report it, you’re in the wrong.”
 

Off the job

Work isn’t the only place where doctors observe their colleagues misbehaving. About 66% of respondents had seen disparaging behavior, and 42% had heard racist language, away from the hospital or clinic, according to the survey.

Bullying and harassment weren’t limited to work, either, with 45% reporting seeing a colleague engage in this behavior off campus, and 52% reporting witnessing a colleague inebriated in public. That’s actually down from 2021 when 58% of respondents said they witnessed inebriated doctors in public.

The public sphere has broadened in recent years to include social media, and there, too, doctors sometimes behave badly. However, 47% of doctors surveyed said they saw more inappropriate behavior in person than on social media.

When doctors do act out online, they make the same mistakes other professionals make. One respondent reported seeing a fellow physician “copying and posting an interoffice memo from work and badmouthing the company and the person who wrote the memo.” Another said: “Someone got fired and stalked the supervisor and posted aggressive things.”

Not all social media transgressions were work related. One respondent reported that “a physician posted pictures of herself at a bar with multiple ER staff members, without masks during COVID restriction,” and another reported a colleague posting “unbelievable, antiscientific information expressed as valid, factual material.”

Though posting nonfactual, unscientific, and potentially unsafe information is clearly an ethics violation, Dr. Lerner said, the boundaries around posting personal peccadillos are less clear. This is a part of “digital professionalism,” he explained, adding that there is a broad range of opinions on this. “I think it’s important to discuss these things. Interestingly, while the rules for behavior at the hospital have become more strict, the culture has become less strict.”

As one respondent put it: “What exactly is bad behavior? If you’re saying physicians should be allowed to sexually assault people and use drugs, then no. Can they wear a tiny bathing suit on vacation and drink cocktails with friends? Yeah.”

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

It seems that everyone’s nerves are on edge right now, and people are often behaving in surprising ways. Physicians are no exception.

“The days of surgeons throwing retractors across the OR and screaming at nurses and medical students are hopefully gone now,” said Barron Lerner, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health and author of “The Good Doctor: A Father, a Son, and the Evolution of Medical Ethics” (Boston: Beacon Press, 2014). “We’re not going to tolerate that as an institution.”

But, Dr. Lerner said, bad behavior still happens. And according to a recent Medscape survey, it seems to be on the rise.

For the 2022 Physicians Behaving Badly Report, more than 1,500 physicians shared how often they see fellow doctors misbehaving in person or on social media, and shared some of the worse behavior they’ve seen.

Though misconduct is still relatively uncommon among doctors, and most physicians say they’re proud of the high standards and attitudes of their colleagues, respondents to the survey did say that they’re seeing more frequent incidents of other doctors acting disrespectfully toward patients and coworkers, taking too casual an approach to patient privacy, and even acting angrily or aggressively at work. While the uptick is not substantial, it’s nonetheless worrying.

“I have increased concern for my colleagues,” said Drew Ramsey, MD, an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York. “People forget that COVID has made the physician workplace incredibly stressful. Physicians are struggling with their mental health.”
 

Bullying and harassment top bad behavior

When it comes to what kind of bad behavior was reported, bullying or harassing clinicians and staff was the runaway winner, with 86% of respondents saying they’d seen this type of behavior at work at some time. Making fun of or disparaging patients behind their backs was a close second, at 82%.

Dr. Ramsey thinks that these figures may reflect a deeper understanding of and sensitivity to harassment and bullying. “Five years ago, we weren’t talking about microaggression,” he said. This heightened awareness might explain the fact that doctors reported witnessing physicians mistreating other medical personnel and/or bullying or harassing patients somewhat more often than in 2021’s report.

Docs were caught using racist language by 55% of respondents, and 44% reported seeing colleagues becoming physically aggressive with patients, clinicians, or staff. Other disturbing behaviors respondents witnessed included bullying or harassing patients (45%), inebriation at work (43%), lying about credentials (34%), trying to date a patient (30%), and committing a crime, such as embezzling or stealing (27%).

Women were seen misbehaving about one-third as often as their male counterparts. This could be because women are more likely to seek help, rather than the bottle, when the stress piles up. “Some misbehavior stems from alcohol abuse, and a higher percentage of men have an alcoholism problem,” Dr. Ramsey pointed out. “Also, male physicians have historically been reluctant to seek mental health assistance.”
 

Speaking up

Doctors are behaving badly slightly more often, and their colleagues are slightly more willing to speak up about that behavior. In 2021, 35% of physicians said they did nothing upon witnessing inappropriate behavior. In 2022’s survey, that number fell to 29%.

Respondents largely agreed (49%) that doctors should be verbally warned when they’ve behaved badly at work, yet only 39% reported speaking to a colleague who acted inappropriately, and only 27% reported the bad behavior to an authority.

Dr. Lerner pointed out that it is very difficult for doctors to speak up, even though they know they should. There are several reasons for their reticence.

“For one thing, we all have bad days, and the reporting physician may worry that he or she could do something similar in the future,” he said. “Also, there is the liability question. A doctor might think: ‘What if I’m wrong? What if I think someone has a drinking problem and they don’t, or I can’t prove it?’ If you’re the doctor who reported the misbehavior, you’re potentially opening a can of worms. So there’s all sorts of reasons people convince themselves they don’t have to report it.” But, he added, “if you see it and don’t report it, you’re in the wrong.”
 

Off the job

Work isn’t the only place where doctors observe their colleagues misbehaving. About 66% of respondents had seen disparaging behavior, and 42% had heard racist language, away from the hospital or clinic, according to the survey.

Bullying and harassment weren’t limited to work, either, with 45% reporting seeing a colleague engage in this behavior off campus, and 52% reporting witnessing a colleague inebriated in public. That’s actually down from 2021 when 58% of respondents said they witnessed inebriated doctors in public.

The public sphere has broadened in recent years to include social media, and there, too, doctors sometimes behave badly. However, 47% of doctors surveyed said they saw more inappropriate behavior in person than on social media.

When doctors do act out online, they make the same mistakes other professionals make. One respondent reported seeing a fellow physician “copying and posting an interoffice memo from work and badmouthing the company and the person who wrote the memo.” Another said: “Someone got fired and stalked the supervisor and posted aggressive things.”

Not all social media transgressions were work related. One respondent reported that “a physician posted pictures of herself at a bar with multiple ER staff members, without masks during COVID restriction,” and another reported a colleague posting “unbelievable, antiscientific information expressed as valid, factual material.”

Though posting nonfactual, unscientific, and potentially unsafe information is clearly an ethics violation, Dr. Lerner said, the boundaries around posting personal peccadillos are less clear. This is a part of “digital professionalism,” he explained, adding that there is a broad range of opinions on this. “I think it’s important to discuss these things. Interestingly, while the rules for behavior at the hospital have become more strict, the culture has become less strict.”

As one respondent put it: “What exactly is bad behavior? If you’re saying physicians should be allowed to sexually assault people and use drugs, then no. Can they wear a tiny bathing suit on vacation and drink cocktails with friends? Yeah.”

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

It seems that everyone’s nerves are on edge right now, and people are often behaving in surprising ways. Physicians are no exception.

“The days of surgeons throwing retractors across the OR and screaming at nurses and medical students are hopefully gone now,” said Barron Lerner, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health and author of “The Good Doctor: A Father, a Son, and the Evolution of Medical Ethics” (Boston: Beacon Press, 2014). “We’re not going to tolerate that as an institution.”

But, Dr. Lerner said, bad behavior still happens. And according to a recent Medscape survey, it seems to be on the rise.

For the 2022 Physicians Behaving Badly Report, more than 1,500 physicians shared how often they see fellow doctors misbehaving in person or on social media, and shared some of the worse behavior they’ve seen.

Though misconduct is still relatively uncommon among doctors, and most physicians say they’re proud of the high standards and attitudes of their colleagues, respondents to the survey did say that they’re seeing more frequent incidents of other doctors acting disrespectfully toward patients and coworkers, taking too casual an approach to patient privacy, and even acting angrily or aggressively at work. While the uptick is not substantial, it’s nonetheless worrying.

“I have increased concern for my colleagues,” said Drew Ramsey, MD, an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York. “People forget that COVID has made the physician workplace incredibly stressful. Physicians are struggling with their mental health.”
 

Bullying and harassment top bad behavior

When it comes to what kind of bad behavior was reported, bullying or harassing clinicians and staff was the runaway winner, with 86% of respondents saying they’d seen this type of behavior at work at some time. Making fun of or disparaging patients behind their backs was a close second, at 82%.

Dr. Ramsey thinks that these figures may reflect a deeper understanding of and sensitivity to harassment and bullying. “Five years ago, we weren’t talking about microaggression,” he said. This heightened awareness might explain the fact that doctors reported witnessing physicians mistreating other medical personnel and/or bullying or harassing patients somewhat more often than in 2021’s report.

Docs were caught using racist language by 55% of respondents, and 44% reported seeing colleagues becoming physically aggressive with patients, clinicians, or staff. Other disturbing behaviors respondents witnessed included bullying or harassing patients (45%), inebriation at work (43%), lying about credentials (34%), trying to date a patient (30%), and committing a crime, such as embezzling or stealing (27%).

Women were seen misbehaving about one-third as often as their male counterparts. This could be because women are more likely to seek help, rather than the bottle, when the stress piles up. “Some misbehavior stems from alcohol abuse, and a higher percentage of men have an alcoholism problem,” Dr. Ramsey pointed out. “Also, male physicians have historically been reluctant to seek mental health assistance.”
 

Speaking up

Doctors are behaving badly slightly more often, and their colleagues are slightly more willing to speak up about that behavior. In 2021, 35% of physicians said they did nothing upon witnessing inappropriate behavior. In 2022’s survey, that number fell to 29%.

Respondents largely agreed (49%) that doctors should be verbally warned when they’ve behaved badly at work, yet only 39% reported speaking to a colleague who acted inappropriately, and only 27% reported the bad behavior to an authority.

Dr. Lerner pointed out that it is very difficult for doctors to speak up, even though they know they should. There are several reasons for their reticence.

“For one thing, we all have bad days, and the reporting physician may worry that he or she could do something similar in the future,” he said. “Also, there is the liability question. A doctor might think: ‘What if I’m wrong? What if I think someone has a drinking problem and they don’t, or I can’t prove it?’ If you’re the doctor who reported the misbehavior, you’re potentially opening a can of worms. So there’s all sorts of reasons people convince themselves they don’t have to report it.” But, he added, “if you see it and don’t report it, you’re in the wrong.”
 

Off the job

Work isn’t the only place where doctors observe their colleagues misbehaving. About 66% of respondents had seen disparaging behavior, and 42% had heard racist language, away from the hospital or clinic, according to the survey.

Bullying and harassment weren’t limited to work, either, with 45% reporting seeing a colleague engage in this behavior off campus, and 52% reporting witnessing a colleague inebriated in public. That’s actually down from 2021 when 58% of respondents said they witnessed inebriated doctors in public.

The public sphere has broadened in recent years to include social media, and there, too, doctors sometimes behave badly. However, 47% of doctors surveyed said they saw more inappropriate behavior in person than on social media.

When doctors do act out online, they make the same mistakes other professionals make. One respondent reported seeing a fellow physician “copying and posting an interoffice memo from work and badmouthing the company and the person who wrote the memo.” Another said: “Someone got fired and stalked the supervisor and posted aggressive things.”

Not all social media transgressions were work related. One respondent reported that “a physician posted pictures of herself at a bar with multiple ER staff members, without masks during COVID restriction,” and another reported a colleague posting “unbelievable, antiscientific information expressed as valid, factual material.”

Though posting nonfactual, unscientific, and potentially unsafe information is clearly an ethics violation, Dr. Lerner said, the boundaries around posting personal peccadillos are less clear. This is a part of “digital professionalism,” he explained, adding that there is a broad range of opinions on this. “I think it’s important to discuss these things. Interestingly, while the rules for behavior at the hospital have become more strict, the culture has become less strict.”

As one respondent put it: “What exactly is bad behavior? If you’re saying physicians should be allowed to sexually assault people and use drugs, then no. Can they wear a tiny bathing suit on vacation and drink cocktails with friends? Yeah.”

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

Siblings of children with chronic health conditions could be at an increased risk for depression, according to a new report.

In a systematic review of 34 studies, siblings of children with chronic health conditions had significantly higher scores on depressive rating scales than individuals without a sibling with a chronic health condition (standardized mean difference = 0.53; P < .001). Findings related to other clinical health outcomes, such as physical health conditions or mortality, were inconsistent.

“We’ve known for a long time that siblings of kids with chronic conditions undergo stress, and there have been conflicting data on how that stress is manifested in terms of their own health,” senior study author Eyal Cohen, MD, program head for child health evaluative sciences at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, told this news organization.

“For some siblings, having the experience of being raised with a child with a chronic condition may be an asset and build resiliency, while other siblings may feel strong negative emotions, such as sadness, anger, and fear,” he said. “Although we know that this experience is stressful for many siblings, it is important to know whether it changes their health outcomes, so that appropriate support can be put in place for those who need it.”

The study was published online in the Journal of Pediatrics.
 

Risk for psychological challenges

About a quarter of children in the United States have a mental, emotional, developmental, or behavioral condition, and more than a third have at least one current or lifelong health condition, the study authors write. A childhood chronic health condition can affect family members through worse mental health outcomes, increased stress, and poorer health-related quality of life.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the clinical mental and physical health outcomes of siblings of children with chronic health conditions in comparison with siblings of healthy children or normative data.

The research team included English-language studies that reported on clinically diagnosable mental or physical health outcomes among siblings of persons younger than 18 years who had a chronic health condition. They included a comparison group and used an experimental or observational design for their study. The researchers analyzed 34 studies, including 28 that reported on mental health, 3 that reported on physical health, and 3 that reported on mortality.

