Diversity in Medicine

In 2021, state lawmakers introduced a record number of bills that would affect transgender and gender-diverse people. The vast majority were focused on transgender and gender-diverse youth in particular. We’ve seen bills that would take away gender-affirming medical care for minors, ones that would force trans kids to play on sports teams that don’t match their gender identity, and others that would ban trans kids from public facilities like bathrooms that match their gender identities.

These bills aren’t particularly new, but state lawmakers are putting more energy into them than ever. In response, some public figures have started pushing back. Ariana Grande just pledged to match up to 1.5 million dollars in donations to combat anti–trans youth legislative initiatives. However, doctors have been underrepresented in the political discourse.

Sadly, much of the discussion in this area has been driven by wild speculation and emotional rhetoric. It’s rare that we see actual data brought to the table. As clinicians and scientists, we have a responsibility to highlight the data relevant to these legislative debates, and to share them with our representatives. I’m going to break down what we know quantitatively about each of these issues, so that you’ll feel empowered to bring that information to these debates. My hope is that we can move toward evidence-based public policy instead of rhetoric-based public policy, so that we can ensure the best health possible for young people around the country.
 

Bathroom bills

Though they’ve been less of a focus recently, politicians for years have argued that trans people should be forced to use bathrooms and other public facilities that match their sex assigned at birth, not their gender identity. Their central argument is that trans-inclusive public facility policies will result in higher rates of assault. Published peer-review data show this isn’t true. A 2019 study in Sexuality Research and Social Policy examined the impacts of trans-inclusive public facility policies and found they resulted in no increase in assaults among the general (mostly cisgender) population. Another 2019 study in Pediatrics found that trans-inclusive facility policies were associated with lower odds of sexual assault victimization against transgender youth. The myth that trans-inclusive public facilities increase assault risk is simply that: a myth. All existing data indicate that trans-inclusive policies will improve public safety.

Sports bills

One of the hottest debates recently involves whether transgender girls should be allowed to participate in girls’ sports teams. Those in favor of these bills argue that transgender girls have an innate biological sports advantage over cisgender girls, and if allowed to compete in girls’ sports leagues, they will dominate the events, and cisgender girls will no longer win sports titles. The bills feed into longstanding assumptions – those who were assigned male at birth are strong, and those who were assigned female at birth are weak.

But evidence doesn’t show that trans women dominate female sports leagues. It turns out, there are shockingly few transgender athletes competing in sports leagues around the United States, and even fewer winning major titles. When the Associated Press conducted an investigation asking lawmakers introducing such sports bills to name trans athletes in their states, most couldn’t point to a single one. After Utah state legislators passed a trans sports ban, Governor Spencer Cox vetoed it, pointing out that, of 75,000 high school kids participating in sports in Utah, there was only a single transgender girl (the state legislature overrode the veto anyway).

California has explicitly protected the rights of trans athletes to compete on sports teams that match their gender identity since 2013. There’s still an underrepresentation of trans athletes in sports participation and titles. This is likely because the deck is stacked against these young people in so many other ways that are unrelated to testosterone levels. Trans youth suffer from high rates of harassment, discrimination, and subsequent anxiety and depression that make it difficult to compete in and excel in sports.
 

Medical bills

State legislators have introduced bills around the country that would criminalize the provision of gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth. Though such bills are opposed by all major medical organizations (including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychiatric Association), misinformation continues to spread, and in some instances the bills have become law (though none are currently active due to legal challenges).

Clinicians should be aware that there have been sixteen studies to date, each with unique study designs, that have overall linked gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth to better mental health outcomes. While these interventions do (as with all medications) carry some risks (like delayed bone mineralization with pubertal suppression), the risks must be weighed against potential benefits. Unfortunately, these risks and benefits have not been accurately portrayed in state legislative debates. Politicians have spread a great deal of misinformation about gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, including false assertions that puberty blockers cause infertility and that most transgender adolescents will grow up to identify as cisgender and regret gender-affirming medical interventions.
 

Minority stress

These bills have direct consequences for pediatric patients. For example, trans-inclusive bathroom policies are associated with lower rates of sexual assault. However, there are also important indirect effects to consider. The gender minority stress framework explains the ways in which stigmatizing national discourse drives higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidality among transgender youth. Under this model, so-called “distal factors” like the recent conversations at the national level that marginalize trans young people, are expected to drive higher rates of adverse mental health outcomes. As transgender youth hear high-profile politicians argue that they’re dangerous to their peers in bathrooms and on sports teams, it’s difficult to imagine their mental health would not worsen. Over time, such “distal factors” also lead to “proximal factors” like internalized transphobia in which youth begin to believe the negative things that are said about them. These dangerous processes can have dramatic negative impacts on self-esteem and emotional development. There is strong precedence that public policies have strong indirect mental health effects on LGBTQ youth.

We’ve entered a dangerous era in which politicians are legislating medical care and other aspects of public policy with the potential to hurt the mental health of our young patients. It’s imperative that clinicians and scientists contact their legislators to make sure they are voting for public policy based on data and fact, not misinformation and political rhetoric. The health of American children depends on it.

Dr. Turban (twitter.com/jack_turban) is a chief fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University.

In 2021, state lawmakers introduced a record number of bills that would affect transgender and gender-diverse people. The vast majority were focused on transgender and gender-diverse youth in particular. We’ve seen bills that would take away gender-affirming medical care for minors, ones that would force trans kids to play on sports teams that don’t match their gender identity, and others that would ban trans kids from public facilities like bathrooms that match their gender identities.

These bills aren’t particularly new, but state lawmakers are putting more energy into them than ever. In response, some public figures have started pushing back. Ariana Grande just pledged to match up to 1.5 million dollars in donations to combat anti–trans youth legislative initiatives. However, doctors have been underrepresented in the political discourse.

Sadly, much of the discussion in this area has been driven by wild speculation and emotional rhetoric. It’s rare that we see actual data brought to the table. As clinicians and scientists, we have a responsibility to highlight the data relevant to these legislative debates, and to share them with our representatives. I’m going to break down what we know quantitatively about each of these issues, so that you’ll feel empowered to bring that information to these debates. My hope is that we can move toward evidence-based public policy instead of rhetoric-based public policy, so that we can ensure the best health possible for young people around the country.
 

Bathroom bills

Though they’ve been less of a focus recently, politicians for years have argued that trans people should be forced to use bathrooms and other public facilities that match their sex assigned at birth, not their gender identity. Their central argument is that trans-inclusive public facility policies will result in higher rates of assault. Published peer-review data show this isn’t true. A 2019 study in Sexuality Research and Social Policy examined the impacts of trans-inclusive public facility policies and found they resulted in no increase in assaults among the general (mostly cisgender) population. Another 2019 study in Pediatrics found that trans-inclusive facility policies were associated with lower odds of sexual assault victimization against transgender youth. The myth that trans-inclusive public facilities increase assault risk is simply that: a myth. All existing data indicate that trans-inclusive policies will improve public safety.

Sports bills

One of the hottest debates recently involves whether transgender girls should be allowed to participate in girls’ sports teams. Those in favor of these bills argue that transgender girls have an innate biological sports advantage over cisgender girls, and if allowed to compete in girls’ sports leagues, they will dominate the events, and cisgender girls will no longer win sports titles. The bills feed into longstanding assumptions – those who were assigned male at birth are strong, and those who were assigned female at birth are weak.

But evidence doesn’t show that trans women dominate female sports leagues. It turns out, there are shockingly few transgender athletes competing in sports leagues around the United States, and even fewer winning major titles. When the Associated Press conducted an investigation asking lawmakers introducing such sports bills to name trans athletes in their states, most couldn’t point to a single one. After Utah state legislators passed a trans sports ban, Governor Spencer Cox vetoed it, pointing out that, of 75,000 high school kids participating in sports in Utah, there was only a single transgender girl (the state legislature overrode the veto anyway).

California has explicitly protected the rights of trans athletes to compete on sports teams that match their gender identity since 2013. There’s still an underrepresentation of trans athletes in sports participation and titles. This is likely because the deck is stacked against these young people in so many other ways that are unrelated to testosterone levels. Trans youth suffer from high rates of harassment, discrimination, and subsequent anxiety and depression that make it difficult to compete in and excel in sports.
 

Medical bills

State legislators have introduced bills around the country that would criminalize the provision of gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth. Though such bills are opposed by all major medical organizations (including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychiatric Association), misinformation continues to spread, and in some instances the bills have become law (though none are currently active due to legal challenges).

Clinicians should be aware that there have been sixteen studies to date, each with unique study designs, that have overall linked gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth to better mental health outcomes. While these interventions do (as with all medications) carry some risks (like delayed bone mineralization with pubertal suppression), the risks must be weighed against potential benefits. Unfortunately, these risks and benefits have not been accurately portrayed in state legislative debates. Politicians have spread a great deal of misinformation about gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, including false assertions that puberty blockers cause infertility and that most transgender adolescents will grow up to identify as cisgender and regret gender-affirming medical interventions.
 

Minority stress

These bills have direct consequences for pediatric patients. For example, trans-inclusive bathroom policies are associated with lower rates of sexual assault. However, there are also important indirect effects to consider. The gender minority stress framework explains the ways in which stigmatizing national discourse drives higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidality among transgender youth. Under this model, so-called “distal factors” like the recent conversations at the national level that marginalize trans young people, are expected to drive higher rates of adverse mental health outcomes. As transgender youth hear high-profile politicians argue that they’re dangerous to their peers in bathrooms and on sports teams, it’s difficult to imagine their mental health would not worsen. Over time, such “distal factors” also lead to “proximal factors” like internalized transphobia in which youth begin to believe the negative things that are said about them. These dangerous processes can have dramatic negative impacts on self-esteem and emotional development. There is strong precedence that public policies have strong indirect mental health effects on LGBTQ youth.

We’ve entered a dangerous era in which politicians are legislating medical care and other aspects of public policy with the potential to hurt the mental health of our young patients. It’s imperative that clinicians and scientists contact their legislators to make sure they are voting for public policy based on data and fact, not misinformation and political rhetoric. The health of American children depends on it.

Dr. Turban (twitter.com/jack_turban) is a chief fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University.

In 2021, state lawmakers introduced a record number of bills that would affect transgender and gender-diverse people. The vast majority were focused on transgender and gender-diverse youth in particular. We’ve seen bills that would take away gender-affirming medical care for minors, ones that would force trans kids to play on sports teams that don’t match their gender identity, and others that would ban trans kids from public facilities like bathrooms that match their gender identities.

These bills aren’t particularly new, but state lawmakers are putting more energy into them than ever. In response, some public figures have started pushing back. Ariana Grande just pledged to match up to 1.5 million dollars in donations to combat anti–trans youth legislative initiatives. However, doctors have been underrepresented in the political discourse.

Sadly, much of the discussion in this area has been driven by wild speculation and emotional rhetoric. It’s rare that we see actual data brought to the table. As clinicians and scientists, we have a responsibility to highlight the data relevant to these legislative debates, and to share them with our representatives. I’m going to break down what we know quantitatively about each of these issues, so that you’ll feel empowered to bring that information to these debates. My hope is that we can move toward evidence-based public policy instead of rhetoric-based public policy, so that we can ensure the best health possible for young people around the country.
 

Bathroom bills

Though they’ve been less of a focus recently, politicians for years have argued that trans people should be forced to use bathrooms and other public facilities that match their sex assigned at birth, not their gender identity. Their central argument is that trans-inclusive public facility policies will result in higher rates of assault. Published peer-review data show this isn’t true. A 2019 study in Sexuality Research and Social Policy examined the impacts of trans-inclusive public facility policies and found they resulted in no increase in assaults among the general (mostly cisgender) population. Another 2019 study in Pediatrics found that trans-inclusive facility policies were associated with lower odds of sexual assault victimization against transgender youth. The myth that trans-inclusive public facilities increase assault risk is simply that: a myth. All existing data indicate that trans-inclusive policies will improve public safety.

Sports bills

One of the hottest debates recently involves whether transgender girls should be allowed to participate in girls’ sports teams. Those in favor of these bills argue that transgender girls have an innate biological sports advantage over cisgender girls, and if allowed to compete in girls’ sports leagues, they will dominate the events, and cisgender girls will no longer win sports titles. The bills feed into longstanding assumptions – those who were assigned male at birth are strong, and those who were assigned female at birth are weak.

But evidence doesn’t show that trans women dominate female sports leagues. It turns out, there are shockingly few transgender athletes competing in sports leagues around the United States, and even fewer winning major titles. When the Associated Press conducted an investigation asking lawmakers introducing such sports bills to name trans athletes in their states, most couldn’t point to a single one. After Utah state legislators passed a trans sports ban, Governor Spencer Cox vetoed it, pointing out that, of 75,000 high school kids participating in sports in Utah, there was only a single transgender girl (the state legislature overrode the veto anyway).