Overall, siblings of children with chronic health conditions had significantly higher scores on depression rating scales than their comparison groups. Siblings’ anxiety scores weren’t substantially higher, however (standard mean difference = 0.21; P = .07).

The effects for confirmed psychiatric diagnoses, physical health outcomes, and mortality could not be included in the meta-analysis, owing to the limited number of studies and the high level of heterogeneity among the studies.

Dr. Cohen noted that although the researchers weren’t surprised that siblings may be at increased risk of mental health challenges, they were surprised by the limited data regarding physical health.

“At a minimum, our findings support the importance of asking open-ended questions about how a family is doing during clinical encounters,” he said. “These siblings may also benefit from programs such as support groups or summer camps, which have been shown to improve mental health and behavioral outcomes in siblings of children with chronic health conditions, such as cancer and neurodevelopmental disabilities.”

Future studies should assess the specific risk factors for mental health problems in siblings of children with chronic health conditions, Dr. Cohen said. Additional research could also investigate the design and effectiveness of interventions that address these concerns.
 

Message of inclusiveness

“The message that resonates with me is about the interventions and resources needed to support siblings,” Linda Nguyen, a doctoral student in rehabilitation science and researcher with the CanChild Center for Childhood Disability Research at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization.

Ms. Nguyen, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the resources available to siblings in Canada and has found a lack of support options, particularly when it comes to specific health care management roles.

“Consistently throughout my research, I’ve seen the need for resources that go beyond a focus on siblings’ well-being and instead support them in their different roles,” she said. “Some want to be friends, mentors, supporters, and caregivers for their siblings in the future.”

Siblings often adopt different roles as they form their own identity, Ms. Nguyen noted, which becomes a larger part of the health care conversation as children with chronic conditions make the transition from pediatric to adult health care. Siblings want to be asked how they’d like to be involved, she said. Some would like to be involved with health care appointments, the chronic condition community, research, and policy making.

“At the societal level and public level, there’s also a message of inclusiveness and making sure that we’re welcoming youth with disabilities and chronic conditions,” Jan Willem Gorter, MD, PhD, a professor of pediatrics and scientist for CanChild at McMaster University, told this news organization.

Dr. Gorter, who also was not involved with this study, noted that children with chronic conditions often feel left behind, which can influence the involvement of their siblings as well.

“There are a lot of places in the world where children with disabilities go to special schools, and they spend a lot of time in a different world, with different experiences than their siblings,” he said. “At the public health level, we want to advocate for an inclusive society and support the whole family, which benefits everybody.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the CHILD-BRIGHT Network summer studentship, which is supported by the Canadian Institute for Health Research Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research. Dr. Cohen, Ms. Nguyen, and Dr. Gorter have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Siblings of children with chronic health conditions could be at an increased risk for depression, according to a new report.

In a systematic review of 34 studies, siblings of children with chronic health conditions had significantly higher scores on depressive rating scales than individuals without a sibling with a chronic health condition (standardized mean difference = 0.53; P < .001). Findings related to other clinical health outcomes, such as physical health conditions or mortality, were inconsistent.

“We’ve known for a long time that siblings of kids with chronic conditions undergo stress, and there have been conflicting data on how that stress is manifested in terms of their own health,” senior study author Eyal Cohen, MD, program head for child health evaluative sciences at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, told this news organization.

“For some siblings, having the experience of being raised with a child with a chronic condition may be an asset and build resiliency, while other siblings may feel strong negative emotions, such as sadness, anger, and fear,” he said. “Although we know that this experience is stressful for many siblings, it is important to know whether it changes their health outcomes, so that appropriate support can be put in place for those who need it.”

The study was published online in the Journal of Pediatrics.
 

Risk for psychological challenges

About a quarter of children in the United States have a mental, emotional, developmental, or behavioral condition, and more than a third have at least one current or lifelong health condition, the study authors write. A childhood chronic health condition can affect family members through worse mental health outcomes, increased stress, and poorer health-related quality of life.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the clinical mental and physical health outcomes of siblings of children with chronic health conditions in comparison with siblings of healthy children or normative data.

The research team included English-language studies that reported on clinically diagnosable mental or physical health outcomes among siblings of persons younger than 18 years who had a chronic health condition. They included a comparison group and used an experimental or observational design for their study. The researchers analyzed 34 studies, including 28 that reported on mental health, 3 that reported on physical health, and 3 that reported on mortality.

Overall, siblings of children with chronic health conditions had significantly higher scores on depression rating scales than their comparison groups. Siblings’ anxiety scores weren’t substantially higher, however (standard mean difference = 0.21; P = .07).

The effects for confirmed psychiatric diagnoses, physical health outcomes, and mortality could not be included in the meta-analysis, owing to the limited number of studies and the high level of heterogeneity among the studies.

Dr. Cohen noted that although the researchers weren’t surprised that siblings may be at increased risk of mental health challenges, they were surprised by the limited data regarding physical health.

“At a minimum, our findings support the importance of asking open-ended questions about how a family is doing during clinical encounters,” he said. “These siblings may also benefit from programs such as support groups or summer camps, which have been shown to improve mental health and behavioral outcomes in siblings of children with chronic health conditions, such as cancer and neurodevelopmental disabilities.”

Future studies should assess the specific risk factors for mental health problems in siblings of children with chronic health conditions, Dr. Cohen said. Additional research could also investigate the design and effectiveness of interventions that address these concerns.
 

Message of inclusiveness

“The message that resonates with me is about the interventions and resources needed to support siblings,” Linda Nguyen, a doctoral student in rehabilitation science and researcher with the CanChild Center for Childhood Disability Research at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization.

Ms. Nguyen, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the resources available to siblings in Canada and has found a lack of support options, particularly when it comes to specific health care management roles.

“Consistently throughout my research, I’ve seen the need for resources that go beyond a focus on siblings’ well-being and instead support them in their different roles,” she said. “Some want to be friends, mentors, supporters, and caregivers for their siblings in the future.”

Siblings often adopt different roles as they form their own identity, Ms. Nguyen noted, which becomes a larger part of the health care conversation as children with chronic conditions make the transition from pediatric to adult health care. Siblings want to be asked how they’d like to be involved, she said. Some would like to be involved with health care appointments, the chronic condition community, research, and policy making.

“At the societal level and public level, there’s also a message of inclusiveness and making sure that we’re welcoming youth with disabilities and chronic conditions,” Jan Willem Gorter, MD, PhD, a professor of pediatrics and scientist for CanChild at McMaster University, told this news organization.

Dr. Gorter, who also was not involved with this study, noted that children with chronic conditions often feel left behind, which can influence the involvement of their siblings as well.

“There are a lot of places in the world where children with disabilities go to special schools, and they spend a lot of time in a different world, with different experiences than their siblings,” he said. “At the public health level, we want to advocate for an inclusive society and support the whole family, which benefits everybody.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the CHILD-BRIGHT Network summer studentship, which is supported by the Canadian Institute for Health Research Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research. Dr. Cohen, Ms. Nguyen, and Dr. Gorter have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Siblings of children with chronic health conditions could be at an increased risk for depression, according to a new report.

In a systematic review of 34 studies, siblings of children with chronic health conditions had significantly higher scores on depressive rating scales than individuals without a sibling with a chronic health condition (standardized mean difference = 0.53; P < .001). Findings related to other clinical health outcomes, such as physical health conditions or mortality, were inconsistent.

“We’ve known for a long time that siblings of kids with chronic conditions undergo stress, and there have been conflicting data on how that stress is manifested in terms of their own health,” senior study author Eyal Cohen, MD, program head for child health evaluative sciences at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, told this news organization.

“For some siblings, having the experience of being raised with a child with a chronic condition may be an asset and build resiliency, while other siblings may feel strong negative emotions, such as sadness, anger, and fear,” he said. “Although we know that this experience is stressful for many siblings, it is important to know whether it changes their health outcomes, so that appropriate support can be put in place for those who need it.”

The study was published online in the Journal of Pediatrics.
 

Risk for psychological challenges

About a quarter of children in the United States have a mental, emotional, developmental, or behavioral condition, and more than a third have at least one current or lifelong health condition, the study authors write. A childhood chronic health condition can affect family members through worse mental health outcomes, increased stress, and poorer health-related quality of life.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the clinical mental and physical health outcomes of siblings of children with chronic health conditions in comparison with siblings of healthy children or normative data.

The research team included English-language studies that reported on clinically diagnosable mental or physical health outcomes among siblings of persons younger than 18 years who had a chronic health condition. They included a comparison group and used an experimental or observational design for their study. The researchers analyzed 34 studies, including 28 that reported on mental health, 3 that reported on physical health, and 3 that reported on mortality.

Overall, siblings of children with chronic health conditions had significantly higher scores on depression rating scales than their comparison groups. Siblings’ anxiety scores weren’t substantially higher, however (standard mean difference = 0.21; P = .07).

The effects for confirmed psychiatric diagnoses, physical health outcomes, and mortality could not be included in the meta-analysis, owing to the limited number of studies and the high level of heterogeneity among the studies.

Dr. Cohen noted that although the researchers weren’t surprised that siblings may be at increased risk of mental health challenges, they were surprised by the limited data regarding physical health.

“At a minimum, our findings support the importance of asking open-ended questions about how a family is doing during clinical encounters,” he said. “These siblings may also benefit from programs such as support groups or summer camps, which have been shown to improve mental health and behavioral outcomes in siblings of children with chronic health conditions, such as cancer and neurodevelopmental disabilities.”

Future studies should assess the specific risk factors for mental health problems in siblings of children with chronic health conditions, Dr. Cohen said. Additional research could also investigate the design and effectiveness of interventions that address these concerns.
 

Message of inclusiveness

“The message that resonates with me is about the interventions and resources needed to support siblings,” Linda Nguyen, a doctoral student in rehabilitation science and researcher with the CanChild Center for Childhood Disability Research at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization.

Ms. Nguyen, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the resources available to siblings in Canada and has found a lack of support options, particularly when it comes to specific health care management roles.

“Consistently throughout my research, I’ve seen the need for resources that go beyond a focus on siblings’ well-being and instead support them in their different roles,” she said. “Some want to be friends, mentors, supporters, and caregivers for their siblings in the future.”

Siblings often adopt different roles as they form their own identity, Ms. Nguyen noted, which becomes a larger part of the health care conversation as children with chronic conditions make the transition from pediatric to adult health care. Siblings want to be asked how they’d like to be involved, she said. Some would like to be involved with health care appointments, the chronic condition community, research, and policy making.

“At the societal level and public level, there’s also a message of inclusiveness and making sure that we’re welcoming youth with disabilities and chronic conditions,” Jan Willem Gorter, MD, PhD, a professor of pediatrics and scientist for CanChild at McMaster University, told this news organization.

Dr. Gorter, who also was not involved with this study, noted that children with chronic conditions often feel left behind, which can influence the involvement of their siblings as well.

“There are a lot of places in the world where children with disabilities go to special schools, and they spend a lot of time in a different world, with different experiences than their siblings,” he said. “At the public health level, we want to advocate for an inclusive society and support the whole family, which benefits everybody.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the CHILD-BRIGHT Network summer studentship, which is supported by the Canadian Institute for Health Research Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research. Dr. Cohen, Ms. Nguyen, and Dr. Gorter have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study of educational attainment among U.K. primary and secondary schoolchildren born prematurely now provides some reassurance about the longer-term outcomes for many of these children.

For the study, published in the open-access journal PLOS ONE, researchers from the University of Oxford with colleagues from the University of Leicester and City University, London, used data from 11,695 children in the population-based UK Millennium Cohort Study, which included children born in England from Sept. 1, 2000 to Aug. 31, 2001. They analyzed data on educational attainment in primary school, at age 11, for 6,950 pupils and in secondary school, at age 16, for 7,131 pupils.

Preterm birth is a known risk factor for developmental impairment, lower educational performance and reduced academic attainment, with the impact proportional to the degree of prematurity. Not every child born prematurely will experience learning or developmental challenges, but studies of children born before 34 weeks gestation have shown that they are more likely to have cognitive difficulties, particularly poorer reading and maths skills, at primary school, and to have special educational needs by the end of primary education.
 

Elevated risk of all preterm children in primary school

Until now, few studies have followed these children through secondary school or examined the full spectrum of gestational ages at birth. Yet as neonatal care advances and more premature babies now survive, an average primary class in the United Kingdom now includes two preterm children.

Among the primary school children overall, 17.7% had not achieved their expected level in English and mathematics at age 11. Children born very preterm, before 32 weeks or at 32-33 weeks gestation, were more than twice as likely as full term children to fail to meet these benchmarks, with adjusted relative risks of 2.06 and 2.13, respectively. Those born late preterm, at 34-36 weeks, or early term, at 37-38 weeks, were at lesser risk, with RRs of 1.18 and 1.21, respectively.

By the end of secondary school, 45.2% of pupils had not passed the benchmark of at least five General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) examinations, including English and mathematics. The RR for children born very preterm, compared with full term children, was 1.26, with 60% of students in this group failing to achieve five GCSEs. However, children born at gestations between 32 and 38 weeks were not at elevated risk, compared with children born at full term.
 

Risk persists to secondary level only for very preterm children

A similar pattern was seen with English and mathematics analyzed separately, with no additional risk of not passing among children born at 32 weeks or above, but adjusted RRs of 1.33 for not passing English and 1.42 for not passing maths among pupils who had been born very preterm, compared with full term children.

“All children born before full term are more likely to have poorer attainment during primary school, compared with children born full term (39-41 weeks), but only children born very preterm (before 32 weeks) remain at risk of poor attainment at the end of secondary schooling,” the researchers concluded.

“Further studies are needed in order to confirm this result,” they acknowledge. They suggested their results could be explained by catch-up in academic attainment among children born moderately or late preterm or at early term. However, “very preterm children appear to be a high-risk group with persistent difficulties in terms of educational outcomes,” they said, noting that even this risk was of lower magnitude than the reduced attainment scores they found among pupils eligible for free school meals, meaning those from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds.
 

Extra educational support needed

The researchers concluded: “Children born very preterm may benefit from screening for cognitive and language difficulties prior to school entry to guide the provision of additional support during schooling.” In addition, those born very preterm “may require additional educational support throughout compulsory schooling.”

Commenting on the study, Caroline Lee-Davey, chief executive of premature baby charity Bliss, told this news organization: “Every child who is born premature is unique, and their development and achievements will be individual to them. However, these new findings are significant and add to our understanding of how prematurity is related to longer-term educational attainment, particularly for children who were born very preterm.”

“Most importantly, they highlight the need for all children who were born premature – and particularly those who were born before 32 weeks – to have access to early support. This means ensuring all eligible babies receive a follow-up check at 2 and 4 years as recommended by NICE and for early years and educational professionals to be aware of the relationship between premature birth and development.”

“We know how concerning these findings might be for families with babies and very young children right now. That’s why Bliss has developed a suite of information to support families as they make choices about their child’s education.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

A new study of educational attainment among U.K. primary and secondary schoolchildren born prematurely now provides some reassurance about the longer-term outcomes for many of these children.

For the study, published in the open-access journal PLOS ONE, researchers from the University of Oxford with colleagues from the University of Leicester and City University, London, used data from 11,695 children in the population-based UK Millennium Cohort Study, which included children born in England from Sept. 1, 2000 to Aug. 31, 2001. They analyzed data on educational attainment in primary school, at age 11, for 6,950 pupils and in secondary school, at age 16, for 7,131 pupils.

Preterm birth is a known risk factor for developmental impairment, lower educational performance and reduced academic attainment, with the impact proportional to the degree of prematurity. Not every child born prematurely will experience learning or developmental challenges, but studies of children born before 34 weeks gestation have shown that they are more likely to have cognitive difficulties, particularly poorer reading and maths skills, at primary school, and to have special educational needs by the end of primary education.
 

Elevated risk of all preterm children in primary school

Until now, few studies have followed these children through secondary school or examined the full spectrum of gestational ages at birth. Yet as neonatal care advances and more premature babies now survive, an average primary class in the United Kingdom now includes two preterm children.

Among the primary school children overall, 17.7% had not achieved their expected level in English and mathematics at age 11. Children born very preterm, before 32 weeks or at 32-33 weeks gestation, were more than twice as likely as full term children to fail to meet these benchmarks, with adjusted relative risks of 2.06 and 2.13, respectively. Those born late preterm, at 34-36 weeks, or early term, at 37-38 weeks, were at lesser risk, with RRs of 1.18 and 1.21, respectively.

By the end of secondary school, 45.2% of pupils had not passed the benchmark of at least five General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) examinations, including English and mathematics. The RR for children born very preterm, compared with full term children, was 1.26, with 60% of students in this group failing to achieve five GCSEs. However, children born at gestations between 32 and 38 weeks were not at elevated risk, compared with children born at full term.
 

Risk persists to secondary level only for very preterm children

A similar pattern was seen with English and mathematics analyzed separately, with no additional risk of not passing among children born at 32 weeks or above, but adjusted RRs of 1.33 for not passing English and 1.42 for not passing maths among pupils who had been born very preterm, compared with full term children.

“All children born before full term are more likely to have poorer attainment during primary school, compared with children born full term (39-41 weeks), but only children born very preterm (before 32 weeks) remain at risk of poor attainment at the end of secondary schooling,” the researchers concluded.

“Further studies are needed in order to confirm this result,” they acknowledge. They suggested their results could be explained by catch-up in academic attainment among children born moderately or late preterm or at early term. However, “very preterm children appear to be a high-risk group with persistent difficulties in terms of educational outcomes,” they said, noting that even this risk was of lower magnitude than the reduced attainment scores they found among pupils eligible for free school meals, meaning those from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds.
 

Extra educational support needed

The researchers concluded: “Children born very preterm may benefit from screening for cognitive and language difficulties prior to school entry to guide the provision of additional support during schooling.” In addition, those born very preterm “may require additional educational support throughout compulsory schooling.”

Commenting on the study, Caroline Lee-Davey, chief executive of premature baby charity Bliss, told this news organization: “Every child who is born premature is unique, and their development and achievements will be individual to them. However, these new findings are significant and add to our understanding of how prematurity is related to longer-term educational attainment, particularly for children who were born very preterm.”

“Most importantly, they highlight the need for all children who were born premature – and particularly those who were born before 32 weeks – to have access to early support. This means ensuring all eligible babies receive a follow-up check at 2 and 4 years as recommended by NICE and for early years and educational professionals to be aware of the relationship between premature birth and development.”

“We know how concerning these findings might be for families with babies and very young children right now. That’s why Bliss has developed a suite of information to support families as they make choices about their child’s education.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

A new study of educational attainment among U.K. primary and secondary schoolchildren born prematurely now provides some reassurance about the longer-term outcomes for many of these children.

For the study, published in the open-access journal PLOS ONE, researchers from the University of Oxford with colleagues from the University of Leicester and City University, London, used data from 11,695 children in the population-based UK Millennium Cohort Study, which included children born in England from Sept. 1, 2000 to Aug. 31, 2001. They analyzed data on educational attainment in primary school, at age 11, for 6,950 pupils and in secondary school, at age 16, for 7,131 pupils.

Preterm birth is a known risk factor for developmental impairment, lower educational performance and reduced academic attainment, with the impact proportional to the degree of prematurity. Not every child born prematurely will experience learning or developmental challenges, but studies of children born before 34 weeks gestation have shown that they are more likely to have cognitive difficulties, particularly poorer reading and maths skills, at primary school, and to have special educational needs by the end of primary education.
 

Elevated risk of all preterm children in primary school

Until now, few studies have followed these children through secondary school or examined the full spectrum of gestational ages at birth. Yet as neonatal care advances and more premature babies now survive, an average primary class in the United Kingdom now includes two preterm children.

Among the primary school children overall, 17.7% had not achieved their expected level in English and mathematics at age 11. Children born very preterm, before 32 weeks or at 32-33 weeks gestation, were more than twice as likely as full term children to fail to meet these benchmarks, with adjusted relative risks of 2.06 and 2.13, respectively. Those born late preterm, at 34-36 weeks, or early term, at 37-38 weeks, were at lesser risk, with RRs of 1.18 and 1.21, respectively.

By the end of secondary school, 45.2% of pupils had not passed the benchmark of at least five General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) examinations, including English and mathematics. The RR for children born very preterm, compared with full term children, was 1.26, with 60% of students in this group failing to achieve five GCSEs. However, children born at gestations between 32 and 38 weeks were not at elevated risk, compared with children born at full term.
 

Risk persists to secondary level only for very preterm children

A similar pattern was seen with English and mathematics analyzed separately, with no additional risk of not passing among children born at 32 weeks or above, but adjusted RRs of 1.33 for not passing English and 1.42 for not passing maths among pupils who had been born very preterm, compared with full term children.

“All children born before full term are more likely to have poorer attainment during primary school, compared with children born full term (39-41 weeks), but only children born very preterm (before 32 weeks) remain at risk of poor attainment at the end of secondary schooling,” the researchers concluded.

“Further studies are needed in order to confirm this result,” they acknowledge. They suggested their results could be explained by catch-up in academic attainment among children born moderately or late preterm or at early term. However, “very preterm children appear to be a high-risk group with persistent difficulties in terms of educational outcomes,” they said, noting that even this risk was of lower magnitude than the reduced attainment scores they found among pupils eligible for free school meals, meaning those from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds.
 

Extra educational support needed

The researchers concluded: “Children born very preterm may benefit from screening for cognitive and language difficulties prior to school entry to guide the provision of additional support during schooling.” In addition, those born very preterm “may require additional educational support throughout compulsory schooling.”

Commenting on the study, Caroline Lee-Davey, chief executive of premature baby charity Bliss, told this news organization: “Every child who is born premature is unique, and their development and achievements will be individual to them. However, these new findings are significant and add to our understanding of how prematurity is related to longer-term educational attainment, particularly for children who were born very preterm.”

“Most importantly, they highlight the need for all children who were born premature – and particularly those who were born before 32 weeks – to have access to early support. This means ensuring all eligible babies receive a follow-up check at 2 and 4 years as recommended by NICE and for early years and educational professionals to be aware of the relationship between premature birth and development.”

“We know how concerning these findings might be for families with babies and very young children right now. That’s why Bliss has developed a suite of information to support families as they make choices about their child’s education.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

A sweeping study of 85,000 infants found no link between mRNA COVID vaccination in pregnancy and greater risk of preterm birth, babies being born small for their gestational age, or stillbirth.

The research team wrote in the BMJ that their reassuring findings – drawn from a registry of all births in Ontario over an 8-month period – “can inform evidence-based decision-making” about COVID vaccination during pregnancy.

Previous research has found that pregnant patients are at higher risk of severe complications and death if they become infected with COVID and that vaccination before or during pregnancy prevents such outcomes and reduces the risk of newborn infection, noted Jeffrey Ecker, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This new study “adds to a growing body of information arguing clearly and reassuringly that vaccination during pregnancy is not associated with complications during pregnancy,” said Dr. Ecker, who was not involved in the new study.

He added that it “should help obstetric providers further reassure those who are hesitant that vaccination is safe and best both for the pregnant patient and their pregnancy.”
 

Methods and results

For the new study, researchers tapped a provincial registry of all live and stillborn infants with a gestational age of at least 20 weeks or birth weight of at least 500 g. Unique health card numbers were used to link birth records to a database of COVID vaccinations.

Of 85,162 infants born from May through December of 2021, 43,099 (50.6%) were born to individuals who received at least one vaccine dose during pregnancy. Among those, 99.7% received an mRNA vaccine such as Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna.

Vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with greater risk of overall preterm birth (6.5% among vaccinated individuals versus 6.9% among unvaccinated; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.08), spontaneous preterm birth (3.7% versus 4.4%; hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.90-1.03) or very preterm birth (0.59% versus 0.89%; hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67-0.95).

Likewise, no increase was observed in the risk of an infant being small for gestational age at birth (9.1% versus 9.2%; hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.03).

The researchers observed a reduction in the risk of stillbirth, even after adjusting for potential confounders. Stillbirths occurred in 0.25% of vaccinated individuals, compared with 0.44% of unvaccinated individuals (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.84).

A reduced risk of stillbirth – albeit to a smaller degree – was also found in a Scandinavian registry study that included 28,506 babies born to individuals who were vaccinated during pregnancy.

“Collectively, the findings from these two studies are reassuring and are consistent with no increased risk of stillbirth after COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. In contrast, COVID-19 disease during pregnancy has been associated with an increased risk of stillbirth,” the researchers wrote.

Findings did not vary by which mRNA vaccine a mother received, the number of doses she received, or the trimester in which a vaccine was given, the researchers reported.
 

Stillbirth findings will be ‘very reassuring’ for patients

The lead investigator, Deshayne Fell, PhD, said in an interview, the fact that the study comprised the entire population of pregnant people in Ontario during the study period “increases our confidence” about the validity and relevance of the findings for other geographic settings.

Dr. Fell, an associate professor in epidemiology and public health at the University of Ottawa and a scientist at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, said the evaluation of stillbirth in particular, “a rare but devastating outcome,” will be “very reassuring and useful for clinical counseling.”

A limitation cited by the research team included a lack of data on vaccination prior to pregnancy.

In the new study, Dr, Ecker said, “Though the investigators were able to adjust for many variables they cannot be certain that some unmeasured variable that, accordingly, was not adjusted for does not hide a small risk. This seems very unlikely, however.”

The Canadian research team said similar studies of non-mRNA COVID vaccines “should be a research priority.” However, such studies are not underway in Canada, where only mRNA vaccines are used in pregnancy, Dr. Fell said.

This study was supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Dr. Fell and Dr. Ecker reported no competing financial interests.

A sweeping study of 85,000 infants found no link between mRNA COVID vaccination in pregnancy and greater risk of preterm birth, babies being born small for their gestational age, or stillbirth.

The research team wrote in the BMJ that their reassuring findings – drawn from a registry of all births in Ontario over an 8-month period – “can inform evidence-based decision-making” about COVID vaccination during pregnancy.

Previous research has found that pregnant patients are at higher risk of severe complications and death if they become infected with COVID and that vaccination before or during pregnancy prevents such outcomes and reduces the risk of newborn infection, noted Jeffrey Ecker, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This new study “adds to a growing body of information arguing clearly and reassuringly that vaccination during pregnancy is not associated with complications during pregnancy,” said Dr. Ecker, who was not involved in the new study.

He added that it “should help obstetric providers further reassure those who are hesitant that vaccination is safe and best both for the pregnant patient and their pregnancy.”
 

Methods and results

For the new study, researchers tapped a provincial registry of all live and stillborn infants with a gestational age of at least 20 weeks or birth weight of at least 500 g. Unique health card numbers were used to link birth records to a database of COVID vaccinations.

Of 85,162 infants born from May through December of 2021, 43,099 (50.6%) were born to individuals who received at least one vaccine dose during pregnancy. Among those, 99.7% received an mRNA vaccine such as Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna.

Vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with greater risk of overall preterm birth (6.5% among vaccinated individuals versus 6.9% among unvaccinated; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.08), spontaneous preterm birth (3.7% versus 4.4%; hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.90-1.03) or very preterm birth (0.59% versus 0.89%; hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67-0.95).

Likewise, no increase was observed in the risk of an infant being small for gestational age at birth (9.1% versus 9.2%; hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.03).

The researchers observed a reduction in the risk of stillbirth, even after adjusting for potential confounders. Stillbirths occurred in 0.25% of vaccinated individuals, compared with 0.44% of unvaccinated individuals (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.84).