California has explicitly protected the rights of trans athletes to compete on sports teams that match their gender identity since 2013. There’s still an underrepresentation of trans athletes in sports participation and titles. This is likely because the deck is stacked against these young people in so many other ways that are unrelated to testosterone levels. Trans youth suffer from high rates of harassment, discrimination, and subsequent anxiety and depression that make it difficult to compete in and excel in sports.
 

Medical bills

State legislators have introduced bills around the country that would criminalize the provision of gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth. Though such bills are opposed by all major medical organizations (including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychiatric Association), misinformation continues to spread, and in some instances the bills have become law (though none are currently active due to legal challenges).

Clinicians should be aware that there have been sixteen studies to date, each with unique study designs, that have overall linked gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth to better mental health outcomes. While these interventions do (as with all medications) carry some risks (like delayed bone mineralization with pubertal suppression), the risks must be weighed against potential benefits. Unfortunately, these risks and benefits have not been accurately portrayed in state legislative debates. Politicians have spread a great deal of misinformation about gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, including false assertions that puberty blockers cause infertility and that most transgender adolescents will grow up to identify as cisgender and regret gender-affirming medical interventions.
 

Minority stress

These bills have direct consequences for pediatric patients. For example, trans-inclusive bathroom policies are associated with lower rates of sexual assault. However, there are also important indirect effects to consider. The gender minority stress framework explains the ways in which stigmatizing national discourse drives higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidality among transgender youth. Under this model, so-called “distal factors” like the recent conversations at the national level that marginalize trans young people, are expected to drive higher rates of adverse mental health outcomes. As transgender youth hear high-profile politicians argue that they’re dangerous to their peers in bathrooms and on sports teams, it’s difficult to imagine their mental health would not worsen. Over time, such “distal factors” also lead to “proximal factors” like internalized transphobia in which youth begin to believe the negative things that are said about them. These dangerous processes can have dramatic negative impacts on self-esteem and emotional development. There is strong precedence that public policies have strong indirect mental health effects on LGBTQ youth.

We’ve entered a dangerous era in which politicians are legislating medical care and other aspects of public policy with the potential to hurt the mental health of our young patients. It’s imperative that clinicians and scientists contact their legislators to make sure they are voting for public policy based on data and fact, not misinformation and political rhetoric. The health of American children depends on it.

Dr. Turban (twitter.com/jack_turban) is a chief fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University.

To the Editor:

Atopic dermatitis (AD) affects an estimated 7.2% of adults and 10.7% of children in the United States; however, AD might affect different races at a varying rate.¹ Compared to their European American counterparts, Asian/Pacific Islanders and African Americans are 7 and 3 times more likely, respectively, to be given a diagnosis of AD.²

Despite being disproportionately affected by AD, minority groups might be underrepresented in clinical trials of AD treatments.³ One explanation for this imbalance might be that ethnoracial representation differs across regions in the United States, perhaps in regions where clinical trials are conducted. Price et al³ investigated racial representation in clinical trials of AD globally and found that patients of color are consistently underrepresented.

Research on racial representation in clinical trials within the United States—on national and regional scales—is lacking from the current AD literature. We conducted a study to compare racial and ethnic disparities in AD clinical trials across regions of the United States. 

Using the ClinicalTrials.gov database (www.clinicaltrials.gov) of the National Library of Medicine, we identified clinical trials of AD treatments (encompassing phases 1 through 4) in the United States that were completed before March 14, 2021, with the earliest data from 2013. Search terms included atopic dermatitis, with an advanced search for interventional (clinical trials) and with results.

In total, 95 completed clinical trials were identified, of which 26 (27.4%) reported ethnoracial demographic data. One trial was excluded due to misrepresentation regarding the classification of individuals who identified as more than 1 racial category. Clinical trials for systemic treatments (7 [28%]) and topical treatments (18 [72%]) were identified.

All ethnoracial data were self-reported by trial participants based on US Food and Drug Administration guidelines for racial and ethnic categorization.⁴ Trial participants who identified ethnically as Hispanic or Latino might have been a part of any racial group. Only 7 of the 25 included clinical trials (28%) provided ethnic demographic data (Hispanic [Latino] or non-Hispanic); 72% of trials failed to report ethnicity. Ethnic data included in our analysis came from only the 7 clinical trials that included these data. International multicenter trials that included a US site were excluded.

Ultimately, the number of trials included in our analysis was 25, comprised of 2443 participants. Data were further organized by US geographic region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West, and multiregion trials [ie, conducted in ≥2 regions]). No AD clinical trials were conducted solely in the Midwest; it was only included within multiregion trials.

Compared to their representation in the 2019 US Census, most minority groups were overrepresented in clinical trials, while White individuals were underrepresented (eTable). The percentages of our findings on representation for race are as follows (US Census data are listed in parentheses for comparison⁵):

• White: 56.8% (72.5%)
• Black/African American: 28.3% (12.7%)
• Asian: 10.3% (5.5%)
• Multiracial: 1.1% (3.3%)
• Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: 0.3% (0.2%)
• American Indian or Alaska Native: 0.2% (0.8%)
• Other: 0.5% (4.9%).

Our findings on representation for ethnicity are as follows (US Census data is listed in parentheses for comparison⁵):

• Hispanic or Latino: 21.4% (18.0%)

Although representation of Black/African American and Asian participants in clinical trials was higher than their representation in US Census data and representation of White participants was lower in clinical trials than their representation in census data, equal representation among all racial and ethnic groups is still lacking. A potential explanation for this finding might be that requirements for trial inclusion selected for more minority patients, given the propensity for greater severity of AD among those racial groups.² Another explanation might be that efforts to include minority patients in clinical trials are improving.

There were great differences in ethnoracial representation in clinical trials when regions within the United States were compared. Based on census population data by region, the West had the highest percentage (29.9%) of Hispanic or Latino residents; however, this group represented only 11.7% of participants in AD clinical trials in that region.⁵

The South had the greatest number of participants in AD clinical trials of any region, which was consistent with research findings on an association between severity of AD and heat.⁶ With a warmer climate correlating with an increased incidence of AD, it is possible that more people are willing to participate in clinical trials in the South.

The Midwest was the only region in which region-specific clinical trials were not conducted. Recent studies have shown that individuals with AD who live in the Midwest have comparatively less access to health care associated with AD treatment and are more likely to visit an emergency department because of AD than individuals in any other US region.⁷ This discrepancy highlights the need for increased access to resources and clinical trials focused on the treatment of AD in the Midwest.

In 1993, the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act established a federal legislative mandate to encourage inclusion of women and people of color in clinical trials.⁸ During the last 2 decades, there have been improvements in ethnoracial reporting. A 2020 global study found that 81.1% of randomized controlled trials (phases 2 and 3) of AD treatments reported ethnoracial data.³

Equal representation in clinical trials allows for further investigation of the connection between race, AD severity, and treatment efficacy. Clinical trials need to have equal representation of ethnoracial categories across all regions of the United States. If one group is notably overrepresented, ethnoracial associations related to the treatment of AD might go undetected.⁹ Similarly, if representation is unequal, relationships of treatment efficacy within ethnoracial groups also might go undetected. None of the clinical trials that we analyzed investigated treatment efficacy by race, suggesting that there is a need for future research in this area.

It also is important to note that broad classifications of race and ethnicity are limiting and therefore overlook differences within ethnoracial categories. Although representation of minority patients in clinical trials for AD treatments is improving, we conclude that there remains a need for greater and equal representation of minority groups in clinical trials of AD treatments in the United States.

To the Editor:

Atopic dermatitis (AD) affects an estimated 7.2% of adults and 10.7% of children in the United States; however, AD might affect different races at a varying rate.¹ Compared to their European American counterparts, Asian/Pacific Islanders and African Americans are 7 and 3 times more likely, respectively, to be given a diagnosis of AD.²

Despite being disproportionately affected by AD, minority groups might be underrepresented in clinical trials of AD treatments.³ One explanation for this imbalance might be that ethnoracial representation differs across regions in the United States, perhaps in regions where clinical trials are conducted. Price et al³ investigated racial representation in clinical trials of AD globally and found that patients of color are consistently underrepresented.

Research on racial representation in clinical trials within the United States—on national and regional scales—is lacking from the current AD literature. We conducted a study to compare racial and ethnic disparities in AD clinical trials across regions of the United States. 

Using the ClinicalTrials.gov database (www.clinicaltrials.gov) of the National Library of Medicine, we identified clinical trials of AD treatments (encompassing phases 1 through 4) in the United States that were completed before March 14, 2021, with the earliest data from 2013. Search terms included atopic dermatitis, with an advanced search for interventional (clinical trials) and with results.

In total, 95 completed clinical trials were identified, of which 26 (27.4%) reported ethnoracial demographic data. One trial was excluded due to misrepresentation regarding the classification of individuals who identified as more than 1 racial category. Clinical trials for systemic treatments (7 [28%]) and topical treatments (18 [72%]) were identified.

All ethnoracial data were self-reported by trial participants based on US Food and Drug Administration guidelines for racial and ethnic categorization.⁴ Trial participants who identified ethnically as Hispanic or Latino might have been a part of any racial group. Only 7 of the 25 included clinical trials (28%) provided ethnic demographic data (Hispanic [Latino] or non-Hispanic); 72% of trials failed to report ethnicity. Ethnic data included in our analysis came from only the 7 clinical trials that included these data. International multicenter trials that included a US site were excluded.

Ultimately, the number of trials included in our analysis was 25, comprised of 2443 participants. Data were further organized by US geographic region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West, and multiregion trials [ie, conducted in ≥2 regions]). No AD clinical trials were conducted solely in the Midwest; it was only included within multiregion trials.

Compared to their representation in the 2019 US Census, most minority groups were overrepresented in clinical trials, while White individuals were underrepresented (eTable). The percentages of our findings on representation for race are as follows (US Census data are listed in parentheses for comparison⁵):

• White: 56.8% (72.5%)
• Black/African American: 28.3% (12.7%)
• Asian: 10.3% (5.5%)
• Multiracial: 1.1% (3.3%)
• Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: 0.3% (0.2%)
• American Indian or Alaska Native: 0.2% (0.8%)
• Other: 0.5% (4.9%).

Our findings on representation for ethnicity are as follows (US Census data is listed in parentheses for comparison⁵):

• Hispanic or Latino: 21.4% (18.0%)

Although representation of Black/African American and Asian participants in clinical trials was higher than their representation in US Census data and representation of White participants was lower in clinical trials than their representation in census data, equal representation among all racial and ethnic groups is still lacking. A potential explanation for this finding might be that requirements for trial inclusion selected for more minority patients, given the propensity for greater severity of AD among those racial groups.² Another explanation might be that efforts to include minority patients in clinical trials are improving.

There were great differences in ethnoracial representation in clinical trials when regions within the United States were compared. Based on census population data by region, the West had the highest percentage (29.9%) of Hispanic or Latino residents; however, this group represented only 11.7% of participants in AD clinical trials in that region.⁵

The South had the greatest number of participants in AD clinical trials of any region, which was consistent with research findings on an association between severity of AD and heat.⁶ With a warmer climate correlating with an increased incidence of AD, it is possible that more people are willing to participate in clinical trials in the South.

The Midwest was the only region in which region-specific clinical trials were not conducted. Recent studies have shown that individuals with AD who live in the Midwest have comparatively less access to health care associated with AD treatment and are more likely to visit an emergency department because of AD than individuals in any other US region.⁷ This discrepancy highlights the need for increased access to resources and clinical trials focused on the treatment of AD in the Midwest.

In 1993, the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act established a federal legislative mandate to encourage inclusion of women and people of color in clinical trials.⁸ During the last 2 decades, there have been improvements in ethnoracial reporting. A 2020 global study found that 81.1% of randomized controlled trials (phases 2 and 3) of AD treatments reported ethnoracial data.³

Equal representation in clinical trials allows for further investigation of the connection between race, AD severity, and treatment efficacy. Clinical trials need to have equal representation of ethnoracial categories across all regions of the United States. If one group is notably overrepresented, ethnoracial associations related to the treatment of AD might go undetected.⁹ Similarly, if representation is unequal, relationships of treatment efficacy within ethnoracial groups also might go undetected. None of the clinical trials that we analyzed investigated treatment efficacy by race, suggesting that there is a need for future research in this area.