A reduced risk of stillbirth – albeit to a smaller degree – was also found in a Scandinavian registry study that included 28,506 babies born to individuals who were vaccinated during pregnancy.

“Collectively, the findings from these two studies are reassuring and are consistent with no increased risk of stillbirth after COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. In contrast, COVID-19 disease during pregnancy has been associated with an increased risk of stillbirth,” the researchers wrote.

Findings did not vary by which mRNA vaccine a mother received, the number of doses she received, or the trimester in which a vaccine was given, the researchers reported.
 

Stillbirth findings will be ‘very reassuring’ for patients

The lead investigator, Deshayne Fell, PhD, said in an interview, the fact that the study comprised the entire population of pregnant people in Ontario during the study period “increases our confidence” about the validity and relevance of the findings for other geographic settings.

Dr. Fell, an associate professor in epidemiology and public health at the University of Ottawa and a scientist at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, said the evaluation of stillbirth in particular, “a rare but devastating outcome,” will be “very reassuring and useful for clinical counseling.”

A limitation cited by the research team included a lack of data on vaccination prior to pregnancy.

In the new study, Dr, Ecker said, “Though the investigators were able to adjust for many variables they cannot be certain that some unmeasured variable that, accordingly, was not adjusted for does not hide a small risk. This seems very unlikely, however.”

The Canadian research team said similar studies of non-mRNA COVID vaccines “should be a research priority.” However, such studies are not underway in Canada, where only mRNA vaccines are used in pregnancy, Dr. Fell said.

This study was supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Dr. Fell and Dr. Ecker reported no competing financial interests.

A sweeping study of 85,000 infants found no link between mRNA COVID vaccination in pregnancy and greater risk of preterm birth, babies being born small for their gestational age, or stillbirth.

The research team wrote in the BMJ that their reassuring findings – drawn from a registry of all births in Ontario over an 8-month period – “can inform evidence-based decision-making” about COVID vaccination during pregnancy.

Previous research has found that pregnant patients are at higher risk of severe complications and death if they become infected with COVID and that vaccination before or during pregnancy prevents such outcomes and reduces the risk of newborn infection, noted Jeffrey Ecker, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This new study “adds to a growing body of information arguing clearly and reassuringly that vaccination during pregnancy is not associated with complications during pregnancy,” said Dr. Ecker, who was not involved in the new study.

He added that it “should help obstetric providers further reassure those who are hesitant that vaccination is safe and best both for the pregnant patient and their pregnancy.”
 

Methods and results

For the new study, researchers tapped a provincial registry of all live and stillborn infants with a gestational age of at least 20 weeks or birth weight of at least 500 g. Unique health card numbers were used to link birth records to a database of COVID vaccinations.

Of 85,162 infants born from May through December of 2021, 43,099 (50.6%) were born to individuals who received at least one vaccine dose during pregnancy. Among those, 99.7% received an mRNA vaccine such as Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna.

Vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with greater risk of overall preterm birth (6.5% among vaccinated individuals versus 6.9% among unvaccinated; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.08), spontaneous preterm birth (3.7% versus 4.4%; hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.90-1.03) or very preterm birth (0.59% versus 0.89%; hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67-0.95).

Likewise, no increase was observed in the risk of an infant being small for gestational age at birth (9.1% versus 9.2%; hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.03).

The researchers observed a reduction in the risk of stillbirth, even after adjusting for potential confounders. Stillbirths occurred in 0.25% of vaccinated individuals, compared with 0.44% of unvaccinated individuals (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.84).

A reduced risk of stillbirth – albeit to a smaller degree – was also found in a Scandinavian registry study that included 28,506 babies born to individuals who were vaccinated during pregnancy.

“Collectively, the findings from these two studies are reassuring and are consistent with no increased risk of stillbirth after COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. In contrast, COVID-19 disease during pregnancy has been associated with an increased risk of stillbirth,” the researchers wrote.

Findings did not vary by which mRNA vaccine a mother received, the number of doses she received, or the trimester in which a vaccine was given, the researchers reported.
 

Stillbirth findings will be ‘very reassuring’ for patients

The lead investigator, Deshayne Fell, PhD, said in an interview, the fact that the study comprised the entire population of pregnant people in Ontario during the study period “increases our confidence” about the validity and relevance of the findings for other geographic settings.

Dr. Fell, an associate professor in epidemiology and public health at the University of Ottawa and a scientist at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, said the evaluation of stillbirth in particular, “a rare but devastating outcome,” will be “very reassuring and useful for clinical counseling.”

A limitation cited by the research team included a lack of data on vaccination prior to pregnancy.

In the new study, Dr, Ecker said, “Though the investigators were able to adjust for many variables they cannot be certain that some unmeasured variable that, accordingly, was not adjusted for does not hide a small risk. This seems very unlikely, however.”

The Canadian research team said similar studies of non-mRNA COVID vaccines “should be a research priority.” However, such studies are not underway in Canada, where only mRNA vaccines are used in pregnancy, Dr. Fell said.

This study was supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Dr. Fell and Dr. Ecker reported no competing financial interests.

Taking ‘not enough hours in the day’ to new heights

It’s no secret that there’s a big doctor shortage in the United States. Going through medical school is long, expensive, and stressful, and it’s not like those long, stressful hours stop once you finally do get that degree. There is, however, an excellent reason to take that dive into doctorhood: You’ll gain mastery over time itself.

A study from the University of Chicago, Johns Hopkins University, and Imperial College London has revealed the truth. By using data pulled from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the researchers found that primary care physicians who see an average number of patients and follow all the current national guidelines for preventive care, chronic disease care, and acute care – plus administrative tasks – must work 26.7 hours a day. That works out to 14.1 hours of preventive care, 7.2 hours of chronic disease care, 2.2 hours of acute care, and 3.2 hours of documentation and inbox management.

liseykina/thinkstockphotos

Astute readers may note that this is a bit more than the traditional 8-hour workday. It is, in fact, more hours than there actually are in a day. As it turns out, Doctor Strange is more of a documentary than …

Hang on, we’re receiving word that doctors are not in fact wizards who can bend time and space to their will, nor are they sitting on a stash of Time-Turners they saved from the Ministry of Magic before Voldemort destroyed them all. They are, according to the study, overworked and overburdened with too many things and too little time. This is why outcomes haven’t improved despite technological advances and why burnout is so common. We’d be burned out too, having to work temporally impossible hours.

The study authors suggested a team-based approach to medicine that would spread the workload out to nurses, physician assistants, dietitians, etc., estimating that about two-thirds of what a primary care physician does can be handled by someone else. A team-based approach would reduce the physician’s required hours down to 9.3 hours a day, which is at least physically possible. It’s either that or we make the day longer, which sounds like the plot of an episode of Futurama. Swap overwork for global warming and a longer day for a longer year and it is actually the plot of an episode of Futurama.
 

After a hard day of thinking, brains need their rest

Do you ever feel like you have no more capacity to think or make any more decisions after a long day at work? Do you need a few extra cups of coffee to even make it through the day, even though you’re mostly just sitting around talking and typing? Have we got the research for you: Mental exhaustion is an actual thing. Imagine that double whammy of having a job that’s physically and mentally demanding.

A recent study in Current Biology explained why we feel so exhausted after doing something mentally demanding for several hours. Over that time, glutamate builds up in synapses of the prefrontal cortex, which affects our decision making and leads to cognitive lethargy. Your brain eventually becomes more interested in tasks that are less mentally fatiguing, and that’s probably why you’re reading this LOTME right now instead of getting back to work.

“Our findings show that cognitive work results in a true functional alteration – accumulation of noxious substances – so fatigue would indeed be a signal that makes us stop working but for a different purpose: to preserve the integrity of brain functioning,” senior author Mathias Pessiglione of Pitié-Salpêtrière University, Paris, said in a written statement.

©thinkstockphotos.com

The group of researchers conducted studies by using magnetic resonance spectroscopy to look at two groups of people over the course of a workday: One group had mentally tasking jobs and one didn’t. Those who had to think harder for their jobs had more signs of fatigue, such as reduced pupil dilation and glutamate in synapses of the prefrontal cortex. They also looked for more rewards that required less thinking.

For those whose mentally exhausting jobs probably won’t get better or change, the researchers suggest getting as much rest as possible. Those who don’t have that option will have to continue drinking those 7 cups of coffee a day. ... and reading LOTME.

Hmm, might be a new tagline for us in there somewhere. LOTME: Tired brains love us? When you’re too tired to think, think of LOTME? You can’t spell mental exhaustion without L-O-T-M-E?
 

Testosterone shows its warm and fuzzy side

Stereotypically, men are loud, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. The hair coming out of our faces is kind of a dead giveaway, right? We grunt, we scratch, we start wars, we watch sports on TV. But why? It’s the testosterone. Everyone knows that. Testosterone makes men aggressive … or does it?

Since this sort of research generally isn’t done with actual men, investigators at Emory University used Mongolian gerbils. The advantage being that males exhibit cuddling behavior after females become pregnant and they don’t watch a lot of sports on TV. They introduced a male and female gerbil, who then formed a pair bond and the female became pregnant. When the male started displaying cuddling behaviors, the researchers injected him with testosterone, expecting to see his antisocial side.

“Instead, we were surprised that a male gerbil became even more cuddly and prosocial with his partner. He became like ‘super partner,’ ” lead author Aubrey Kelly, PhD, said in a written statement from the university.

Aubrey Kelly

For the next experiment, the female was removed and another male was introduced to a male who had already received a testosterone injection. That male was surprisingly unaggressive toward the intruder, at least initially. Then he received a second injection of testosterone. “It was like they suddenly woke up and realized they weren’t supposed to be friendly in that context,” Dr. Kelly said.

The testosterone seemed to influence the activity of oxytocin, the so-called “love hormone,” the investigators suggested. “It’s surprising because normally we think of testosterone as increasing sexual behaviors and aggression. But we’ve shown that it can have more nuanced effects, depending on the social context.”

The researchers were not as surprised when their use of the phrase “super partner” led to a bidding war between DC and Marvel. Then came the contact from the Department of Defense, wondering about weaponized testosterone: Would it be possible for some sort of bomb to turn Vlad “the Impaler” Putin into Vlad “the Cuddler” Putin?
 

Are instruments spreading the sounds of COVID?

COVID restrictions are practically a thing of the past now. With more people laxed on being in close proximity to each other and the CDC not even recommending social distancing anymore, live concerts and events are back in full swing. But with new variants on the rise and people being a little more cautious, should we be worried about musical instruments spreading COVID?

Yes and no.

A study published in Physics of Fluids looked at wind instruments specifically and how much aerosol is produced and dispersed when playing them. For the study, the investigators measured fog particles with a laser and aerosol concentration with a particle counter to see how fast these particles decay in the air from the distance of the instrument.

PxHere

Musicians in an orchestra typically would sit close together to produce the best sound, but with COVID that became an issue, senior author Paulo Arratia of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, noted in a separate written statement. By looking at the distance traveled by the particles coming from a single instrument and how quickly they decayed, they could determine if sitting in close proximity is an actual threat.

Well, the threat was no greater than talking to someone face to face. Particle exit speeds were lower than for a cough or a sneeze, and the maximum decay length was 2 meters from the instrument’s opening.

But that’s just one instrument: What kind of impact does a whole orchestra have on a space? The researchers are looking into that too, but for now they suggest that musicians continue to stay 6 feet away from each other.

So, yeah, there is a threat, but it’s probably safer for you to see that orchestra than have someone sneeze on you.

Music to our ears.

Taking ‘not enough hours in the day’ to new heights

It’s no secret that there’s a big doctor shortage in the United States. Going through medical school is long, expensive, and stressful, and it’s not like those long, stressful hours stop once you finally do get that degree. There is, however, an excellent reason to take that dive into doctorhood: You’ll gain mastery over time itself.

A study from the University of Chicago, Johns Hopkins University, and Imperial College London has revealed the truth. By using data pulled from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the researchers found that primary care physicians who see an average number of patients and follow all the current national guidelines for preventive care, chronic disease care, and acute care – plus administrative tasks – must work 26.7 hours a day. That works out to 14.1 hours of preventive care, 7.2 hours of chronic disease care, 2.2 hours of acute care, and 3.2 hours of documentation and inbox management.

liseykina/thinkstockphotos

Astute readers may note that this is a bit more than the traditional 8-hour workday. It is, in fact, more hours than there actually are in a day. As it turns out, Doctor Strange is more of a documentary than …

Hang on, we’re receiving word that doctors are not in fact wizards who can bend time and space to their will, nor are they sitting on a stash of Time-Turners they saved from the Ministry of Magic before Voldemort destroyed them all. They are, according to the study, overworked and overburdened with too many things and too little time. This is why outcomes haven’t improved despite technological advances and why burnout is so common. We’d be burned out too, having to work temporally impossible hours.

The study authors suggested a team-based approach to medicine that would spread the workload out to nurses, physician assistants, dietitians, etc., estimating that about two-thirds of what a primary care physician does can be handled by someone else. A team-based approach would reduce the physician’s required hours down to 9.3 hours a day, which is at least physically possible. It’s either that or we make the day longer, which sounds like the plot of an episode of Futurama. Swap overwork for global warming and a longer day for a longer year and it is actually the plot of an episode of Futurama.
 

After a hard day of thinking, brains need their rest

Do you ever feel like you have no more capacity to think or make any more decisions after a long day at work? Do you need a few extra cups of coffee to even make it through the day, even though you’re mostly just sitting around talking and typing? Have we got the research for you: Mental exhaustion is an actual thing. Imagine that double whammy of having a job that’s physically and mentally demanding.

A recent study in Current Biology explained why we feel so exhausted after doing something mentally demanding for several hours. Over that time, glutamate builds up in synapses of the prefrontal cortex, which affects our decision making and leads to cognitive lethargy. Your brain eventually becomes more interested in tasks that are less mentally fatiguing, and that’s probably why you’re reading this LOTME right now instead of getting back to work.

“Our findings show that cognitive work results in a true functional alteration – accumulation of noxious substances – so fatigue would indeed be a signal that makes us stop working but for a different purpose: to preserve the integrity of brain functioning,” senior author Mathias Pessiglione of Pitié-Salpêtrière University, Paris, said in a written statement.

©thinkstockphotos.com

The group of researchers conducted studies by using magnetic resonance spectroscopy to look at two groups of people over the course of a workday: One group had mentally tasking jobs and one didn’t. Those who had to think harder for their jobs had more signs of fatigue, such as reduced pupil dilation and glutamate in synapses of the prefrontal cortex. They also looked for more rewards that required less thinking.

For those whose mentally exhausting jobs probably won’t get better or change, the researchers suggest getting as much rest as possible. Those who don’t have that option will have to continue drinking those 7 cups of coffee a day. ... and reading LOTME.

Hmm, might be a new tagline for us in there somewhere. LOTME: Tired brains love us? When you’re too tired to think, think of LOTME? You can’t spell mental exhaustion without L-O-T-M-E?
 

Testosterone shows its warm and fuzzy side

Stereotypically, men are loud, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. The hair coming out of our faces is kind of a dead giveaway, right? We grunt, we scratch, we start wars, we watch sports on TV. But why? It’s the testosterone. Everyone knows that. Testosterone makes men aggressive … or does it?

Since this sort of research generally isn’t done with actual men, investigators at Emory University used Mongolian gerbils. The advantage being that males exhibit cuddling behavior after females become pregnant and they don’t watch a lot of sports on TV. They introduced a male and female gerbil, who then formed a pair bond and the female became pregnant. When the male started displaying cuddling behaviors, the researchers injected him with testosterone, expecting to see his antisocial side.

“Instead, we were surprised that a male gerbil became even more cuddly and prosocial with his partner. He became like ‘super partner,’ ” lead author Aubrey Kelly, PhD, said in a written statement from the university.

Aubrey Kelly

For the next experiment, the female was removed and another male was introduced to a male who had already received a testosterone injection. That male was surprisingly unaggressive toward the intruder, at least initially. Then he received a second injection of testosterone. “It was like they suddenly woke up and realized they weren’t supposed to be friendly in that context,” Dr. Kelly said.

The testosterone seemed to influence the activity of oxytocin, the so-called “love hormone,” the investigators suggested. “It’s surprising because normally we think of testosterone as increasing sexual behaviors and aggression. But we’ve shown that it can have more nuanced effects, depending on the social context.”

The researchers were not as surprised when their use of the phrase “super partner” led to a bidding war between DC and Marvel. Then came the contact from the Department of Defense, wondering about weaponized testosterone: Would it be possible for some sort of bomb to turn Vlad “the Impaler” Putin into Vlad “the Cuddler” Putin?
 

Are instruments spreading the sounds of COVID?

COVID restrictions are practically a thing of the past now. With more people laxed on being in close proximity to each other and the CDC not even recommending social distancing anymore, live concerts and events are back in full swing. But with new variants on the rise and people being a little more cautious, should we be worried about musical instruments spreading COVID?

Yes and no.

A study published in Physics of Fluids looked at wind instruments specifically and how much aerosol is produced and dispersed when playing them. For the study, the investigators measured fog particles with a laser and aerosol concentration with a particle counter to see how fast these particles decay in the air from the distance of the instrument.

PxHere

Musicians in an orchestra typically would sit close together to produce the best sound, but with COVID that became an issue, senior author Paulo Arratia of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, noted in a separate written statement. By looking at the distance traveled by the particles coming from a single instrument and how quickly they decayed, they could determine if sitting in close proximity is an actual threat.

Well, the threat was no greater than talking to someone face to face. Particle exit speeds were lower than for a cough or a sneeze, and the maximum decay length was 2 meters from the instrument’s opening.

But that’s just one instrument: What kind of impact does a whole orchestra have on a space? The researchers are looking into that too, but for now they suggest that musicians continue to stay 6 feet away from each other.

So, yeah, there is a threat, but it’s probably safer for you to see that orchestra than have someone sneeze on you.

Music to our ears.

Taking ‘not enough hours in the day’ to new heights

It’s no secret that there’s a big doctor shortage in the United States. Going through medical school is long, expensive, and stressful, and it’s not like those long, stressful hours stop once you finally do get that degree. There is, however, an excellent reason to take that dive into doctorhood: You’ll gain mastery over time itself.

A study from the University of Chicago, Johns Hopkins University, and Imperial College London has revealed the truth. By using data pulled from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the researchers found that primary care physicians who see an average number of patients and follow all the current national guidelines for preventive care, chronic disease care, and acute care – plus administrative tasks – must work 26.7 hours a day. That works out to 14.1 hours of preventive care, 7.2 hours of chronic disease care, 2.2 hours of acute care, and 3.2 hours of documentation and inbox management.

liseykina/thinkstockphotos

Astute readers may note that this is a bit more than the traditional 8-hour workday. It is, in fact, more hours than there actually are in a day. As it turns out, Doctor Strange is more of a documentary than …

Hang on, we’re receiving word that doctors are not in fact wizards who can bend time and space to their will, nor are they sitting on a stash of Time-Turners they saved from the Ministry of Magic before Voldemort destroyed them all. They are, according to the study, overworked and overburdened with too many things and too little time. This is why outcomes haven’t improved despite technological advances and why burnout is so common. We’d be burned out too, having to work temporally impossible hours.

The study authors suggested a team-based approach to medicine that would spread the workload out to nurses, physician assistants, dietitians, etc., estimating that about two-thirds of what a primary care physician does can be handled by someone else. A team-based approach would reduce the physician’s required hours down to 9.3 hours a day, which is at least physically possible. It’s either that or we make the day longer, which sounds like the plot of an episode of Futurama. Swap overwork for global warming and a longer day for a longer year and it is actually the plot of an episode of Futurama.
 

After a hard day of thinking, brains need their rest

Do you ever feel like you have no more capacity to think or make any more decisions after a long day at work? Do you need a few extra cups of coffee to even make it through the day, even though you’re mostly just sitting around talking and typing? Have we got the research for you: Mental exhaustion is an actual thing. Imagine that double whammy of having a job that’s physically and mentally demanding.

A recent study in Current Biology explained why we feel so exhausted after doing something mentally demanding for several hours. Over that time, glutamate builds up in synapses of the prefrontal cortex, which affects our decision making and leads to cognitive lethargy. Your brain eventually becomes more interested in tasks that are less mentally fatiguing, and that’s probably why you’re reading this LOTME right now instead of getting back to work.

“Our findings show that cognitive work results in a true functional alteration – accumulation of noxious substances – so fatigue would indeed be a signal that makes us stop working but for a different purpose: to preserve the integrity of brain functioning,” senior author Mathias Pessiglione of Pitié-Salpêtrière University, Paris, said in a written statement.

©thinkstockphotos.com

The group of researchers conducted studies by using magnetic resonance spectroscopy to look at two groups of people over the course of a workday: One group had mentally tasking jobs and one didn’t. Those who had to think harder for their jobs had more signs of fatigue, such as reduced pupil dilation and glutamate in synapses of the prefrontal cortex. They also looked for more rewards that required less thinking.

For those whose mentally exhausting jobs probably won’t get better or change, the researchers suggest getting as much rest as possible. Those who don’t have that option will have to continue drinking those 7 cups of coffee a day. ... and reading LOTME.

Hmm, might be a new tagline for us in there somewhere. LOTME: Tired brains love us? When you’re too tired to think, think of LOTME? You can’t spell mental exhaustion without L-O-T-M-E?
 

Testosterone shows its warm and fuzzy side

Stereotypically, men are loud, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. The hair coming out of our faces is kind of a dead giveaway, right? We grunt, we scratch, we start wars, we watch sports on TV. But why? It’s the testosterone. Everyone knows that. Testosterone makes men aggressive … or does it?

Since this sort of research generally isn’t done with actual men, investigators at Emory University used Mongolian gerbils. The advantage being that males exhibit cuddling behavior after females become pregnant and they don’t watch a lot of sports on TV. They introduced a male and female gerbil, who then formed a pair bond and the female became pregnant. When the male started displaying cuddling behaviors, the researchers injected him with testosterone, expecting to see his antisocial side.

“Instead, we were surprised that a male gerbil became even more cuddly and prosocial with his partner. He became like ‘super partner,’ ” lead author Aubrey Kelly, PhD, said in a written statement from the university.

Aubrey Kelly

For the next experiment, the female was removed and another male was introduced to a male who had already received a testosterone injection. That male was surprisingly unaggressive toward the intruder, at least initially. Then he received a second injection of testosterone. “It was like they suddenly woke up and realized they weren’t supposed to be friendly in that context,” Dr. Kelly said.

The testosterone seemed to influence the activity of oxytocin, the so-called “love hormone,” the investigators suggested. “It’s surprising because normally we think of testosterone as increasing sexual behaviors and aggression. But we’ve shown that it can have more nuanced effects, depending on the social context.”

The researchers were not as surprised when their use of the phrase “super partner” led to a bidding war between DC and Marvel. Then came the contact from the Department of Defense, wondering about weaponized testosterone: Would it be possible for some sort of bomb to turn Vlad “the Impaler” Putin into Vlad “the Cuddler” Putin?
 

Are instruments spreading the sounds of COVID?

COVID restrictions are practically a thing of the past now. With more people laxed on being in close proximity to each other and the CDC not even recommending social distancing anymore, live concerts and events are back in full swing. But with new variants on the rise and people being a little more cautious, should we be worried about musical instruments spreading COVID?

Yes and no.

A study published in Physics of Fluids looked at wind instruments specifically and how much aerosol is produced and dispersed when playing them. For the study, the investigators measured fog particles with a laser and aerosol concentration with a particle counter to see how fast these particles decay in the air from the distance of the instrument.

PxHere

Musicians in an orchestra typically would sit close together to produce the best sound, but with COVID that became an issue, senior author Paulo Arratia of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, noted in a separate written statement. By looking at the distance traveled by the particles coming from a single instrument and how quickly they decayed, they could determine if sitting in close proximity is an actual threat.

Well, the threat was no greater than talking to someone face to face. Particle exit speeds were lower than for a cough or a sneeze, and the maximum decay length was 2 meters from the instrument’s opening.

But that’s just one instrument: What kind of impact does a whole orchestra have on a space? The researchers are looking into that too, but for now they suggest that musicians continue to stay 6 feet away from each other.

So, yeah, there is a threat, but it’s probably safer for you to see that orchestra than have someone sneeze on you.

Music to our ears.

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is an engineering marvel. Costing over $10 billion, it should be. The project cost overrun was 900%. The launch was delayed by more than a decade. The Human Genome Project from 1990 to 2003 was completed slightly ahead of schedule and for less than the $4-$5 billion original estimates. This HGP success story is partly because of private entrepreneurial involvement. The Superconducting Super Collider in Texas spent $2 billion but never got off the ground. Successfully shepherding huge public projects like these involves the art of politics and management as well as science.

Whatever the earlier missteps, the JWST project is now performing above expectations. It has launched, taken up residence a million miles from Earth, deployed its mirrors (a process that had more than 300 possible single points of failure, any one of which would reduce the thing to scrap metal), and been calibrated. The JWST has even been dented by a micrometeoroid – sort of like a parking lot ding on the door of your brand new car. The first images are visually amazing and producing new scientific insights. This is a pinnacle of scientific achievement.

What characteristics enable such an achievement? How do we foster those same characteristics in the practice of medicine and medical research? Will the success of the JWST increase and restore the public’s trust in science and scientists?

After all the bickering over vaccines and masks for the past 2+ years, medical science could use a boost. The gravitas of scientists, and indeed all experts, has diminished over the 5 decades since humans walked on the moon. It has been harmed by mercenary scientists who sought to sow doubt about whether smoking caused cancer and whether fossil fuels created climate change. No proof was needed, just doubt.

The trust in science has also been harmed by the vast amount of published medical research that is wrong. An effort was made 20 years ago to rid research of the bias of taking money from drug companies. To my observation, that change produced only a small benefit that has been overwhelmed by the unintended harms. The large, well-funded academic labs of full-time researchers have been replaced with unfunded, undertrained, and inadequately supported part-time junior faculty trying to publish enough articles to be promoted. In my opinion, this change is worse than funding from Big Pharma. (Disclosure – I worked in industry prior to graduate school.)

The pressure to publish reduces skepticism, so more incorrect data are published. The small size of these amateur studies produces unconvincing conclusions that feed an industry of meta-analysis that tries to overcome the deficiencies of the individual studies. This fragmented, biased approach is not how you build, launch, deploy, and operate the JWST, which requires very high reliability.

This approach is not working well for pediatrics either. I look at the history of the recommended workup of the febrile young infant from the 1980s until today. I see constant changes to the guidelines but no real progress toward a validated, evidence-based approach. A similar history is behind treatment of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia. In the 1994 publication, there was a movement toward being less aggressive. The 2004 and 2009 editions increased the frequency of screening and phototherapy. Now, the 2022 guidelines have moved in the direction we were headed in the 1990s. The workup of infants and children with possible urinary tract infections has undergone a similar trajectory. So has the screening for neonatal herpes infections. The practice changes are more like Brownian motion than real progress. This inconsistency has led me to be skeptical of the process the American Academy of Pediatrics uses to create guidelines.

Part of solving complex problems is allowing all stakeholders’ voices to be heard. On Jan. 28, 1986, seconds after liftoff, the space shuttle Challenger exploded. In the aftermath, it was determined that some engineers had expressed concern about the very cold weather that morning. The rubber in the O-ring would not be as flexible as designed. Their objection was not listened to. The O-ring failed, the fuel tank exploded, and the ship and crew were lost. It is a lesson many engineers of my generation took to heart. Do not suppress voices.