It also is important to note that broad classifications of race and ethnicity are limiting and therefore overlook differences within ethnoracial categories. Although representation of minority patients in clinical trials for AD treatments is improving, we conclude that there remains a need for greater and equal representation of minority groups in clinical trials of AD treatments in the United States.

To the Editor:

Atopic dermatitis (AD) affects an estimated 7.2% of adults and 10.7% of children in the United States; however, AD might affect different races at a varying rate.¹ Compared to their European American counterparts, Asian/Pacific Islanders and African Americans are 7 and 3 times more likely, respectively, to be given a diagnosis of AD.²

Despite being disproportionately affected by AD, minority groups might be underrepresented in clinical trials of AD treatments.³ One explanation for this imbalance might be that ethnoracial representation differs across regions in the United States, perhaps in regions where clinical trials are conducted. Price et al³ investigated racial representation in clinical trials of AD globally and found that patients of color are consistently underrepresented.

Research on racial representation in clinical trials within the United States—on national and regional scales—is lacking from the current AD literature. We conducted a study to compare racial and ethnic disparities in AD clinical trials across regions of the United States. 

Using the ClinicalTrials.gov database (www.clinicaltrials.gov) of the National Library of Medicine, we identified clinical trials of AD treatments (encompassing phases 1 through 4) in the United States that were completed before March 14, 2021, with the earliest data from 2013. Search terms included atopic dermatitis, with an advanced search for interventional (clinical trials) and with results.

In total, 95 completed clinical trials were identified, of which 26 (27.4%) reported ethnoracial demographic data. One trial was excluded due to misrepresentation regarding the classification of individuals who identified as more than 1 racial category. Clinical trials for systemic treatments (7 [28%]) and topical treatments (18 [72%]) were identified.

All ethnoracial data were self-reported by trial participants based on US Food and Drug Administration guidelines for racial and ethnic categorization.⁴ Trial participants who identified ethnically as Hispanic or Latino might have been a part of any racial group. Only 7 of the 25 included clinical trials (28%) provided ethnic demographic data (Hispanic [Latino] or non-Hispanic); 72% of trials failed to report ethnicity. Ethnic data included in our analysis came from only the 7 clinical trials that included these data. International multicenter trials that included a US site were excluded.

Ultimately, the number of trials included in our analysis was 25, comprised of 2443 participants. Data were further organized by US geographic region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West, and multiregion trials [ie, conducted in ≥2 regions]). No AD clinical trials were conducted solely in the Midwest; it was only included within multiregion trials.

Compared to their representation in the 2019 US Census, most minority groups were overrepresented in clinical trials, while White individuals were underrepresented (eTable). The percentages of our findings on representation for race are as follows (US Census data are listed in parentheses for comparison⁵):

• White: 56.8% (72.5%)
• Black/African American: 28.3% (12.7%)
• Asian: 10.3% (5.5%)
• Multiracial: 1.1% (3.3%)
• Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: 0.3% (0.2%)
• American Indian or Alaska Native: 0.2% (0.8%)
• Other: 0.5% (4.9%).

Our findings on representation for ethnicity are as follows (US Census data is listed in parentheses for comparison⁵):

• Hispanic or Latino: 21.4% (18.0%)

Although representation of Black/African American and Asian participants in clinical trials was higher than their representation in US Census data and representation of White participants was lower in clinical trials than their representation in census data, equal representation among all racial and ethnic groups is still lacking. A potential explanation for this finding might be that requirements for trial inclusion selected for more minority patients, given the propensity for greater severity of AD among those racial groups.² Another explanation might be that efforts to include minority patients in clinical trials are improving.

There were great differences in ethnoracial representation in clinical trials when regions within the United States were compared. Based on census population data by region, the West had the highest percentage (29.9%) of Hispanic or Latino residents; however, this group represented only 11.7% of participants in AD clinical trials in that region.⁵

The South had the greatest number of participants in AD clinical trials of any region, which was consistent with research findings on an association between severity of AD and heat.⁶ With a warmer climate correlating with an increased incidence of AD, it is possible that more people are willing to participate in clinical trials in the South.

The Midwest was the only region in which region-specific clinical trials were not conducted. Recent studies have shown that individuals with AD who live in the Midwest have comparatively less access to health care associated with AD treatment and are more likely to visit an emergency department because of AD than individuals in any other US region.⁷ This discrepancy highlights the need for increased access to resources and clinical trials focused on the treatment of AD in the Midwest.

In 1993, the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act established a federal legislative mandate to encourage inclusion of women and people of color in clinical trials.⁸ During the last 2 decades, there have been improvements in ethnoracial reporting. A 2020 global study found that 81.1% of randomized controlled trials (phases 2 and 3) of AD treatments reported ethnoracial data.³

Equal representation in clinical trials allows for further investigation of the connection between race, AD severity, and treatment efficacy. Clinical trials need to have equal representation of ethnoracial categories across all regions of the United States. If one group is notably overrepresented, ethnoracial associations related to the treatment of AD might go undetected.⁹ Similarly, if representation is unequal, relationships of treatment efficacy within ethnoracial groups also might go undetected. None of the clinical trials that we analyzed investigated treatment efficacy by race, suggesting that there is a need for future research in this area.

It also is important to note that broad classifications of race and ethnicity are limiting and therefore overlook differences within ethnoracial categories. Although representation of minority patients in clinical trials for AD treatments is improving, we conclude that there remains a need for greater and equal representation of minority groups in clinical trials of AD treatments in the United States.

Sunscreen formulations typically protect from UV radiation (290–400 nm), as this is a well-established cause of photodamage, photoaging, and skin cancer.¹ However, sunlight also consists of visible (400–700 nm) and infrared (>700 nm) radiation.² In fact, UV radiation only comprises 5% to 7% of the solar radiation that reaches the surface of the earth, while visible and infrared lights comprise 44% and 53%, respectively.³ Visible light (VL) is the only portion of the solar spectrum visible to the human eye; it penetrates the skin to a depth range of 90 to 750 µm compared to 1.5 to 90 µm for UV radiation.⁴ Visible light also may come from artificial sources such as light bulbs and digital screens. The rapidly increasing use of smartphones, tablets, laptops, and other digital screens that emit high levels of short-wavelength VL has increased concerns about the safety of these devices. Although blue light exposure from screens is small compared with the amount of exposure from the sun, there is concern about the long-term effects of excessive screen time. Recent studies have demonstrated that exposure to light emitted from electronic devices, even for as little as 1 hour, may cause reactive oxygen species generation, apoptosis, collagen degradation, and necrosis of skin cells.⁵ Visible light increases tyrosinase activity and induces immediate erythema in light-skinned individuals and long-lasting pigmentation in dark-skinned individuals.^4,6

Sunscreens consist of chemical and mineral active ingredients that contain UV filters designed to absorb, scatter, and reflect UV photons with wavelengths up to 380 nm. Historically, traditional options do not protect against the effects induced by VL, as these sunscreens use nanosized particles that help to reduce the white appearance and result in transparency of the product.⁷ To block VL, the topical agent must be visible. Tinted sunscreens (TSs) are products that combine UV and VL filters. They give a colored base coverage that is achieved by incorporating a blend of black, red, and yellow iron oxides (IOs) and/or pigmentary titanium dioxide (PTD)(ie, titanium dioxide [TD] that is not nanosized). Because TSs offer an instant glow and protect the skin from both sun and artificial light, they have become increasingly popular and have been incorporated into makeup and skin care products to facilitate daily convenient use.

The purpose of this analysis was to study current available options and product factors that may influence consumer preference when choosing a TS based on the reviewer characteristics.

Methods

The keyword sunscreen was searched in the broader category of skin care products on an online supplier of sunscreens (www.sephora.com). This supplier was chosen because, unlike other sources, specific reviewer characteristics regarding underlying skin tone also were available. The search produced 161 results. For the purpose of this analysis, only facial TSs containing IO and/or PTD were included. Each sunscreen was checked by the authors, and 58 sunscreens that met the inclusion criteria were identified and further reviewed. Descriptive data, including formulation, sun protection factor (SPF), ingredient type (chemical or physical), pigments used, shades available, additional benefits, price range, rating, and user reviews, were gathered. The authors extracted these data from the product information on the website, manufacturer claims, ratings, and reviewer comments on each of the listed sunscreens.

For each product, the content of the top 10 most helpful positive and negative reviews as voted by consumers (1160 total reviews, consisting of 1 or more comments) was analyzed. Two authors (H.D.L.G. and P.V.) coded consumer-reported comments for positive and negative descriptors into the categories of cosmetic elegance, performance, skin compatibility and tolerance, tone compatibility, and affordability. Cosmetic elegance was defined as any feature associated with skin sensation (eg, greasy), color (eg, white cast), scent, ability to blend, and overall appearance of the product on the skin. Product performance included SPF, effectiveness in preventing sunburn, coverage, and finish claims (ie, matte, glow, invisible). Skin compatibility and tolerance were represented in the reviewers’ comments and reflected how the product performed in association with underlying dermatologic conditions, skin type, and if there were any side effects such as irritation or allergic reactions. Tone compatibility referred to TS color similarity with users’ skin and shades available for individual products. Affordability reflected consumers’ perceptions of the product price. Comments may be included in multiple categories (eg, a product was noted to blend well on the skin but did not provide enough coverage). Of entries, 10% (116/1160 reviews) were coded by first author (H.D.L.G.) to ensure internal validity. Reviewer characteristics were consistently available and were used to determine the top 5 recommended products for light-, medium-, and dark-skinned individuals based on the number of 5-star ratings in each group. Porcelain, fair, and light were considered light skin tones. Medium, tan, and olive were considered medium skin tones. Deep, dark, and ebony were considered dark skin tones.

Results

Sunscreen Characteristics—Among the 161 screened products, 58 met the inclusion criteria. Four types of formulations were included: lotion, cream, liquid, and powder. Twenty-nine (50%) were creams, followed by lotions (19%), liquids (28%), and powders (3%). More than 79% (46/58) of products had a reported SPF of 30 or higher. Sunscreens with an active physical ingredient—the minerals TD and/or zinc oxide (ZO)—were most common (33/58 [57%]), followed by the chemical sunscreens avobenzone, octinoxate, oxybenzone, homosalate, octisalate, and/or octocrylene active ingredients (14/58 [24%]), and a combination of chemical and physical sunscreens (11/58 [19%]). Nearly all products (55/58 [95%]) contained pigmentary IO (red, CI 77491; yellow, CI 77492; black, CI 77499). Notably, only 38% (22/58) of products had more than 1 shade. All products had additional claims associated with being hydrating, having antiaging effects, smoothing texture, minimizing the appearance of pores, softening lines, and/or promoting even skin tone. Traditional physical sunscreens (those containing TD and/or ZO) were more expensive than chemical sunscreens, with a median price of $30. The median review rating was 4.5 of 5 stars, with a median of 2300 customer reviews per product. Findings are summarized in Table 1.

Positive Features of Sunscreens—Based on an analysis of total reviews (N=1160), cosmetic elegance was the most cited positive feature associated with TS products (31%), followed by product performance (10%). Skin compatibility and tolerance (7%), tone compatibility (7%), and affordability (7%) were cited less commonly as positive features. When negative features were cited, consumers mostly noted tone incompatibility (16%) and cosmetic elegance concerns (14%). Product performance (13%) was comparatively cited as a negative feature (Table 1). Exemplary positive comments categorized in cosmetic elegance included the subthemes of rubs in well and natural glow. Exemplary negative comments in cosmetic elegance and tone compatibility categories included the subthemes patchy/dry finish and color mismatch. Table 1 illustrates these findings.

Product Recommendations—The top 5 recommendations of the best TS for each skin tone are listed in Table 2. The mean price of the recommended products was $42 for 1 to 1.9 oz. Laura Mercier Tinted Moisturizer Oil Free Natural Skin Perfector broad spectrum SPF 20 (Laura Mercier) was the top product for all 3 groups. Similarly, of 58 products available, the same 5 products—Laura Mercier Tinted Moisturizer Oil Free Natural Skin Perfector broad spectrum SPF 20, IT Cosmetics CC+ Cream with SPF 50 (IT Cosmetics, LLC), Tarte Amazonian Clay BB Tinted Moisturizer Broad Spectrum SPF 20 (Tarte Cosmetics), NARS Pure Radiant Tinted Moisturizer Broad Spectrum SPF 30 (NARS Cosmetics), and Laura Mercier Tinted Moisturizer Natural Skin Perfector broad spectrum SPF 30—were considered the best among consumers of all skin tones, with the addition of 2 different products (bareMinerals Original Liquid Mineral Foundation Broad Spectrum SPF 20 [bareMinerals] and ILIA Super Serum Skin Tint SPF 40 Foundation [ILIA Beauty]) in the dark skin group. Notably, these products were the only ones on Sephora’s website that offered up to 30 (22 on average) different shades.