For example, 1 year ago (September 2021), the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists published a position statement, “Recognising and addressing the mental health needs of people experiencing gender dysphoria/gender incongruence.” The statement expressed concern about the marked increase in incidence of rapid-onset gender dysphoria and therefore urged more thorough assessment by psychiatry before embarking on puberty-blocking therapies. The RANZCP position is at variance with recent trends in the United States. The topic was censored at the 2021 AAP national conference. Lately, I have heard the words disinformation and homophobic used to describe my RANZCP colleagues. I have been comparing AAP, Britain’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne guidelines for 20 years. The variation is enlightening. I do not know the correct answer to treating gender dysphoria, but I know suppressing viewpoints and debate leads to exploding spaceships.
 

Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is an engineering marvel. Costing over $10 billion, it should be. The project cost overrun was 900%. The launch was delayed by more than a decade. The Human Genome Project from 1990 to 2003 was completed slightly ahead of schedule and for less than the $4-$5 billion original estimates. This HGP success story is partly because of private entrepreneurial involvement. The Superconducting Super Collider in Texas spent $2 billion but never got off the ground. Successfully shepherding huge public projects like these involves the art of politics and management as well as science.

Whatever the earlier missteps, the JWST project is now performing above expectations. It has launched, taken up residence a million miles from Earth, deployed its mirrors (a process that had more than 300 possible single points of failure, any one of which would reduce the thing to scrap metal), and been calibrated. The JWST has even been dented by a micrometeoroid – sort of like a parking lot ding on the door of your brand new car. The first images are visually amazing and producing new scientific insights. This is a pinnacle of scientific achievement.

What characteristics enable such an achievement? How do we foster those same characteristics in the practice of medicine and medical research? Will the success of the JWST increase and restore the public’s trust in science and scientists?

After all the bickering over vaccines and masks for the past 2+ years, medical science could use a boost. The gravitas of scientists, and indeed all experts, has diminished over the 5 decades since humans walked on the moon. It has been harmed by mercenary scientists who sought to sow doubt about whether smoking caused cancer and whether fossil fuels created climate change. No proof was needed, just doubt.

The trust in science has also been harmed by the vast amount of published medical research that is wrong. An effort was made 20 years ago to rid research of the bias of taking money from drug companies. To my observation, that change produced only a small benefit that has been overwhelmed by the unintended harms. The large, well-funded academic labs of full-time researchers have been replaced with unfunded, undertrained, and inadequately supported part-time junior faculty trying to publish enough articles to be promoted. In my opinion, this change is worse than funding from Big Pharma. (Disclosure – I worked in industry prior to graduate school.)

The pressure to publish reduces skepticism, so more incorrect data are published. The small size of these amateur studies produces unconvincing conclusions that feed an industry of meta-analysis that tries to overcome the deficiencies of the individual studies. This fragmented, biased approach is not how you build, launch, deploy, and operate the JWST, which requires very high reliability.

This approach is not working well for pediatrics either. I look at the history of the recommended workup of the febrile young infant from the 1980s until today. I see constant changes to the guidelines but no real progress toward a validated, evidence-based approach. A similar history is behind treatment of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia. In the 1994 publication, there was a movement toward being less aggressive. The 2004 and 2009 editions increased the frequency of screening and phototherapy. Now, the 2022 guidelines have moved in the direction we were headed in the 1990s. The workup of infants and children with possible urinary tract infections has undergone a similar trajectory. So has the screening for neonatal herpes infections. The practice changes are more like Brownian motion than real progress. This inconsistency has led me to be skeptical of the process the American Academy of Pediatrics uses to create guidelines.

Part of solving complex problems is allowing all stakeholders’ voices to be heard. On Jan. 28, 1986, seconds after liftoff, the space shuttle Challenger exploded. In the aftermath, it was determined that some engineers had expressed concern about the very cold weather that morning. The rubber in the O-ring would not be as flexible as designed. Their objection was not listened to. The O-ring failed, the fuel tank exploded, and the ship and crew were lost. It is a lesson many engineers of my generation took to heart. Do not suppress voices.

For example, 1 year ago (September 2021), the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists published a position statement, “Recognising and addressing the mental health needs of people experiencing gender dysphoria/gender incongruence.” The statement expressed concern about the marked increase in incidence of rapid-onset gender dysphoria and therefore urged more thorough assessment by psychiatry before embarking on puberty-blocking therapies. The RANZCP position is at variance with recent trends in the United States. The topic was censored at the 2021 AAP national conference. Lately, I have heard the words disinformation and homophobic used to describe my RANZCP colleagues. I have been comparing AAP, Britain’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne guidelines for 20 years. The variation is enlightening. I do not know the correct answer to treating gender dysphoria, but I know suppressing viewpoints and debate leads to exploding spaceships.
 

Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is an engineering marvel. Costing over $10 billion, it should be. The project cost overrun was 900%. The launch was delayed by more than a decade. The Human Genome Project from 1990 to 2003 was completed slightly ahead of schedule and for less than the $4-$5 billion original estimates. This HGP success story is partly because of private entrepreneurial involvement. The Superconducting Super Collider in Texas spent $2 billion but never got off the ground. Successfully shepherding huge public projects like these involves the art of politics and management as well as science.

Whatever the earlier missteps, the JWST project is now performing above expectations. It has launched, taken up residence a million miles from Earth, deployed its mirrors (a process that had more than 300 possible single points of failure, any one of which would reduce the thing to scrap metal), and been calibrated. The JWST has even been dented by a micrometeoroid – sort of like a parking lot ding on the door of your brand new car. The first images are visually amazing and producing new scientific insights. This is a pinnacle of scientific achievement.

What characteristics enable such an achievement? How do we foster those same characteristics in the practice of medicine and medical research? Will the success of the JWST increase and restore the public’s trust in science and scientists?

After all the bickering over vaccines and masks for the past 2+ years, medical science could use a boost. The gravitas of scientists, and indeed all experts, has diminished over the 5 decades since humans walked on the moon. It has been harmed by mercenary scientists who sought to sow doubt about whether smoking caused cancer and whether fossil fuels created climate change. No proof was needed, just doubt.

The trust in science has also been harmed by the vast amount of published medical research that is wrong. An effort was made 20 years ago to rid research of the bias of taking money from drug companies. To my observation, that change produced only a small benefit that has been overwhelmed by the unintended harms. The large, well-funded academic labs of full-time researchers have been replaced with unfunded, undertrained, and inadequately supported part-time junior faculty trying to publish enough articles to be promoted. In my opinion, this change is worse than funding from Big Pharma. (Disclosure – I worked in industry prior to graduate school.)

The pressure to publish reduces skepticism, so more incorrect data are published. The small size of these amateur studies produces unconvincing conclusions that feed an industry of meta-analysis that tries to overcome the deficiencies of the individual studies. This fragmented, biased approach is not how you build, launch, deploy, and operate the JWST, which requires very high reliability.

This approach is not working well for pediatrics either. I look at the history of the recommended workup of the febrile young infant from the 1980s until today. I see constant changes to the guidelines but no real progress toward a validated, evidence-based approach. A similar history is behind treatment of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia. In the 1994 publication, there was a movement toward being less aggressive. The 2004 and 2009 editions increased the frequency of screening and phototherapy. Now, the 2022 guidelines have moved in the direction we were headed in the 1990s. The workup of infants and children with possible urinary tract infections has undergone a similar trajectory. So has the screening for neonatal herpes infections. The practice changes are more like Brownian motion than real progress. This inconsistency has led me to be skeptical of the process the American Academy of Pediatrics uses to create guidelines.

Part of solving complex problems is allowing all stakeholders’ voices to be heard. On Jan. 28, 1986, seconds after liftoff, the space shuttle Challenger exploded. In the aftermath, it was determined that some engineers had expressed concern about the very cold weather that morning. The rubber in the O-ring would not be as flexible as designed. Their objection was not listened to. The O-ring failed, the fuel tank exploded, and the ship and crew were lost. It is a lesson many engineers of my generation took to heart. Do not suppress voices.

For example, 1 year ago (September 2021), the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists published a position statement, “Recognising and addressing the mental health needs of people experiencing gender dysphoria/gender incongruence.” The statement expressed concern about the marked increase in incidence of rapid-onset gender dysphoria and therefore urged more thorough assessment by psychiatry before embarking on puberty-blocking therapies. The RANZCP position is at variance with recent trends in the United States. The topic was censored at the 2021 AAP national conference. Lately, I have heard the words disinformation and homophobic used to describe my RANZCP colleagues. I have been comparing AAP, Britain’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne guidelines for 20 years. The variation is enlightening. I do not know the correct answer to treating gender dysphoria, but I know suppressing viewpoints and debate leads to exploding spaceships.
 

Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the gene therapy betibeglogene autotemcel (beti-cel) for adult and pediatric patients with beta-thalassemia who require regular red blood cell transfusions.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the gene therapy betibeglogene autotemcel (beti-cel) for adult and pediatric patients with beta-thalassemia who require regular red blood cell transfusions.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the gene therapy betibeglogene autotemcel (beti-cel) for adult and pediatric patients with beta-thalassemia who require regular red blood cell transfusions.

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

Some members of the American Academy of Pediatrics say its association leadership is blocking discussion about a resolution asking for a “rigorous systematic review” of gender-affirming care guidelines.

At issue is 2018 guidance that states children can undergo hormonal therapy after they are deemed appropriate candidates following a thorough mental health evaluation.

Critics say minors under age 18 may be getting “fast-tracked” to hormonal treatment too quickly or inappropriately and can end up regretting the decision and facing medical conditions like sterility.

Five AAP members, which has a total membership of around 67,000 pediatricians in the United States and Canada, this year penned Resolution 27, calling for a possible update of the guidelines following consultation with stakeholders that include mental health and medical clinicians, parents, and patients “with diverse views and experiences.”

Those members and others in written comments on a members-only website accuse the AAP of deliberately silencing debate on the issue and changing resolution rules. Any AAP member can submit a resolution for consideration by the group’s leadership at its annual policy meeting.

This year, the AAP sent an email to members stating it would not allow comments on resolutions that had not been “sponsored” by one of the group’s 66 chapters or 88 internal committees, councils, or sections.

That’s why comments were not allowed on Resolution 27, said Mark Del Monte, the AAP’s CEO. A second attempt to get sponsorship during the annual leadership forum, held earlier this month in Chicago, also failed, he noted. Mr. Del Monte told this news organization that changes to the resolution process are made every year and that no rule changes were directly associated with Resolution 27.

But one of the resolution’s authors said there was sponsorship when members first drafted the suggestion. Julia Mason, MD, a board member for the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine and a pediatrician in private practice in Gresham, Ore., says an AAP chapter president agreed to second Resolution 27 but backed off after attending a different AAP meeting. Dr. Mason did not name the member.

On Aug. 10, AAP President Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, wrote in a blog on the AAP website – after the AAP leadership meeting in Chicago – that the lack of sponsorship “meant no one was willing to support their proposal.”

The AAP Leadership Council’s 154 voting entities approved 48 resolutions at the meeting, all of which will be referred to the AAP Board of Directors for potential, but not definite, action as the Board only takes resolutions under advisement, Mr. Del Monte notes.

In an email allowing members to comment on a resolution (number 28) regarding education support for caring for transgender patients, 23 chose to support Resolution 27 instead.

“I am wholeheartedly in support of Resolution 27, which interestingly has been removed from the list of resolutions for member comment,” one comment read. “I can no longer trust the AAP to provide medical evidence-based education with regard to care for transgender individuals.” 

“We don’t need a formal resolution to look at the evidence around the care of transgender young people. Evaluating the evidence behind our recommendations, which the unsponsored resolution called for, is a routine part of the Academy’s policy-writing process,” wrote Dr. Szilagyi in her blog.

Mr. Del Monte says that “the 2018 policy is under review now.”

So far, “the evidence that we have seen reinforces our policy that gender-affirming care is the correct approach,” Mr. Del Monte stresses. “It is supported by every mainstream medical society in the world and is the standard of care,” he maintains.

Among those societies is the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which in the draft of its latest Standards of Care (SOC8) – the first new guidance on the issue for 10 years – reportedly lowers the age for “top surgery” to 15 years.

The final SOC8 will most likely be published to coincide with WPATH’s annual meeting in September in Montreal.

Opponents plan to protest outside the AAP’s annual meeting, in Anaheim in October, Dr. Mason says.

“I’m concerned that kids with a transient gender identity are being funneled into medicalization that does not serve them,” Dr. Mason says. “I am worried that the trans identity is valued over the possibility of desistance,” she adds, admitting that her goal is to have fewer children transition gender.

Last summer, AAP found itself in hot water on the same topic when it barred SEGM from having a booth at the AAP annual meeting in 2021, as reported by this news organization.

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

Some members of the American Academy of Pediatrics say its association leadership is blocking discussion about a resolution asking for a “rigorous systematic review” of gender-affirming care guidelines.

At issue is 2018 guidance that states children can undergo hormonal therapy after they are deemed appropriate candidates following a thorough mental health evaluation.

Critics say minors under age 18 may be getting “fast-tracked” to hormonal treatment too quickly or inappropriately and can end up regretting the decision and facing medical conditions like sterility.

Five AAP members, which has a total membership of around 67,000 pediatricians in the United States and Canada, this year penned Resolution 27, calling for a possible update of the guidelines following consultation with stakeholders that include mental health and medical clinicians, parents, and patients “with diverse views and experiences.”

Those members and others in written comments on a members-only website accuse the AAP of deliberately silencing debate on the issue and changing resolution rules. Any AAP member can submit a resolution for consideration by the group’s leadership at its annual policy meeting.

This year, the AAP sent an email to members stating it would not allow comments on resolutions that had not been “sponsored” by one of the group’s 66 chapters or 88 internal committees, councils, or sections.

That’s why comments were not allowed on Resolution 27, said Mark Del Monte, the AAP’s CEO. A second attempt to get sponsorship during the annual leadership forum, held earlier this month in Chicago, also failed, he noted. Mr. Del Monte told this news organization that changes to the resolution process are made every year and that no rule changes were directly associated with Resolution 27.

But one of the resolution’s authors said there was sponsorship when members first drafted the suggestion. Julia Mason, MD, a board member for the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine and a pediatrician in private practice in Gresham, Ore., says an AAP chapter president agreed to second Resolution 27 but backed off after attending a different AAP meeting. Dr. Mason did not name the member.

On Aug. 10, AAP President Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, wrote in a blog on the AAP website – after the AAP leadership meeting in Chicago – that the lack of sponsorship “meant no one was willing to support their proposal.”

The AAP Leadership Council’s 154 voting entities approved 48 resolutions at the meeting, all of which will be referred to the AAP Board of Directors for potential, but not definite, action as the Board only takes resolutions under advisement, Mr. Del Monte notes.

In an email allowing members to comment on a resolution (number 28) regarding education support for caring for transgender patients, 23 chose to support Resolution 27 instead.

“I am wholeheartedly in support of Resolution 27, which interestingly has been removed from the list of resolutions for member comment,” one comment read. “I can no longer trust the AAP to provide medical evidence-based education with regard to care for transgender individuals.” 

“We don’t need a formal resolution to look at the evidence around the care of transgender young people. Evaluating the evidence behind our recommendations, which the unsponsored resolution called for, is a routine part of the Academy’s policy-writing process,” wrote Dr. Szilagyi in her blog.

Mr. Del Monte says that “the 2018 policy is under review now.”

So far, “the evidence that we have seen reinforces our policy that gender-affirming care is the correct approach,” Mr. Del Monte stresses. “It is supported by every mainstream medical society in the world and is the standard of care,” he maintains.

Among those societies is the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which in the draft of its latest Standards of Care (SOC8) – the first new guidance on the issue for 10 years – reportedly lowers the age for “top surgery” to 15 years.

The final SOC8 will most likely be published to coincide with WPATH’s annual meeting in September in Montreal.

Opponents plan to protest outside the AAP’s annual meeting, in Anaheim in October, Dr. Mason says.

“I’m concerned that kids with a transient gender identity are being funneled into medicalization that does not serve them,” Dr. Mason says. “I am worried that the trans identity is valued over the possibility of desistance,” she adds, admitting that her goal is to have fewer children transition gender.

Last summer, AAP found itself in hot water on the same topic when it barred SEGM from having a booth at the AAP annual meeting in 2021, as reported by this news organization.

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

Some members of the American Academy of Pediatrics say its association leadership is blocking discussion about a resolution asking for a “rigorous systematic review” of gender-affirming care guidelines.

At issue is 2018 guidance that states children can undergo hormonal therapy after they are deemed appropriate candidates following a thorough mental health evaluation.

Critics say minors under age 18 may be getting “fast-tracked” to hormonal treatment too quickly or inappropriately and can end up regretting the decision and facing medical conditions like sterility.

Five AAP members, which has a total membership of around 67,000 pediatricians in the United States and Canada, this year penned Resolution 27, calling for a possible update of the guidelines following consultation with stakeholders that include mental health and medical clinicians, parents, and patients “with diverse views and experiences.”

Those members and others in written comments on a members-only website accuse the AAP of deliberately silencing debate on the issue and changing resolution rules. Any AAP member can submit a resolution for consideration by the group’s leadership at its annual policy meeting.

This year, the AAP sent an email to members stating it would not allow comments on resolutions that had not been “sponsored” by one of the group’s 66 chapters or 88 internal committees, councils, or sections.

That’s why comments were not allowed on Resolution 27, said Mark Del Monte, the AAP’s CEO. A second attempt to get sponsorship during the annual leadership forum, held earlier this month in Chicago, also failed, he noted. Mr. Del Monte told this news organization that changes to the resolution process are made every year and that no rule changes were directly associated with Resolution 27.

But one of the resolution’s authors said there was sponsorship when members first drafted the suggestion. Julia Mason, MD, a board member for the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine and a pediatrician in private practice in Gresham, Ore., says an AAP chapter president agreed to second Resolution 27 but backed off after attending a different AAP meeting. Dr. Mason did not name the member.

On Aug. 10, AAP President Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, wrote in a blog on the AAP website – after the AAP leadership meeting in Chicago – that the lack of sponsorship “meant no one was willing to support their proposal.”

The AAP Leadership Council’s 154 voting entities approved 48 resolutions at the meeting, all of which will be referred to the AAP Board of Directors for potential, but not definite, action as the Board only takes resolutions under advisement, Mr. Del Monte notes.

In an email allowing members to comment on a resolution (number 28) regarding education support for caring for transgender patients, 23 chose to support Resolution 27 instead.

“I am wholeheartedly in support of Resolution 27, which interestingly has been removed from the list of resolutions for member comment,” one comment read. “I can no longer trust the AAP to provide medical evidence-based education with regard to care for transgender individuals.” 

“We don’t need a formal resolution to look at the evidence around the care of transgender young people. Evaluating the evidence behind our recommendations, which the unsponsored resolution called for, is a routine part of the Academy’s policy-writing process,” wrote Dr. Szilagyi in her blog.

Mr. Del Monte says that “the 2018 policy is under review now.”

So far, “the evidence that we have seen reinforces our policy that gender-affirming care is the correct approach,” Mr. Del Monte stresses. “It is supported by every mainstream medical society in the world and is the standard of care,” he maintains.

Among those societies is the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which in the draft of its latest Standards of Care (SOC8) – the first new guidance on the issue for 10 years – reportedly lowers the age for “top surgery” to 15 years.

The final SOC8 will most likely be published to coincide with WPATH’s annual meeting in September in Montreal.

Opponents plan to protest outside the AAP’s annual meeting, in Anaheim in October, Dr. Mason says.

“I’m concerned that kids with a transient gender identity are being funneled into medicalization that does not serve them,” Dr. Mason says. “I am worried that the trans identity is valued over the possibility of desistance,” she adds, admitting that her goal is to have fewer children transition gender.

Last summer, AAP found itself in hot water on the same topic when it barred SEGM from having a booth at the AAP annual meeting in 2021, as reported by this news organization.

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

It used to be the treatment of “last resort” but for competitive athletes, intravenous nutrition is threatening to become the norm, despite no scientific evidence that it works, or is safe, warned experts.

In their editorial, published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, experts urged the “food first” and “no needle” messages – that are taught in sports nutrition courses around the world – need to be amplified among all athletes and their support teams to “stop this trend in its tracks”.

The international group of authors, including experts from St Mary’s University, London; University College London; and University of Bath (England), who regularly interact with professional team players in European and American leagues and their support teams, said they have become increasingly aware of the practice.

Although it’s not known exactly how common the practice is, they pointed out that, anecdotally, some players are hooked up to intravenous nutrition drips as often as every week as part of a pre- or postgame routine.
 

‘Drip-bars’ easily accessible but devoid of regulation

Intravenous nutrition has traditionally been reserved for serious clinical conditions – such as anaemia – symptoms caused by nutrient deficiencies, or to correct severe dehydration caused by marathon running in, for example, a desert.

A ban on needle use by athletes at the Olympic Games has been in place for all recent Games except for appropriate medical use, and where a therapeutic use exemption is obtained, explained the authors.

However, “so-called ‘drip bars’ and concierge IV nutrition services are now easily accessible,” they said. These claim to boost health and performance, restore hydration, and speed up recovery, by offering a menu of B vitamins, amino acids, glutathione, vitamin C, and electrolytes, and potentially boosting levels beyond any therapeutic range.

However, they are “devoid of regulation” and for players or practitioners there is no official guidance on their use.
 

Physical and reputational risks

Bypassing the gut-liver axis risks nutrient toxicity warned the authors, and “appears foolhardy” unless there is a “significant clinical rationale.” They highlighted that they had noted vitamin B6 and vitamin B12 levels often “beyond the measurement range of the laboratory” in a subgroup of professional players. They pointed out how long-term effects of too much vitamin B6 include peripheral neuropathy, and that athletes regularly receiving parenteral iron “risk liver disease.”

“Given that the long-term effects of supratherapeutic doses of B vitamins and other nutrients are unknown in athletes, it does not appear to be worth the risk, especially given the lack of evidence-based benefits,” they said. They added that there is also the risk related to venous access, including “infection and thromboembolic complications.”

Additionally, a shift away from “what works” according to scientific standards to that which is “unproven” puts the reputation of sport at risk, and also puts athletes at risk of antidoping violation, they cautioned.

Figures on the prevalence of intravenous nutrition need to be gathered in tandem with governing bodies and players’ associations in the professional leagues providing guidance on the potential risks of intravenous nutrition use, recommended the authors.

The ‘food first’ and ‘no needle’ messages need to be amplified among all athletes and multidisciplinary support teams, they emphasised, to avoid what was previously a ‘last resort’ treatment becoming “normal without scientific evidence of benefit”.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

It used to be the treatment of “last resort” but for competitive athletes, intravenous nutrition is threatening to become the norm, despite no scientific evidence that it works, or is safe, warned experts.

In their editorial, published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, experts urged the “food first” and “no needle” messages – that are taught in sports nutrition courses around the world – need to be amplified among all athletes and their support teams to “stop this trend in its tracks”.

The international group of authors, including experts from St Mary’s University, London; University College London; and University of Bath (England), who regularly interact with professional team players in European and American leagues and their support teams, said they have become increasingly aware of the practice.

Although it’s not known exactly how common the practice is, they pointed out that, anecdotally, some players are hooked up to intravenous nutrition drips as often as every week as part of a pre- or postgame routine.
 

‘Drip-bars’ easily accessible but devoid of regulation

Intravenous nutrition has traditionally been reserved for serious clinical conditions – such as anaemia – symptoms caused by nutrient deficiencies, or to correct severe dehydration caused by marathon running in, for example, a desert.

A ban on needle use by athletes at the Olympic Games has been in place for all recent Games except for appropriate medical use, and where a therapeutic use exemption is obtained, explained the authors.

However, “so-called ‘drip bars’ and concierge IV nutrition services are now easily accessible,” they said. These claim to boost health and performance, restore hydration, and speed up recovery, by offering a menu of B vitamins, amino acids, glutathione, vitamin C, and electrolytes, and potentially boosting levels beyond any therapeutic range.

However, they are “devoid of regulation” and for players or practitioners there is no official guidance on their use.
 

Physical and reputational risks

Bypassing the gut-liver axis risks nutrient toxicity warned the authors, and “appears foolhardy” unless there is a “significant clinical rationale.” They highlighted that they had noted vitamin B6 and vitamin B12 levels often “beyond the measurement range of the laboratory” in a subgroup of professional players. They pointed out how long-term effects of too much vitamin B6 include peripheral neuropathy, and that athletes regularly receiving parenteral iron “risk liver disease.”

“Given that the long-term effects of supratherapeutic doses of B vitamins and other nutrients are unknown in athletes, it does not appear to be worth the risk, especially given the lack of evidence-based benefits,” they said. They added that there is also the risk related to venous access, including “infection and thromboembolic complications.”

Additionally, a shift away from “what works” according to scientific standards to that which is “unproven” puts the reputation of sport at risk, and also puts athletes at risk of antidoping violation, they cautioned.

Figures on the prevalence of intravenous nutrition need to be gathered in tandem with governing bodies and players’ associations in the professional leagues providing guidance on the potential risks of intravenous nutrition use, recommended the authors.

The ‘food first’ and ‘no needle’ messages need to be amplified among all athletes and multidisciplinary support teams, they emphasised, to avoid what was previously a ‘last resort’ treatment becoming “normal without scientific evidence of benefit”.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

It used to be the treatment of “last resort” but for competitive athletes, intravenous nutrition is threatening to become the norm, despite no scientific evidence that it works, or is safe, warned experts.

In their editorial, published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, experts urged the “food first” and “no needle” messages – that are taught in sports nutrition courses around the world – need to be amplified among all athletes and their support teams to “stop this trend in its tracks”.

The international group of authors, including experts from St Mary’s University, London; University College London; and University of Bath (England), who regularly interact with professional team players in European and American leagues and their support teams, said they have become increasingly aware of the practice.

Although it’s not known exactly how common the practice is, they pointed out that, anecdotally, some players are hooked up to intravenous nutrition drips as often as every week as part of a pre- or postgame routine.
 

‘Drip-bars’ easily accessible but devoid of regulation

Intravenous nutrition has traditionally been reserved for serious clinical conditions – such as anaemia – symptoms caused by nutrient deficiencies, or to correct severe dehydration caused by marathon running in, for example, a desert.

A ban on needle use by athletes at the Olympic Games has been in place for all recent Games except for appropriate medical use, and where a therapeutic use exemption is obtained, explained the authors.

However, “so-called ‘drip bars’ and concierge IV nutrition services are now easily accessible,” they said. These claim to boost health and performance, restore hydration, and speed up recovery, by offering a menu of B vitamins, amino acids, glutathione, vitamin C, and electrolytes, and potentially boosting levels beyond any therapeutic range.

However, they are “devoid of regulation” and for players or practitioners there is no official guidance on their use.
 

Physical and reputational risks

Bypassing the gut-liver axis risks nutrient toxicity warned the authors, and “appears foolhardy” unless there is a “significant clinical rationale.” They highlighted that they had noted vitamin B6 and vitamin B12 levels often “beyond the measurement range of the laboratory” in a subgroup of professional players. They pointed out how long-term effects of too much vitamin B6 include peripheral neuropathy, and that athletes regularly receiving parenteral iron “risk liver disease.”

“Given that the long-term effects of supratherapeutic doses of B vitamins and other nutrients are unknown in athletes, it does not appear to be worth the risk, especially given the lack of evidence-based benefits,” they said. They added that there is also the risk related to venous access, including “infection and thromboembolic complications.”