Comment

Tone Compatibility—Tinted sunscreens were created to extend the range of photoprotection into the VL spectrum. The goal of TSs is to incorporate pigments that blend in with the natural skin tone, produce a glow, and have an aesthetically pleasing appearance. To accommodate a variety of skin colors, different shades can be obtained by mixing different amounts of yellow, red, and black IO with or without PTD. The pigments and reflective compounds provide color, opacity, and a natural coverage. Our qualitative analysis provides information on the lack of diversity among shades available for TS, especially for darker skin tones. Of the 58 products evaluated, 62% (32/58) only had 1 shade. In our cohort, tone compatibility was the most commonly cited negative feature. Of note, 89% of these comments were from consumers with dark skin tones, and there was a disproportional number of reviews by darker-skinned individuals compared to users with light and medium skin tones. This is of particular importance, as TSs have been shown to protect against dermatoses that disproportionally affect individuals with skin of color. When comparing sunscreen formulations containing IO with regular mineral sunscreens, Dumbuya et al³ found that IO-containing formulations significantly protected against VL-induced pigmentation compared with untreated skin or mineral sunscreen with SPF 50 or higher in individuals with Fitzpatrick skin type IV (P<.001). Similarly, Bernstein et al⁸ found that exposing patients with Fitzpatrick skin types III and IV to blue-violet light resulted in marked hyperpigmentation that lasted up to 3 months. Visible light elicits immediate and persistent pigment darkening in individuals with Fitzpatrick skin phototype III and above via the photo-oxidation of pre-existing melanin and de novo melanogenesis.⁹ Tinted sunscreens formulated with IO have been shown to aid in the treatment of melasma and prevent hyperpigmentation in individuals with Fitzpatrick skin types IV to VI.¹⁰ Patients with darker skin tones with dermatoses aggravated or induced by VL, such as melasma and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, may seek photoprotection provided by TS but find the lack of matching shades unappealing. The dearth of shade diversity that matches all skin tones can lead to inequities and disproportionally affect those with darker skin.

Performance—Tinted sunscreen formulations containing IO have been proven effective in protecting against high-energy VL, especially when combined synergistically with ZO.¹¹ Kaye et al¹² found that TSs containing IO and the inorganic filters TD or ZO reduced transmittance of VL more effectively than nontinted sunscreens containing TD or ZO alone or products containing organic filters. The decreased VL transmittance in the former is due to synergistic effects of the VL-scattering properties of the TD and the VL absorption properties of the IO. Similarly, Sayre et al¹³ demonstrated that IO was superior to TD and ZO in attenuating the transmission of VL. Bernstein et al¹⁴ found that darker shades containing higher percentages of IO increased the attenuation of VL to 98% compared with lighter shades attenuating 93%. This correlates with the results of prior studies highlighting the potential of TSs in protecting individuals with skin of color.³ In our cohort, comments regarding product performance and protection were mostly positive, claiming that consistent use reduced hyperpigmentation on the skin surface, giving the appearance of a more even skin tone.

Tolerability—Iron oxides are minerals known to be safe, gentle, and nontoxic on the surface of the skin.¹⁵ Two case reports of contact dermatitis due to IO have been reported.^16,17 Within our cohort, only a few of the comments (6%) described negative product tolerance or compatibility with their skin type. However, it is more likely that these incompatibilities were due to other ingredients in the product or the individuals’ underlying dermatologic conditions.

Cosmetic Elegance—Most of the sunscreens available on the market today contain micronized forms of TD and ZO particles because they have better cosmetic acceptability.¹⁸ However, their reduced size compromises the protection provided against VL whereby the addition of IO is of vital importance. According to the RealSelf Sun Safety Report, only 11% of Americans wear sunscreen daily, and 46% never wear sunscreen.¹⁹ The most common reasons consumers reported for not wearing sunscreen included not liking how it looks on the skin, forgetting to apply it, and/or believing that application is inconvenient and time-consuming. Currently, TSs have been incorporated into daily-life products such as makeup, moisturizers, and serums, making application for users easy and convenient, decreasing the necessity of using multiple products, and offering the opportunity to choose from different presentations to make decisions for convenience and/or diverse occasions. Products containing IO blend in with the natural skin tone and have an aesthetically pleasing cosmetic appearance. In our cohort, comments regarding cosmetic elegance were highly valued and were present in multiple reviews (45%), with 69% being positive.

Affordability—In our cohort, product price was not predominantly mentioned in consumers’ reviews. However, negative comments regarding affordability were slightly higher than the positive (56% vs 44%). Notably, the mean price of our top recommendations was $42. Higher price was associated with products with a wider range of shades available. Prior studies have found similar results demonstrating that websites with recommendations on sunscreens for patients with skin of color compared with sunscreens for white or fair skin were more likely to recommend more expensive products (median, $14/oz vs $11.3/oz) despite the lower SPF level.²⁰ According to Schneider,²¹ daily use of the cheapest sunscreen on the head/neck region recommended for white/pale skin ($2/oz) would lead to an annual cost of $61 compared to $182 for darker skin ($6/oz). This showcases the considerable variation in sunscreen prices for both populations that could potentiate disparities and vulnerability in the latter group.

Conclusion

Tinted sunscreens provide both functional and cosmetic benefits and are a safe, effective, and convenient way to protect against high-energy VL. This study suggests that patients with skin of color encounter difficulties in finding matching shades in TS products. These difficulties may stem from the lack of knowledge regarding dark complexions and undertones and the lack of representation of black and brown skin that has persisted in dermatology research journals and textbooks for decades.²² Our study provides important insights to help dermatologists improve their familiarity with the brands and characteristics of TSs geared to patients with all skin tones, including skin of color. Limitations include single-retailer information and inclusion of both highly and poorly rated comments with subjective data, limiting generalizability. The limited selection of shades for darker skin poses a roadblock to proper treatment and prevention. These data represent an area for improvement within the beauty industry and the dermatologic field to deliver culturally sensitive care by being knowledgeable about darker skin tones and TS formulations tailored to people with skin of color.

Sunscreen formulations typically protect from UV radiation (290–400 nm), as this is a well-established cause of photodamage, photoaging, and skin cancer.¹ However, sunlight also consists of visible (400–700 nm) and infrared (>700 nm) radiation.² In fact, UV radiation only comprises 5% to 7% of the solar radiation that reaches the surface of the earth, while visible and infrared lights comprise 44% and 53%, respectively.³ Visible light (VL) is the only portion of the solar spectrum visible to the human eye; it penetrates the skin to a depth range of 90 to 750 µm compared to 1.5 to 90 µm for UV radiation.⁴ Visible light also may come from artificial sources such as light bulbs and digital screens. The rapidly increasing use of smartphones, tablets, laptops, and other digital screens that emit high levels of short-wavelength VL has increased concerns about the safety of these devices. Although blue light exposure from screens is small compared with the amount of exposure from the sun, there is concern about the long-term effects of excessive screen time. Recent studies have demonstrated that exposure to light emitted from electronic devices, even for as little as 1 hour, may cause reactive oxygen species generation, apoptosis, collagen degradation, and necrosis of skin cells.⁵ Visible light increases tyrosinase activity and induces immediate erythema in light-skinned individuals and long-lasting pigmentation in dark-skinned individuals.^4,6

Sunscreens consist of chemical and mineral active ingredients that contain UV filters designed to absorb, scatter, and reflect UV photons with wavelengths up to 380 nm. Historically, traditional options do not protect against the effects induced by VL, as these sunscreens use nanosized particles that help to reduce the white appearance and result in transparency of the product.⁷ To block VL, the topical agent must be visible. Tinted sunscreens (TSs) are products that combine UV and VL filters. They give a colored base coverage that is achieved by incorporating a blend of black, red, and yellow iron oxides (IOs) and/or pigmentary titanium dioxide (PTD)(ie, titanium dioxide [TD] that is not nanosized). Because TSs offer an instant glow and protect the skin from both sun and artificial light, they have become increasingly popular and have been incorporated into makeup and skin care products to facilitate daily convenient use.

The purpose of this analysis was to study current available options and product factors that may influence consumer preference when choosing a TS based on the reviewer characteristics.

Methods

The keyword sunscreen was searched in the broader category of skin care products on an online supplier of sunscreens (www.sephora.com). This supplier was chosen because, unlike other sources, specific reviewer characteristics regarding underlying skin tone also were available. The search produced 161 results. For the purpose of this analysis, only facial TSs containing IO and/or PTD were included. Each sunscreen was checked by the authors, and 58 sunscreens that met the inclusion criteria were identified and further reviewed. Descriptive data, including formulation, sun protection factor (SPF), ingredient type (chemical or physical), pigments used, shades available, additional benefits, price range, rating, and user reviews, were gathered. The authors extracted these data from the product information on the website, manufacturer claims, ratings, and reviewer comments on each of the listed sunscreens.

For each product, the content of the top 10 most helpful positive and negative reviews as voted by consumers (1160 total reviews, consisting of 1 or more comments) was analyzed. Two authors (H.D.L.G. and P.V.) coded consumer-reported comments for positive and negative descriptors into the categories of cosmetic elegance, performance, skin compatibility and tolerance, tone compatibility, and affordability. Cosmetic elegance was defined as any feature associated with skin sensation (eg, greasy), color (eg, white cast), scent, ability to blend, and overall appearance of the product on the skin. Product performance included SPF, effectiveness in preventing sunburn, coverage, and finish claims (ie, matte, glow, invisible). Skin compatibility and tolerance were represented in the reviewers’ comments and reflected how the product performed in association with underlying dermatologic conditions, skin type, and if there were any side effects such as irritation or allergic reactions. Tone compatibility referred to TS color similarity with users’ skin and shades available for individual products. Affordability reflected consumers’ perceptions of the product price. Comments may be included in multiple categories (eg, a product was noted to blend well on the skin but did not provide enough coverage). Of entries, 10% (116/1160 reviews) were coded by first author (H.D.L.G.) to ensure internal validity. Reviewer characteristics were consistently available and were used to determine the top 5 recommended products for light-, medium-, and dark-skinned individuals based on the number of 5-star ratings in each group. Porcelain, fair, and light were considered light skin tones. Medium, tan, and olive were considered medium skin tones. Deep, dark, and ebony were considered dark skin tones.

Results

Sunscreen Characteristics—Among the 161 screened products, 58 met the inclusion criteria. Four types of formulations were included: lotion, cream, liquid, and powder. Twenty-nine (50%) were creams, followed by lotions (19%), liquids (28%), and powders (3%). More than 79% (46/58) of products had a reported SPF of 30 or higher. Sunscreens with an active physical ingredient—the minerals TD and/or zinc oxide (ZO)—were most common (33/58 [57%]), followed by the chemical sunscreens avobenzone, octinoxate, oxybenzone, homosalate, octisalate, and/or octocrylene active ingredients (14/58 [24%]), and a combination of chemical and physical sunscreens (11/58 [19%]). Nearly all products (55/58 [95%]) contained pigmentary IO (red, CI 77491; yellow, CI 77492; black, CI 77499). Notably, only 38% (22/58) of products had more than 1 shade. All products had additional claims associated with being hydrating, having antiaging effects, smoothing texture, minimizing the appearance of pores, softening lines, and/or promoting even skin tone. Traditional physical sunscreens (those containing TD and/or ZO) were more expensive than chemical sunscreens, with a median price of $30. The median review rating was 4.5 of 5 stars, with a median of 2300 customer reviews per product. Findings are summarized in Table 1.

Positive Features of Sunscreens—Based on an analysis of total reviews (N=1160), cosmetic elegance was the most cited positive feature associated with TS products (31%), followed by product performance (10%). Skin compatibility and tolerance (7%), tone compatibility (7%), and affordability (7%) were cited less commonly as positive features. When negative features were cited, consumers mostly noted tone incompatibility (16%) and cosmetic elegance concerns (14%). Product performance (13%) was comparatively cited as a negative feature (Table 1). Exemplary positive comments categorized in cosmetic elegance included the subthemes of rubs in well and natural glow. Exemplary negative comments in cosmetic elegance and tone compatibility categories included the subthemes patchy/dry finish and color mismatch. Table 1 illustrates these findings.