Additionally, a shift away from “what works” according to scientific standards to that which is “unproven” puts the reputation of sport at risk, and also puts athletes at risk of antidoping violation, they cautioned.

Figures on the prevalence of intravenous nutrition need to be gathered in tandem with governing bodies and players’ associations in the professional leagues providing guidance on the potential risks of intravenous nutrition use, recommended the authors.

The ‘food first’ and ‘no needle’ messages need to be amplified among all athletes and multidisciplinary support teams, they emphasised, to avoid what was previously a ‘last resort’ treatment becoming “normal without scientific evidence of benefit”.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Five years ago, Kay Dean relied upon Yelp! and Google reviews in her search for a doctor in her area. After finding a physician with fairly high reviews, Ms. Dean was shocked when her personal experience was significantly worse than patients on the review platforms.

Following her experience, Ms. Dean, a former federal government investigator, became skeptical and used her skills to investigate the practice on all review platforms. She uncovered that the practice had a review from an individual who was involved in a review trading group on Facebook, where organizations openly barter their services in exchange for positive reviews fraud.

“I discovered that the online review world was just saturated with fake reviews, much more so than I think most people are aware ... and law enforcement regulators aren’t doing anything to address the problem,” said Ms. Dean. “In this online space, it’s the Wild West; cheating is rewarded.”

Ms. Dean decided to take matters into her own hands. She created a YouTube channel called Fake Review Watch, where she exposes real businesses and their attempts to dupe potential consumers with fake positive reviews.

For example, one video analyzes an orthopedic surgeon in Manhattan with an abundance of five-star reviews. Through her detailed analysis, Ms. Dean created a spreadsheet of the 26 alleged patients of the orthopedic surgeon that had submitted glowing reviews. She looked into other businesses that the individuals had left reviews for and found a significant amount of overlap.

According to the video, 19 of the doctor’s reviewers had left high reviews for the same moving company in Las Vegas, and 18 of them reviewed the same locksmith in Texas. Overall, eight of the patients reviewed the same mover, locksmith, and hotel in New Zealand.
 

A matter of trust

Ms. Dean expressed the gravity of this phenomenon, especially in health care, as patients often head online first when searching for care options. Based on a survey by Software Advice, about 84% of patients use online reviews to assess a physician, and 77% use review sites as the first step in finding a doctor.

Patient trust has continued to diminish in recent years, particularly following the pandemic. In a 2021 global ranking of trust levels towards health care by country, the U.S. health care system ranked 19th, far below those of several developing countries.

Owing to the rise of fake patient reviews and their inscrutable nature, Ms. Dean advises staying away from online review platforms. Instead, she suggests sticking to the old-fashioned method of getting recommendations from friends and relatives, not virtual people.

Ms. Dean explained a few indicators that she looks for when trying to identify a fake review.

“The business has all five-star reviews, negative reviews are followed by five-star reviews, or the business has an abnormal number of positive reviews in a short period of time,” she noted. “Some businesses try to bury legitimate negative reviews by obtaining more recent, fake, positive ones. The recent reviews will contradict the specific criticisms in the negative review.”

She warned that consumers should not give credibility to reviews simply because the reviewer is dubbed “Elite” or a Google Local Guide, because she has seen plenty of these individuals posting fake reviews.

Unfortunately, review platforms haven’t been doing much self-policing. Google and Healthgrades have a series of policies against fake engagement, impersonation, misinformation, and misrepresentation, according to their websites. However, the only consequence of these violations is review removal.

Both Yelp! and Google say they have automated software that distinguishes real versus fake reviews. When Yelp! uncovers users engaging in compensation review activity, it removes their reviews, closes their account, and blocks those users from creating future Yelp! accounts.
 

Physicians’ basis

Moreover, physicians purchasing fake reviews create an unfair environment for those physicians who choose to be ethical and honest with patients.

“I think there’s an erosion of business ethics because cheating is rewarded. You can’t compete in an environment where your competition is allowed to accumulate numerous fake reviews while you’re still trying to fill chairs in your business,” said Ms. Dean. “Your competition is then getting the business because the tech companies are allowing this fraud.”

Family physician and practice owner Mike Woo-Ming, MD, MPH, provides career coaching for physicians, including maintaining a good reputation – in-person and online. He has seen physicians bumping up their own five-star reviews personally as well as posting negative reviews for their competition.

“I’ve seen where they’re going to lose business, as many practices were affected through COVID,” he said. “Business owners can become desperate and may decide to start posting or buying reviews because they know people will choose certain services these days based upon reviews.”

Dr. Woo-Ming expressed his frustration with fellow physicians who give in to purchasing fake reviews, because the patients have no idea whether reviews are genuine or not.

To encourage genuine positive reviews, Dr. Woo-Ming’s practice uses a third-party app system that sends patients a follow-up email or text asking about their experience with a link to review sites.

“Honest reviews are a reflection of what I can do to improve my business. At the end of the day, if you’re truly providing great service and you’re helping people by providing great medical care, those are going to win out,” he said. “I would rather, as a responsible practice owner, improve the experience and outcome for the patient.”

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

Five years ago, Kay Dean relied upon Yelp! and Google reviews in her search for a doctor in her area. After finding a physician with fairly high reviews, Ms. Dean was shocked when her personal experience was significantly worse than patients on the review platforms.

Following her experience, Ms. Dean, a former federal government investigator, became skeptical and used her skills to investigate the practice on all review platforms. She uncovered that the practice had a review from an individual who was involved in a review trading group on Facebook, where organizations openly barter their services in exchange for positive reviews fraud.

“I discovered that the online review world was just saturated with fake reviews, much more so than I think most people are aware ... and law enforcement regulators aren’t doing anything to address the problem,” said Ms. Dean. “In this online space, it’s the Wild West; cheating is rewarded.”

Ms. Dean decided to take matters into her own hands. She created a YouTube channel called Fake Review Watch, where she exposes real businesses and their attempts to dupe potential consumers with fake positive reviews.

For example, one video analyzes an orthopedic surgeon in Manhattan with an abundance of five-star reviews. Through her detailed analysis, Ms. Dean created a spreadsheet of the 26 alleged patients of the orthopedic surgeon that had submitted glowing reviews. She looked into other businesses that the individuals had left reviews for and found a significant amount of overlap.

According to the video, 19 of the doctor’s reviewers had left high reviews for the same moving company in Las Vegas, and 18 of them reviewed the same locksmith in Texas. Overall, eight of the patients reviewed the same mover, locksmith, and hotel in New Zealand.
 

A matter of trust

Ms. Dean expressed the gravity of this phenomenon, especially in health care, as patients often head online first when searching for care options. Based on a survey by Software Advice, about 84% of patients use online reviews to assess a physician, and 77% use review sites as the first step in finding a doctor.

Patient trust has continued to diminish in recent years, particularly following the pandemic. In a 2021 global ranking of trust levels towards health care by country, the U.S. health care system ranked 19th, far below those of several developing countries.

Owing to the rise of fake patient reviews and their inscrutable nature, Ms. Dean advises staying away from online review platforms. Instead, she suggests sticking to the old-fashioned method of getting recommendations from friends and relatives, not virtual people.

Ms. Dean explained a few indicators that she looks for when trying to identify a fake review.

“The business has all five-star reviews, negative reviews are followed by five-star reviews, or the business has an abnormal number of positive reviews in a short period of time,” she noted. “Some businesses try to bury legitimate negative reviews by obtaining more recent, fake, positive ones. The recent reviews will contradict the specific criticisms in the negative review.”

She warned that consumers should not give credibility to reviews simply because the reviewer is dubbed “Elite” or a Google Local Guide, because she has seen plenty of these individuals posting fake reviews.

Unfortunately, review platforms haven’t been doing much self-policing. Google and Healthgrades have a series of policies against fake engagement, impersonation, misinformation, and misrepresentation, according to their websites. However, the only consequence of these violations is review removal.

Both Yelp! and Google say they have automated software that distinguishes real versus fake reviews. When Yelp! uncovers users engaging in compensation review activity, it removes their reviews, closes their account, and blocks those users from creating future Yelp! accounts.
 

Physicians’ basis

Moreover, physicians purchasing fake reviews create an unfair environment for those physicians who choose to be ethical and honest with patients.

“I think there’s an erosion of business ethics because cheating is rewarded. You can’t compete in an environment where your competition is allowed to accumulate numerous fake reviews while you’re still trying to fill chairs in your business,” said Ms. Dean. “Your competition is then getting the business because the tech companies are allowing this fraud.”

Family physician and practice owner Mike Woo-Ming, MD, MPH, provides career coaching for physicians, including maintaining a good reputation – in-person and online. He has seen physicians bumping up their own five-star reviews personally as well as posting negative reviews for their competition.

“I’ve seen where they’re going to lose business, as many practices were affected through COVID,” he said. “Business owners can become desperate and may decide to start posting or buying reviews because they know people will choose certain services these days based upon reviews.”

Dr. Woo-Ming expressed his frustration with fellow physicians who give in to purchasing fake reviews, because the patients have no idea whether reviews are genuine or not.

To encourage genuine positive reviews, Dr. Woo-Ming’s practice uses a third-party app system that sends patients a follow-up email or text asking about their experience with a link to review sites.

“Honest reviews are a reflection of what I can do to improve my business. At the end of the day, if you’re truly providing great service and you’re helping people by providing great medical care, those are going to win out,” he said. “I would rather, as a responsible practice owner, improve the experience and outcome for the patient.”

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

Five years ago, Kay Dean relied upon Yelp! and Google reviews in her search for a doctor in her area. After finding a physician with fairly high reviews, Ms. Dean was shocked when her personal experience was significantly worse than patients on the review platforms.

Following her experience, Ms. Dean, a former federal government investigator, became skeptical and used her skills to investigate the practice on all review platforms. She uncovered that the practice had a review from an individual who was involved in a review trading group on Facebook, where organizations openly barter their services in exchange for positive reviews fraud.

“I discovered that the online review world was just saturated with fake reviews, much more so than I think most people are aware ... and law enforcement regulators aren’t doing anything to address the problem,” said Ms. Dean. “In this online space, it’s the Wild West; cheating is rewarded.”

Ms. Dean decided to take matters into her own hands. She created a YouTube channel called Fake Review Watch, where she exposes real businesses and their attempts to dupe potential consumers with fake positive reviews.

For example, one video analyzes an orthopedic surgeon in Manhattan with an abundance of five-star reviews. Through her detailed analysis, Ms. Dean created a spreadsheet of the 26 alleged patients of the orthopedic surgeon that had submitted glowing reviews. She looked into other businesses that the individuals had left reviews for and found a significant amount of overlap.

According to the video, 19 of the doctor’s reviewers had left high reviews for the same moving company in Las Vegas, and 18 of them reviewed the same locksmith in Texas. Overall, eight of the patients reviewed the same mover, locksmith, and hotel in New Zealand.
 

A matter of trust

Ms. Dean expressed the gravity of this phenomenon, especially in health care, as patients often head online first when searching for care options. Based on a survey by Software Advice, about 84% of patients use online reviews to assess a physician, and 77% use review sites as the first step in finding a doctor.

Patient trust has continued to diminish in recent years, particularly following the pandemic. In a 2021 global ranking of trust levels towards health care by country, the U.S. health care system ranked 19th, far below those of several developing countries.

Owing to the rise of fake patient reviews and their inscrutable nature, Ms. Dean advises staying away from online review platforms. Instead, she suggests sticking to the old-fashioned method of getting recommendations from friends and relatives, not virtual people.

Ms. Dean explained a few indicators that she looks for when trying to identify a fake review.

“The business has all five-star reviews, negative reviews are followed by five-star reviews, or the business has an abnormal number of positive reviews in a short period of time,” she noted. “Some businesses try to bury legitimate negative reviews by obtaining more recent, fake, positive ones. The recent reviews will contradict the specific criticisms in the negative review.”

She warned that consumers should not give credibility to reviews simply because the reviewer is dubbed “Elite” or a Google Local Guide, because she has seen plenty of these individuals posting fake reviews.

Unfortunately, review platforms haven’t been doing much self-policing. Google and Healthgrades have a series of policies against fake engagement, impersonation, misinformation, and misrepresentation, according to their websites. However, the only consequence of these violations is review removal.

Both Yelp! and Google say they have automated software that distinguishes real versus fake reviews. When Yelp! uncovers users engaging in compensation review activity, it removes their reviews, closes their account, and blocks those users from creating future Yelp! accounts.
 

Physicians’ basis

Moreover, physicians purchasing fake reviews create an unfair environment for those physicians who choose to be ethical and honest with patients.

“I think there’s an erosion of business ethics because cheating is rewarded. You can’t compete in an environment where your competition is allowed to accumulate numerous fake reviews while you’re still trying to fill chairs in your business,” said Ms. Dean. “Your competition is then getting the business because the tech companies are allowing this fraud.”

Family physician and practice owner Mike Woo-Ming, MD, MPH, provides career coaching for physicians, including maintaining a good reputation – in-person and online. He has seen physicians bumping up their own five-star reviews personally as well as posting negative reviews for their competition.

“I’ve seen where they’re going to lose business, as many practices were affected through COVID,” he said. “Business owners can become desperate and may decide to start posting or buying reviews because they know people will choose certain services these days based upon reviews.”

Dr. Woo-Ming expressed his frustration with fellow physicians who give in to purchasing fake reviews, because the patients have no idea whether reviews are genuine or not.

To encourage genuine positive reviews, Dr. Woo-Ming’s practice uses a third-party app system that sends patients a follow-up email or text asking about their experience with a link to review sites.

“Honest reviews are a reflection of what I can do to improve my business. At the end of the day, if you’re truly providing great service and you’re helping people by providing great medical care, those are going to win out,” he said. “I would rather, as a responsible practice owner, improve the experience and outcome for the patient.”

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