Product Recommendations—The top 5 recommendations of the best TS for each skin tone are listed in Table 2. The mean price of the recommended products was $42 for 1 to 1.9 oz. Laura Mercier Tinted Moisturizer Oil Free Natural Skin Perfector broad spectrum SPF 20 (Laura Mercier) was the top product for all 3 groups. Similarly, of 58 products available, the same 5 products—Laura Mercier Tinted Moisturizer Oil Free Natural Skin Perfector broad spectrum SPF 20, IT Cosmetics CC+ Cream with SPF 50 (IT Cosmetics, LLC), Tarte Amazonian Clay BB Tinted Moisturizer Broad Spectrum SPF 20 (Tarte Cosmetics), NARS Pure Radiant Tinted Moisturizer Broad Spectrum SPF 30 (NARS Cosmetics), and Laura Mercier Tinted Moisturizer Natural Skin Perfector broad spectrum SPF 30—were considered the best among consumers of all skin tones, with the addition of 2 different products (bareMinerals Original Liquid Mineral Foundation Broad Spectrum SPF 20 [bareMinerals] and ILIA Super Serum Skin Tint SPF 40 Foundation [ILIA Beauty]) in the dark skin group. Notably, these products were the only ones on Sephora’s website that offered up to 30 (22 on average) different shades.

Comment

Tone Compatibility—Tinted sunscreens were created to extend the range of photoprotection into the VL spectrum. The goal of TSs is to incorporate pigments that blend in with the natural skin tone, produce a glow, and have an aesthetically pleasing appearance. To accommodate a variety of skin colors, different shades can be obtained by mixing different amounts of yellow, red, and black IO with or without PTD. The pigments and reflective compounds provide color, opacity, and a natural coverage. Our qualitative analysis provides information on the lack of diversity among shades available for TS, especially for darker skin tones. Of the 58 products evaluated, 62% (32/58) only had 1 shade. In our cohort, tone compatibility was the most commonly cited negative feature. Of note, 89% of these comments were from consumers with dark skin tones, and there was a disproportional number of reviews by darker-skinned individuals compared to users with light and medium skin tones. This is of particular importance, as TSs have been shown to protect against dermatoses that disproportionally affect individuals with skin of color. When comparing sunscreen formulations containing IO with regular mineral sunscreens, Dumbuya et al³ found that IO-containing formulations significantly protected against VL-induced pigmentation compared with untreated skin or mineral sunscreen with SPF 50 or higher in individuals with Fitzpatrick skin type IV (P<.001). Similarly, Bernstein et al⁸ found that exposing patients with Fitzpatrick skin types III and IV to blue-violet light resulted in marked hyperpigmentation that lasted up to 3 months. Visible light elicits immediate and persistent pigment darkening in individuals with Fitzpatrick skin phototype III and above via the photo-oxidation of pre-existing melanin and de novo melanogenesis.⁹ Tinted sunscreens formulated with IO have been shown to aid in the treatment of melasma and prevent hyperpigmentation in individuals with Fitzpatrick skin types IV to VI.¹⁰ Patients with darker skin tones with dermatoses aggravated or induced by VL, such as melasma and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, may seek photoprotection provided by TS but find the lack of matching shades unappealing. The dearth of shade diversity that matches all skin tones can lead to inequities and disproportionally affect those with darker skin.

Performance—Tinted sunscreen formulations containing IO have been proven effective in protecting against high-energy VL, especially when combined synergistically with ZO.¹¹ Kaye et al¹² found that TSs containing IO and the inorganic filters TD or ZO reduced transmittance of VL more effectively than nontinted sunscreens containing TD or ZO alone or products containing organic filters. The decreased VL transmittance in the former is due to synergistic effects of the VL-scattering properties of the TD and the VL absorption properties of the IO. Similarly, Sayre et al¹³ demonstrated that IO was superior to TD and ZO in attenuating the transmission of VL. Bernstein et al¹⁴ found that darker shades containing higher percentages of IO increased the attenuation of VL to 98% compared with lighter shades attenuating 93%. This correlates with the results of prior studies highlighting the potential of TSs in protecting individuals with skin of color.³ In our cohort, comments regarding product performance and protection were mostly positive, claiming that consistent use reduced hyperpigmentation on the skin surface, giving the appearance of a more even skin tone.

Tolerability—Iron oxides are minerals known to be safe, gentle, and nontoxic on the surface of the skin.¹⁵ Two case reports of contact dermatitis due to IO have been reported.^16,17 Within our cohort, only a few of the comments (6%) described negative product tolerance or compatibility with their skin type. However, it is more likely that these incompatibilities were due to other ingredients in the product or the individuals’ underlying dermatologic conditions.

Cosmetic Elegance—Most of the sunscreens available on the market today contain micronized forms of TD and ZO particles because they have better cosmetic acceptability.¹⁸ However, their reduced size compromises the protection provided against VL whereby the addition of IO is of vital importance. According to the RealSelf Sun Safety Report, only 11% of Americans wear sunscreen daily, and 46% never wear sunscreen.¹⁹ The most common reasons consumers reported for not wearing sunscreen included not liking how it looks on the skin, forgetting to apply it, and/or believing that application is inconvenient and time-consuming. Currently, TSs have been incorporated into daily-life products such as makeup, moisturizers, and serums, making application for users easy and convenient, decreasing the necessity of using multiple products, and offering the opportunity to choose from different presentations to make decisions for convenience and/or diverse occasions. Products containing IO blend in with the natural skin tone and have an aesthetically pleasing cosmetic appearance. In our cohort, comments regarding cosmetic elegance were highly valued and were present in multiple reviews (45%), with 69% being positive.

Affordability—In our cohort, product price was not predominantly mentioned in consumers’ reviews. However, negative comments regarding affordability were slightly higher than the positive (56% vs 44%). Notably, the mean price of our top recommendations was $42. Higher price was associated with products with a wider range of shades available. Prior studies have found similar results demonstrating that websites with recommendations on sunscreens for patients with skin of color compared with sunscreens for white or fair skin were more likely to recommend more expensive products (median, $14/oz vs $11.3/oz) despite the lower SPF level.²⁰ According to Schneider,²¹ daily use of the cheapest sunscreen on the head/neck region recommended for white/pale skin ($2/oz) would lead to an annual cost of $61 compared to $182 for darker skin ($6/oz). This showcases the considerable variation in sunscreen prices for both populations that could potentiate disparities and vulnerability in the latter group.

Conclusion

Tinted sunscreens provide both functional and cosmetic benefits and are a safe, effective, and convenient way to protect against high-energy VL. This study suggests that patients with skin of color encounter difficulties in finding matching shades in TS products. These difficulties may stem from the lack of knowledge regarding dark complexions and undertones and the lack of representation of black and brown skin that has persisted in dermatology research journals and textbooks for decades.²² Our study provides important insights to help dermatologists improve their familiarity with the brands and characteristics of TSs geared to patients with all skin tones, including skin of color. Limitations include single-retailer information and inclusion of both highly and poorly rated comments with subjective data, limiting generalizability. The limited selection of shades for darker skin poses a roadblock to proper treatment and prevention. These data represent an area for improvement within the beauty industry and the dermatologic field to deliver culturally sensitive care by being knowledgeable about darker skin tones and TS formulations tailored to people with skin of color.

Sunscreen formulations typically protect from UV radiation (290–400 nm), as this is a well-established cause of photodamage, photoaging, and skin cancer.¹ However, sunlight also consists of visible (400–700 nm) and infrared (>700 nm) radiation.² In fact, UV radiation only comprises 5% to 7% of the solar radiation that reaches the surface of the earth, while visible and infrared lights comprise 44% and 53%, respectively.³ Visible light (VL) is the only portion of the solar spectrum visible to the human eye; it penetrates the skin to a depth range of 90 to 750 µm compared to 1.5 to 90 µm for UV radiation.⁴ Visible light also may come from artificial sources such as light bulbs and digital screens. The rapidly increasing use of smartphones, tablets, laptops, and other digital screens that emit high levels of short-wavelength VL has increased concerns about the safety of these devices. Although blue light exposure from screens is small compared with the amount of exposure from the sun, there is concern about the long-term effects of excessive screen time. Recent studies have demonstrated that exposure to light emitted from electronic devices, even for as little as 1 hour, may cause reactive oxygen species generation, apoptosis, collagen degradation, and necrosis of skin cells.⁵ Visible light increases tyrosinase activity and induces immediate erythema in light-skinned individuals and long-lasting pigmentation in dark-skinned individuals.^4,6

Sunscreens consist of chemical and mineral active ingredients that contain UV filters designed to absorb, scatter, and reflect UV photons with wavelengths up to 380 nm. Historically, traditional options do not protect against the effects induced by VL, as these sunscreens use nanosized particles that help to reduce the white appearance and result in transparency of the product.⁷ To block VL, the topical agent must be visible. Tinted sunscreens (TSs) are products that combine UV and VL filters. They give a colored base coverage that is achieved by incorporating a blend of black, red, and yellow iron oxides (IOs) and/or pigmentary titanium dioxide (PTD)(ie, titanium dioxide [TD] that is not nanosized). Because TSs offer an instant glow and protect the skin from both sun and artificial light, they have become increasingly popular and have been incorporated into makeup and skin care products to facilitate daily convenient use.

The purpose of this analysis was to study current available options and product factors that may influence consumer preference when choosing a TS based on the reviewer characteristics.

Methods

The keyword sunscreen was searched in the broader category of skin care products on an online supplier of sunscreens (www.sephora.com). This supplier was chosen because, unlike other sources, specific reviewer characteristics regarding underlying skin tone also were available. The search produced 161 results. For the purpose of this analysis, only facial TSs containing IO and/or PTD were included. Each sunscreen was checked by the authors, and 58 sunscreens that met the inclusion criteria were identified and further reviewed. Descriptive data, including formulation, sun protection factor (SPF), ingredient type (chemical or physical), pigments used, shades available, additional benefits, price range, rating, and user reviews, were gathered. The authors extracted these data from the product information on the website, manufacturer claims, ratings, and reviewer comments on each of the listed sunscreens.

For each product, the content of the top 10 most helpful positive and negative reviews as voted by consumers (1160 total reviews, consisting of 1 or more comments) was analyzed. Two authors (H.D.L.G. and P.V.) coded consumer-reported comments for positive and negative descriptors into the categories of cosmetic elegance, performance, skin compatibility and tolerance, tone compatibility, and affordability. Cosmetic elegance was defined as any feature associated with skin sensation (eg, greasy), color (eg, white cast), scent, ability to blend, and overall appearance of the product on the skin. Product performance included SPF, effectiveness in preventing sunburn, coverage, and finish claims (ie, matte, glow, invisible). Skin compatibility and tolerance were represented in the reviewers’ comments and reflected how the product performed in association with underlying dermatologic conditions, skin type, and if there were any side effects such as irritation or allergic reactions. Tone compatibility referred to TS color similarity with users’ skin and shades available for individual products. Affordability reflected consumers’ perceptions of the product price. Comments may be included in multiple categories (eg, a product was noted to blend well on the skin but did not provide enough coverage). Of entries, 10% (116/1160 reviews) were coded by first author (H.D.L.G.) to ensure internal validity. Reviewer characteristics were consistently available and were used to determine the top 5 recommended products for light-, medium-, and dark-skinned individuals based on the number of 5-star ratings in each group. Porcelain, fair, and light were considered light skin tones. Medium, tan, and olive were considered medium skin tones. Deep, dark, and ebony were considered dark skin tones.

Results

Sunscreen Characteristics—Among the 161 screened products, 58 met the inclusion criteria. Four types of formulations were included: lotion, cream, liquid, and powder. Twenty-nine (50%) were creams, followed by lotions (19%), liquids (28%), and powders (3%). More than 79% (46/58) of products had a reported SPF of 30 or higher. Sunscreens with an active physical ingredient—the minerals TD and/or zinc oxide (ZO)—were most common (33/58 [57%]), followed by the chemical sunscreens avobenzone, octinoxate, oxybenzone, homosalate, octisalate, and/or octocrylene active ingredients (14/58 [24%]), and a combination of chemical and physical sunscreens (11/58 [19%]). Nearly all products (55/58 [95%]) contained pigmentary IO (red, CI 77491; yellow, CI 77492; black, CI 77499). Notably, only 38% (22/58) of products had more than 1 shade. All products had additional claims associated with being hydrating, having antiaging effects, smoothing texture, minimizing the appearance of pores, softening lines, and/or promoting even skin tone. Traditional physical sunscreens (those containing TD and/or ZO) were more expensive than chemical sunscreens, with a median price of $30. The median review rating was 4.5 of 5 stars, with a median of 2300 customer reviews per product. Findings are summarized in Table 1.

Positive Features of Sunscreens—Based on an analysis of total reviews (N=1160), cosmetic elegance was the most cited positive feature associated with TS products (31%), followed by product performance (10%). Skin compatibility and tolerance (7%), tone compatibility (7%), and affordability (7%) were cited less commonly as positive features. When negative features were cited, consumers mostly noted tone incompatibility (16%) and cosmetic elegance concerns (14%). Product performance (13%) was comparatively cited as a negative feature (Table 1). Exemplary positive comments categorized in cosmetic elegance included the subthemes of rubs in well and natural glow. Exemplary negative comments in cosmetic elegance and tone compatibility categories included the subthemes patchy/dry finish and color mismatch. Table 1 illustrates these findings.

Product Recommendations—The top 5 recommendations of the best TS for each skin tone are listed in Table 2. The mean price of the recommended products was $42 for 1 to 1.9 oz. Laura Mercier Tinted Moisturizer Oil Free Natural Skin Perfector broad spectrum SPF 20 (Laura Mercier) was the top product for all 3 groups. Similarly, of 58 products available, the same 5 products—Laura Mercier Tinted Moisturizer Oil Free Natural Skin Perfector broad spectrum SPF 20, IT Cosmetics CC+ Cream with SPF 50 (IT Cosmetics, LLC), Tarte Amazonian Clay BB Tinted Moisturizer Broad Spectrum SPF 20 (Tarte Cosmetics), NARS Pure Radiant Tinted Moisturizer Broad Spectrum SPF 30 (NARS Cosmetics), and Laura Mercier Tinted Moisturizer Natural Skin Perfector broad spectrum SPF 30—were considered the best among consumers of all skin tones, with the addition of 2 different products (bareMinerals Original Liquid Mineral Foundation Broad Spectrum SPF 20 [bareMinerals] and ILIA Super Serum Skin Tint SPF 40 Foundation [ILIA Beauty]) in the dark skin group. Notably, these products were the only ones on Sephora’s website that offered up to 30 (22 on average) different shades.

Comment

Tone Compatibility—Tinted sunscreens were created to extend the range of photoprotection into the VL spectrum. The goal of TSs is to incorporate pigments that blend in with the natural skin tone, produce a glow, and have an aesthetically pleasing appearance. To accommodate a variety of skin colors, different shades can be obtained by mixing different amounts of yellow, red, and black IO with or without PTD. The pigments and reflective compounds provide color, opacity, and a natural coverage. Our qualitative analysis provides information on the lack of diversity among shades available for TS, especially for darker skin tones. Of the 58 products evaluated, 62% (32/58) only had 1 shade. In our cohort, tone compatibility was the most commonly cited negative feature. Of note, 89% of these comments were from consumers with dark skin tones, and there was a disproportional number of reviews by darker-skinned individuals compared to users with light and medium skin tones. This is of particular importance, as TSs have been shown to protect against dermatoses that disproportionally affect individuals with skin of color. When comparing sunscreen formulations containing IO with regular mineral sunscreens, Dumbuya et al³ found that IO-containing formulations significantly protected against VL-induced pigmentation compared with untreated skin or mineral sunscreen with SPF 50 or higher in individuals with Fitzpatrick skin type IV (P<.001). Similarly, Bernstein et al⁸ found that exposing patients with Fitzpatrick skin types III and IV to blue-violet light resulted in marked hyperpigmentation that lasted up to 3 months. Visible light elicits immediate and persistent pigment darkening in individuals with Fitzpatrick skin phototype III and above via the photo-oxidation of pre-existing melanin and de novo melanogenesis.⁹ Tinted sunscreens formulated with IO have been shown to aid in the treatment of melasma and prevent hyperpigmentation in individuals with Fitzpatrick skin types IV to VI.¹⁰ Patients with darker skin tones with dermatoses aggravated or induced by VL, such as melasma and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, may seek photoprotection provided by TS but find the lack of matching shades unappealing. The dearth of shade diversity that matches all skin tones can lead to inequities and disproportionally affect those with darker skin.

Performance—Tinted sunscreen formulations containing IO have been proven effective in protecting against high-energy VL, especially when combined synergistically with ZO.¹¹ Kaye et al¹² found that TSs containing IO and the inorganic filters TD or ZO reduced transmittance of VL more effectively than nontinted sunscreens containing TD or ZO alone or products containing organic filters. The decreased VL transmittance in the former is due to synergistic effects of the VL-scattering properties of the TD and the VL absorption properties of the IO. Similarly, Sayre et al¹³ demonstrated that IO was superior to TD and ZO in attenuating the transmission of VL. Bernstein et al¹⁴ found that darker shades containing higher percentages of IO increased the attenuation of VL to 98% compared with lighter shades attenuating 93%. This correlates with the results of prior studies highlighting the potential of TSs in protecting individuals with skin of color.³ In our cohort, comments regarding product performance and protection were mostly positive, claiming that consistent use reduced hyperpigmentation on the skin surface, giving the appearance of a more even skin tone.

Tolerability—Iron oxides are minerals known to be safe, gentle, and nontoxic on the surface of the skin.¹⁵ Two case reports of contact dermatitis due to IO have been reported.^16,17 Within our cohort, only a few of the comments (6%) described negative product tolerance or compatibility with their skin type. However, it is more likely that these incompatibilities were due to other ingredients in the product or the individuals’ underlying dermatologic conditions.

Cosmetic Elegance—Most of the sunscreens available on the market today contain micronized forms of TD and ZO particles because they have better cosmetic acceptability.¹⁸ However, their reduced size compromises the protection provided against VL whereby the addition of IO is of vital importance. According to the RealSelf Sun Safety Report, only 11% of Americans wear sunscreen daily, and 46% never wear sunscreen.¹⁹ The most common reasons consumers reported for not wearing sunscreen included not liking how it looks on the skin, forgetting to apply it, and/or believing that application is inconvenient and time-consuming. Currently, TSs have been incorporated into daily-life products such as makeup, moisturizers, and serums, making application for users easy and convenient, decreasing the necessity of using multiple products, and offering the opportunity to choose from different presentations to make decisions for convenience and/or diverse occasions. Products containing IO blend in with the natural skin tone and have an aesthetically pleasing cosmetic appearance. In our cohort, comments regarding cosmetic elegance were highly valued and were present in multiple reviews (45%), with 69% being positive.

Affordability—In our cohort, product price was not predominantly mentioned in consumers’ reviews. However, negative comments regarding affordability were slightly higher than the positive (56% vs 44%). Notably, the mean price of our top recommendations was $42. Higher price was associated with products with a wider range of shades available. Prior studies have found similar results demonstrating that websites with recommendations on sunscreens for patients with skin of color compared with sunscreens for white or fair skin were more likely to recommend more expensive products (median, $14/oz vs $11.3/oz) despite the lower SPF level.²⁰ According to Schneider,²¹ daily use of the cheapest sunscreen on the head/neck region recommended for white/pale skin ($2/oz) would lead to an annual cost of $61 compared to $182 for darker skin ($6/oz). This showcases the considerable variation in sunscreen prices for both populations that could potentiate disparities and vulnerability in the latter group.

Conclusion

Tinted sunscreens provide both functional and cosmetic benefits and are a safe, effective, and convenient way to protect against high-energy VL. This study suggests that patients with skin of color encounter difficulties in finding matching shades in TS products. These difficulties may stem from the lack of knowledge regarding dark complexions and undertones and the lack of representation of black and brown skin that has persisted in dermatology research journals and textbooks for decades.²² Our study provides important insights to help dermatologists improve their familiarity with the brands and characteristics of TSs geared to patients with all skin tones, including skin of color. Limitations include single-retailer information and inclusion of both highly and poorly rated comments with subjective data, limiting generalizability. The limited selection of shades for darker skin poses a roadblock to proper treatment and prevention. These data represent an area for improvement within the beauty industry and the dermatologic field to deliver culturally sensitive care by being knowledgeable about darker skin tones and TS formulations tailored to people with skin of color.

Amid increasing numbers of applications, decreasing match rates, and ongoing lack of diversity in the dermatology trainee workforce, the COVID-19 pandemic introduced additional challenges to the dermatology residency application process and laid bare systemic inequities and inherent problems that must be addressed. Historically, dermatology applicants have excelled in academic metrics, such as US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores and nomination to the Alpha Omega Alpha honor society. As biases associated with these academic metrics are being elucidated, they have in turn become less available. With the upcoming change in USMLE Step 1 reporting to pass/fail only, as well as the elimination of Alpha Omega Alpha nomination for students, clinical grades, and/or class ranks at many medical schools, other elements of the application, such as volunteer experiences and research publications, may be weighed more heavily in the selection process. This may serve to exacerbate the application arms race, characterized by a steady rise in volunteer experiences, research publications, and research gap years that has already begun and likely will continue, particularly among dermatology applicants.

These issues are not unique to dermatology and are occurring across all medical specialties to varying degrees. The monetary and opportunity costs of the application process have become astronomical for both applicants and faculty. Faculty are overburdened with administrative duties related to resident recruitment and advising, and students are experiencing heightened match-related anxiety earlier and more acutely. These factors may contribute to burnout among trainees and faculty and may have deleterious effects on medical education. It is clear that transformative work must be pursued to ensure an equitable and sustainable residency application process moving forward. In this column, we review the notable work being done within dermatology and across specialties to reform the residency application process.

Coalition Recommendations

In August 2021, the Coalition for Physician Accountability (CoPA) released recommendations for comprehensive improvement of the undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education transition, which includes residency application. Of the 9 principal themes addressed, 2 focus on the residency application process: (1) equitable mission-driven application review, and (2) optimization of the application, interview, and selection processes, which relates to application volume as well as interview offers and formats.¹

In the area of application review, CoPA recommends replacing all letters of recommendation with structured evaluative letters as a universal tool in the application process.¹ These letters would include specialty-specific questions based on core competencies and would be completed by an evaluator who directly observed the student. Additionally, the group recommends revising the content and structure of the medical student performance evaluation to improve access to longitudinal assessment data about students. Ideally, developing UME competency outcomes to apply across learners would decrease reliance on traditional but potentially problematic application elements, such as licensing examination scores, clinical grades, and narrative evaluations.¹

To optimize residency application processes, CoPA recommends exploring innovative approaches to reduce application volume and maximize applicants interviewing and matching at programs where mutual interest is high.¹ Suggestions to address these issues include preference signaling, application caps, and/or additional rounds of application or matching. Standardization of the interview process also is recommended to improve equity, minimize educational disruption, and improve applicant well-being. Suggestions include the use of common interview offer and scheduling platforms, policies to govern interview offers and scheduling timelines, interview caps, and ongoing study of the impact of virtual interviews.¹

Residency Application Innovations Implemented by Other Specialties

A number of specialties have developed innovations in the residency application process to improve equity and fairness as well as optimize applicant-program fit. Emergency medicine created a now widely adopted, specialty-specific standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE).² It compares applicants across a number of measures that include personal qualities, clinical skills, and a global assessment. The SLOE is designed to assess and compare applicants across institutions rather than provide recommendations. The emergency medicine SLOE also provides useful information about the letter writer, including duration and depth of interaction with the applicant and distribution of rankings of prior applicants.²

In 2019, obstetrics and gynecology launched a standardized application and interview process, which set a specialty-wide application deadline, limited interview invitations to the number of interview positions available, encouraged coordinated release of interview offers, and allowed applicants 72 hours to respond to invitations.³ These measures were implemented to improve fairness, transparency, and applicant well-being, as well as to promote equitable distribution of interviews. Data following this launch suggested that universal offer dates reduced excessive interviewing among competitive applicants.³

Last year, otolaryngology implemented a process known as preference signaling in which applicants were able to signal up to 5 preferred programs at the time of application. A signal allowed applicants to demonstrate interest in specific programs and could be used by programs during their application review process. Most applicants opted to submit signals, and programs received 0 to 71 signals (mean, 22).⁴ Almost all programs received at least 1 signal. The rate of receiving an interview was significantly higher for signaled programs (58%) compared to nonsignaled programs (14%)(P<.001), indicating that preference signaling may be beneficial for both programs and applicants for interview selection.⁴

Residency Application Innovations Implemented by Dermatology

Over the last 2 application cycles, dermatology has implemented several innovations to the residency application process. Initial work included release of guidelines for residency programs to conduct holistic application review,⁵ recommendations for website updates to share program-specific information with prospective trainees,⁶ and informational webinars and statements to update dermatology applicants about changes to the process and to answer application-related questions.^7-9

In 2020, dermatology initiated a coordinated interview invitation release in which interview offers were released on prespecified dates and applicants were given 48 hours prior to scheduling. Approximately 50% of residency programs participated in the first year, yet nearly all programs released on 1 of 2 universal dates in the current cycle. In a recent survey of dermatology applicants, nearly 90% supported coordinated release.¹⁰ Several other specialties also have incorporated universal release dates into their processes.

For the 2021-2022 application cycle, dermatology—along with internal medicine and general surgery—participated in the Association of American Medical Colleges’ pilot supplemental Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) application.¹¹ The pilot was designed as a first step to updating the ERAS content by allowing students to share more information about their extracurricular, research, and clinical activities, as well as geographic and program preferences to optimize applicant-program fit. Preference signaling, similar to the otolaryngology process, was included in the supplemental application, with dermatology applicants choosing up to 3 preferred programs to signal, excluding their home programs and any programs where they completed in-person away rotations. Preliminary data suggest that the vast majority of dermatology programs and applicants participated in the supplemental application.¹² Ongoing analysis of survey data from applicants, advisors, and program directors will help inform future directions. Dermatology has been an integral partner in the development, implementation, and evaluation of this pilot.

Proposed Innovations to the Application Process

Given the challenges of the current application process, there has been a long list of proposed innovations to ameliorate applicant, advisor, and program concerns.¹³ Many of these approaches are intended to respond to increasing costs to programs and applicants as well as the lack of equity in the process. Application caps and an early result acceptance program have both been proposed to address the ever-increasing volume of applications.^14,15 Neither of these proposals has been adopted by a specialty yet, but obstetrics and gynecology stakeholders have shown broad support for an early result acceptance program, signaling a possible future pilot.¹⁶

Interview caps also have been proposed to promote more equitable distribution of interview positions.¹⁷ Ophthalmology implemented this approach in the 2021-2022 application cycle, with applicants limited to a maximum of 18 interviews.¹⁸ Data from this pilot will help determine the effect of interview caps as well as the optimal limit, which will vary by specialty.

Changes to the application content itself could better facilitate holistic review and optimize applicant-program fit. This is the principle driving the pilot supplemental ERAS application, but it also has been addressed in other specialties. Ophthalmology replaced the traditional personal statement with a shorter autobiographical statement as well as 2 short personal essay questions. Plastic surgery designed a common supplemental application, currently in its second iteration, that highlights specialty-specific information from applicants to promote holistic review and eventually reduce application costs.¹⁹

The reforms introduced and proposed by dermatology and other specialties represent initial steps to address the issues inherent to the current residency application process. Providing faculty with better tools to holistically assess applicants during the review process and increasing transparency between programs and applicants should help optimize applicant-program fit and increase diversity in the dermatology workforce. Streamlining the application process to allow students to highlight their unique qualities in a user-friendly format as well as addressing potential inequities in interview distribution and access to the application process hopefully will contribute to better outcomes for both programs and applicants. However, many of these steps are likely to create additional administrative burdens on program faculty and are unlikely to allay student fears about matching.

The underlying issue for many specialties, and particularly for dermatology, is that demand far outstrips supply. With stable numbers of residency positions and an ever-increasing number of applicants, the match rate will continue to decrease, leading to increased anxiety among those interested in pursuing dermatology. Although USMLE Step 1 scores have been shown to have racial bias²⁰ and there are no data correlating scores with clinical performance, the elimination of a scoring system may affect the number of applicants entering dermatology with downstream effects on match rates. Heightened anxiety places increased pressure on students to choose a specialty earlier in their training and impacts the activities they pursue during medical school. Overemphasis on specialty choice and the match process can lead to higher rates of burnout among students and trainees, as students may focus on activities designed to increase their chances of matching at the expense of pursuing activities that could lead to greater engagement and passion in their careers—a key protective factor against burnout.

The goal of the residency application process is to optimize fit between candidates and programs by aligning goals, values, and learning environment. Students and programs working together as honest brokers can lead to transformative change in the process, freeing both parties to highlight their unique qualities and contributions. Programs benefit from optimal fit by being able to hone their particular mission and recruit and retain residents and faculty engaged in that mission. Residents will thrive in programs that support their learning and career goals and will ultimately be better positioned to meaningfully contribute to their chosen field in whatever capacity they choose.

Acknowledgments—The views presented in this column reflect those of the 9 elected members of the Association of Professors of Dermatology Residency Program Directors Section steering committee, all of whom are program directors at their institutions (listed in parentheses): Ammar Ahmed, MD (The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas); Yolanda Helfrich, MD (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan); Jo-Ann M. Latkowksi, MD (New York University, New York); Kiran Motaparthi, MD (University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida); Adena E. Rosenblatt, MD, PhD (The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois); Ilana S. Rosman, MD (Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri); Travis Vandergriff, MD (University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas); Diane Whitaker-Worth, MD (University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut); Scott Worswick, MD (University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California).

Amid increasing numbers of applications, decreasing match rates, and ongoing lack of diversity in the dermatology trainee workforce, the COVID-19 pandemic introduced additional challenges to the dermatology residency application process and laid bare systemic inequities and inherent problems that must be addressed. Historically, dermatology applicants have excelled in academic metrics, such as US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores and nomination to the Alpha Omega Alpha honor society. As biases associated with these academic metrics are being elucidated, they have in turn become less available. With the upcoming change in USMLE Step 1 reporting to pass/fail only, as well as the elimination of Alpha Omega Alpha nomination for students, clinical grades, and/or class ranks at many medical schools, other elements of the application, such as volunteer experiences and research publications, may be weighed more heavily in the selection process. This may serve to exacerbate the application arms race, characterized by a steady rise in volunteer experiences, research publications, and research gap years that has already begun and likely will continue, particularly among dermatology applicants.

These issues are not unique to dermatology and are occurring across all medical specialties to varying degrees. The monetary and opportunity costs of the application process have become astronomical for both applicants and faculty. Faculty are overburdened with administrative duties related to resident recruitment and advising, and students are experiencing heightened match-related anxiety earlier and more acutely. These factors may contribute to burnout among trainees and faculty and may have deleterious effects on medical education. It is clear that transformative work must be pursued to ensure an equitable and sustainable residency application process moving forward. In this column, we review the notable work being done within dermatology and across specialties to reform the residency application process.

Coalition Recommendations

In August 2021, the Coalition for Physician Accountability (CoPA) released recommendations for comprehensive improvement of the undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education transition, which includes residency application. Of the 9 principal themes addressed, 2 focus on the residency application process: (1) equitable mission-driven application review, and (2) optimization of the application, interview, and selection processes, which relates to application volume as well as interview offers and formats.¹

In the area of application review, CoPA recommends replacing all letters of recommendation with structured evaluative letters as a universal tool in the application process.¹ These letters would include specialty-specific questions based on core competencies and would be completed by an evaluator who directly observed the student. Additionally, the group recommends revising the content and structure of the medical student performance evaluation to improve access to longitudinal assessment data about students. Ideally, developing UME competency outcomes to apply across learners would decrease reliance on traditional but potentially problematic application elements, such as licensing examination scores, clinical grades, and narrative evaluations.¹

To optimize residency application processes, CoPA recommends exploring innovative approaches to reduce application volume and maximize applicants interviewing and matching at programs where mutual interest is high.¹ Suggestions to address these issues include preference signaling, application caps, and/or additional rounds of application or matching. Standardization of the interview process also is recommended to improve equity, minimize educational disruption, and improve applicant well-being. Suggestions include the use of common interview offer and scheduling platforms, policies to govern interview offers and scheduling timelines, interview caps, and ongoing study of the impact of virtual interviews.¹

Residency Application Innovations Implemented by Other Specialties

A number of specialties have developed innovations in the residency application process to improve equity and fairness as well as optimize applicant-program fit. Emergency medicine created a now widely adopted, specialty-specific standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE).² It compares applicants across a number of measures that include personal qualities, clinical skills, and a global assessment. The SLOE is designed to assess and compare applicants across institutions rather than provide recommendations. The emergency medicine SLOE also provides useful information about the letter writer, including duration and depth of interaction with the applicant and distribution of rankings of prior applicants.²

In 2019, obstetrics and gynecology launched a standardized application and interview process, which set a specialty-wide application deadline, limited interview invitations to the number of interview positions available, encouraged coordinated release of interview offers, and allowed applicants 72 hours to respond to invitations.³ These measures were implemented to improve fairness, transparency, and applicant well-being, as well as to promote equitable distribution of interviews. Data following this launch suggested that universal offer dates reduced excessive interviewing among competitive applicants.³

Last year, otolaryngology implemented a process known as preference signaling in which applicants were able to signal up to 5 preferred programs at the time of application. A signal allowed applicants to demonstrate interest in specific programs and could be used by programs during their application review process. Most applicants opted to submit signals, and programs received 0 to 71 signals (mean, 22).⁴ Almost all programs received at least 1 signal. The rate of receiving an interview was significantly higher for signaled programs (58%) compared to nonsignaled programs (14%)(P<.001), indicating that preference signaling may be beneficial for both programs and applicants for interview selection.⁴

Residency Application Innovations Implemented by Dermatology

Over the last 2 application cycles, dermatology has implemented several innovations to the residency application process. Initial work included release of guidelines for residency programs to conduct holistic application review,⁵ recommendations for website updates to share program-specific information with prospective trainees,⁶ and informational webinars and statements to update dermatology applicants about changes to the process and to answer application-related questions.^7-9

In 2020, dermatology initiated a coordinated interview invitation release in which interview offers were released on prespecified dates and applicants were given 48 hours prior to scheduling. Approximately 50% of residency programs participated in the first year, yet nearly all programs released on 1 of 2 universal dates in the current cycle. In a recent survey of dermatology applicants, nearly 90% supported coordinated release.¹⁰ Several other specialties also have incorporated universal release dates into their processes.

For the 2021-2022 application cycle, dermatology—along with internal medicine and general surgery—participated in the Association of American Medical Colleges’ pilot supplemental Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) application.¹¹ The pilot was designed as a first step to updating the ERAS content by allowing students to share more information about their extracurricular, research, and clinical activities, as well as geographic and program preferences to optimize applicant-program fit. Preference signaling, similar to the otolaryngology process, was included in the supplemental application, with dermatology applicants choosing up to 3 preferred programs to signal, excluding their home programs and any programs where they completed in-person away rotations. Preliminary data suggest that the vast majority of dermatology programs and applicants participated in the supplemental application.¹² Ongoing analysis of survey data from applicants, advisors, and program directors will help inform future directions. Dermatology has been an integral partner in the development, implementation, and evaluation of this pilot.

Proposed Innovations to the Application Process

Given the challenges of the current application process, there has been a long list of proposed innovations to ameliorate applicant, advisor, and program concerns.¹³ Many of these approaches are intended to respond to increasing costs to programs and applicants as well as the lack of equity in the process. Application caps and an early result acceptance program have both been proposed to address the ever-increasing volume of applications.^14,15 Neither of these proposals has been adopted by a specialty yet, but obstetrics and gynecology stakeholders have shown broad support for an early result acceptance program, signaling a possible future pilot.¹⁶

Interview caps also have been proposed to promote more equitable distribution of interview positions.¹⁷ Ophthalmology implemented this approach in the 2021-2022 application cycle, with applicants limited to a maximum of 18 interviews.¹⁸ Data from this pilot will help determine the effect of interview caps as well as the optimal limit, which will vary by specialty.

Changes to the application content itself could better facilitate holistic review and optimize applicant-program fit. This is the principle driving the pilot supplemental ERAS application, but it also has been addressed in other specialties. Ophthalmology replaced the traditional personal statement with a shorter autobiographical statement as well as 2 short personal essay questions. Plastic surgery designed a common supplemental application, currently in its second iteration, that highlights specialty-specific information from applicants to promote holistic review and eventually reduce application costs.¹⁹

The reforms introduced and proposed by dermatology and other specialties represent initial steps to address the issues inherent to the current residency application process. Providing faculty with better tools to holistically assess applicants during the review process and increasing transparency between programs and applicants should help optimize applicant-program fit and increase diversity in the dermatology workforce. Streamlining the application process to allow students to highlight their unique qualities in a user-friendly format as well as addressing potential inequities in interview distribution and access to the application process hopefully will contribute to better outcomes for both programs and applicants. However, many of these steps are likely to create additional administrative burdens on program faculty and are unlikely to allay student fears about matching.

The underlying issue for many specialties, and particularly for dermatology, is that demand far outstrips supply. With stable numbers of residency positions and an ever-increasing number of applicants, the match rate will continue to decrease, leading to increased anxiety among those interested in pursuing dermatology. Although USMLE Step 1 scores have been shown to have racial bias²⁰ and there are no data correlating scores with clinical performance, the elimination of a scoring system may affect the number of applicants entering dermatology with downstream effects on match rates. Heightened anxiety places increased pressure on students to choose a specialty earlier in their training and impacts the activities they pursue during medical school. Overemphasis on specialty choice and the match process can lead to higher rates of burnout among students and trainees, as students may focus on activities designed to increase their chances of matching at the expense of pursuing activities that could lead to greater engagement and passion in their careers—a key protective factor against burnout.

The goal of the residency application process is to optimize fit between candidates and programs by aligning goals, values, and learning environment. Students and programs working together as honest brokers can lead to transformative change in the process, freeing both parties to highlight their unique qualities and contributions. Programs benefit from optimal fit by being able to hone their particular mission and recruit and retain residents and faculty engaged in that mission. Residents will thrive in programs that support their learning and career goals and will ultimately be better positioned to meaningfully contribute to their chosen field in whatever capacity they choose.

Acknowledgments—The views presented in this column reflect those of the 9 elected members of the Association of Professors of Dermatology Residency Program Directors Section steering committee, all of whom are program directors at their institutions (listed in parentheses): Ammar Ahmed, MD (The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas); Yolanda Helfrich, MD (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan); Jo-Ann M. Latkowksi, MD (New York University, New York); Kiran Motaparthi, MD (University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida); Adena E. Rosenblatt, MD, PhD (The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois); Ilana S. Rosman, MD (Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri); Travis Vandergriff, MD (University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas); Diane Whitaker-Worth, MD (University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut); Scott Worswick, MD (University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California).

Amid increasing numbers of applications, decreasing match rates, and ongoing lack of diversity in the dermatology trainee workforce, the COVID-19 pandemic introduced additional challenges to the dermatology residency application process and laid bare systemic inequities and inherent problems that must be addressed. Historically, dermatology applicants have excelled in academic metrics, such as US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores and nomination to the Alpha Omega Alpha honor society. As biases associated with these academic metrics are being elucidated, they have in turn become less available. With the upcoming change in USMLE Step 1 reporting to pass/fail only, as well as the elimination of Alpha Omega Alpha nomination for students, clinical grades, and/or class ranks at many medical schools, other elements of the application, such as volunteer experiences and research publications, may be weighed more heavily in the selection process. This may serve to exacerbate the application arms race, characterized by a steady rise in volunteer experiences, research publications, and research gap years that has already begun and likely will continue, particularly among dermatology applicants.

These issues are not unique to dermatology and are occurring across all medical specialties to varying degrees. The monetary and opportunity costs of the application process have become astronomical for both applicants and faculty. Faculty are overburdened with administrative duties related to resident recruitment and advising, and students are experiencing heightened match-related anxiety earlier and more acutely. These factors may contribute to burnout among trainees and faculty and may have deleterious effects on medical education. It is clear that transformative work must be pursued to ensure an equitable and sustainable residency application process moving forward. In this column, we review the notable work being done within dermatology and across specialties to reform the residency application process.

Coalition Recommendations

In August 2021, the Coalition for Physician Accountability (CoPA) released recommendations for comprehensive improvement of the undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education transition, which includes residency application. Of the 9 principal themes addressed, 2 focus on the residency application process: (1) equitable mission-driven application review, and (2) optimization of the application, interview, and selection processes, which relates to application volume as well as interview offers and formats.¹

In the area of application review, CoPA recommends replacing all letters of recommendation with structured evaluative letters as a universal tool in the application process.¹ These letters would include specialty-specific questions based on core competencies and would be completed by an evaluator who directly observed the student. Additionally, the group recommends revising the content and structure of the medical student performance evaluation to improve access to longitudinal assessment data about students. Ideally, developing UME competency outcomes to apply across learners would decrease reliance on traditional but potentially problematic application elements, such as licensing examination scores, clinical grades, and narrative evaluations.¹

To optimize residency application processes, CoPA recommends exploring innovative approaches to reduce application volume and maximize applicants interviewing and matching at programs where mutual interest is high.¹ Suggestions to address these issues include preference signaling, application caps, and/or additional rounds of application or matching. Standardization of the interview process also is recommended to improve equity, minimize educational disruption, and improve applicant well-being. Suggestions include the use of common interview offer and scheduling platforms, policies to govern interview offers and scheduling timelines, interview caps, and ongoing study of the impact of virtual interviews.¹

Residency Application Innovations Implemented by Other Specialties

A number of specialties have developed innovations in the residency application process to improve equity and fairness as well as optimize applicant-program fit. Emergency medicine created a now widely adopted, specialty-specific standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE).² It compares applicants across a number of measures that include personal qualities, clinical skills, and a global assessment. The SLOE is designed to assess and compare applicants across institutions rather than provide recommendations. The emergency medicine SLOE also provides useful information about the letter writer, including duration and depth of interaction with the applicant and distribution of rankings of prior applicants.²

In 2019, obstetrics and gynecology launched a standardized application and interview process, which set a specialty-wide application deadline, limited interview invitations to the number of interview positions available, encouraged coordinated release of interview offers, and allowed applicants 72 hours to respond to invitations.³ These measures were implemented to improve fairness, transparency, and applicant well-being, as well as to promote equitable distribution of interviews. Data following this launch suggested that universal offer dates reduced excessive interviewing among competitive applicants.³

Last year, otolaryngology implemented a process known as preference signaling in which applicants were able to signal up to 5 preferred programs at the time of application. A signal allowed applicants to demonstrate interest in specific programs and could be used by programs during their application review process. Most applicants opted to submit signals, and programs received 0 to 71 signals (mean, 22).⁴ Almost all programs received at least 1 signal. The rate of receiving an interview was significantly higher for signaled programs (58%) compared to nonsignaled programs (14%)(P<.001), indicating that preference signaling may be beneficial for both programs and applicants for interview selection.⁴

Residency Application Innovations Implemented by Dermatology

Over the last 2 application cycles, dermatology has implemented several innovations to the residency application process. Initial work included release of guidelines for residency programs to conduct holistic application review,⁵ recommendations for website updates to share program-specific information with prospective trainees,⁶ and informational webinars and statements to update dermatology applicants about changes to the process and to answer application-related questions.^7-9

In 2020, dermatology initiated a coordinated interview invitation release in which interview offers were released on prespecified dates and applicants were given 48 hours prior to scheduling. Approximately 50% of residency programs participated in the first year, yet nearly all programs released on 1 of 2 universal dates in the current cycle. In a recent survey of dermatology applicants, nearly 90% supported coordinated release.¹⁰ Several other specialties also have incorporated universal release dates into their processes.

For the 2021-2022 application cycle, dermatology—along with internal medicine and general surgery—participated in the Association of American Medical Colleges’ pilot supplemental Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) application.¹¹ The pilot was designed as a first step to updating the ERAS content by allowing students to share more information about their extracurricular, research, and clinical activities, as well as geographic and program preferences to optimize applicant-program fit. Preference signaling, similar to the otolaryngology process, was included in the supplemental application, with dermatology applicants choosing up to 3 preferred programs to signal, excluding their home programs and any programs where they completed in-person away rotations. Preliminary data suggest that the vast majority of dermatology programs and applicants participated in the supplemental application.¹² Ongoing analysis of survey data from applicants, advisors, and program directors will help inform future directions. Dermatology has been an integral partner in the development, implementation, and evaluation of this pilot.

Proposed Innovations to the Application Process

Given the challenges of the current application process, there has been a long list of proposed innovations to ameliorate applicant, advisor, and program concerns.¹³ Many of these approaches are intended to respond to increasing costs to programs and applicants as well as the lack of equity in the process. Application caps and an early result acceptance program have both been proposed to address the ever-increasing volume of applications.^14,15 Neither of these proposals has been adopted by a specialty yet, but obstetrics and gynecology stakeholders have shown broad support for an early result acceptance program, signaling a possible future pilot.¹⁶

Interview caps also have been proposed to promote more equitable distribution of interview positions.¹⁷ Ophthalmology implemented this approach in the 2021-2022 application cycle, with applicants limited to a maximum of 18 interviews.¹⁸ Data from this pilot will help determine the effect of interview caps as well as the optimal limit, which will vary by specialty.

Changes to the application content itself could better facilitate holistic review and optimize applicant-program fit. This is the principle driving the pilot supplemental ERAS application, but it also has been addressed in other specialties. Ophthalmology replaced the traditional personal statement with a shorter autobiographical statement as well as 2 short personal essay questions. Plastic surgery designed a common supplemental application, currently in its second iteration, that highlights specialty-specific information from applicants to promote holistic review and eventually reduce application costs.¹⁹

The reforms introduced and proposed by dermatology and other specialties represent initial steps to address the issues inherent to the current residency application process. Providing faculty with better tools to holistically assess applicants during the review process and increasing transparency between programs and applicants should help optimize applicant-program fit and increase diversity in the dermatology workforce. Streamlining the application process to allow students to highlight their unique qualities in a user-friendly format as well as addressing potential inequities in interview distribution and access to the application process hopefully will contribute to better outcomes for both programs and applicants. However, many of these steps are likely to create additional administrative burdens on program faculty and are unlikely to allay student fears about matching.

The underlying issue for many specialties, and particularly for dermatology, is that demand far outstrips supply. With stable numbers of residency positions and an ever-increasing number of applicants, the match rate will continue to decrease, leading to increased anxiety among those interested in pursuing dermatology. Although USMLE Step 1 scores have been shown to have racial bias²⁰ and there are no data correlating scores with clinical performance, the elimination of a scoring system may affect the number of applicants entering dermatology with downstream effects on match rates. Heightened anxiety places increased pressure on students to choose a specialty earlier in their training and impacts the activities they pursue during medical school. Overemphasis on specialty choice and the match process can lead to higher rates of burnout among students and trainees, as students may focus on activities designed to increase their chances of matching at the expense of pursuing activities that could lead to greater engagement and passion in their careers—a key protective factor against burnout.

The goal of the residency application process is to optimize fit between candidates and programs by aligning goals, values, and learning environment. Students and programs working together as honest brokers can lead to transformative change in the process, freeing both parties to highlight their unique qualities and contributions. Programs benefit from optimal fit by being able to hone their particular mission and recruit and retain residents and faculty engaged in that mission. Residents will thrive in programs that support their learning and career goals and will ultimately be better positioned to meaningfully contribute to their chosen field in whatever capacity they choose.

Acknowledgments—The views presented in this column reflect those of the 9 elected members of the Association of Professors of Dermatology Residency Program Directors Section steering committee, all of whom are program directors at their institutions (listed in parentheses): Ammar Ahmed, MD (The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas); Yolanda Helfrich, MD (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan); Jo-Ann M. Latkowksi, MD (New York University, New York); Kiran Motaparthi, MD (University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida); Adena E. Rosenblatt, MD, PhD (The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois); Ilana S. Rosman, MD (Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri); Travis Vandergriff, MD (University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas); Diane Whitaker-Worth, MD (University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut); Scott Worswick, MD (University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California).

There has been a flattening of sleep apnea–related mortality rates in the United States over the past 10 years. The exception is among Black men, for whom mortality from sleep apnea has continuously increased over the past 21 years, new research shows.

“OSA (obstructive sleep apnea) has been recognized as an important cause of medical morbidity and mortality and contributes to the development of systemic hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and abnormalities in glucose metabolism,” noted Yu-Che Lee, MD, University at Buffalo–Catholic Health System, Buffalo, N.Y., and colleagues.

“This study provides the first systematic assessment and demonstrates remarkable demographic disparities of age-adjusted sleep apnea–related mortality in the U.S., with higher rates in males than females and Blacks than Whites,” they concluded.

The study was published online in Sleep Medicine.
 

Twenty-one year interval

Data on sleep apnea–related mortality were obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics and were provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years 1999-2019. Over that 21-year interval, sleep apnea was documented as the underlying cause of death in 17,053 decedents, including 2,593 Black patients and 14,127 White patients.

The age-adjusted mortality rate attributed to sleep apnea was 2.5 per 1,000,000 population. The mortality rate was higher for men, at 3.1 per 1,000,000, than among women, 1.9 per 1,000,000 (P < .001). For both sexes, “unadjusted mortality rates were higher in groups aged ≥ 35 years, and the highest mortality rates were observed in groups aged 75-84,” the authors noted. The rate was 11.3 per 1,000,000 for those aged 75-84 and 13.3 per 1,000,000 for those older than 85.

This was also true among Black and White patients, the authors added, although the age-adjusted mortality rate was higher among Black patients than among other racial groups, at 3.5 per 1,000,000 (P < .001). “Over the 21-year study period, the overall age-adjusted mortality rate rose from 1.2 per 1,000,000 population in 1999 to 2.8 per 1,000,000 in 2019,” Dr. Lee and colleagues noted. While the annual percentage change in sleep apnea–related mortality rose by 10.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.4%-12.0%) between 1999 and 2018, no significant change was observed between 2008 and 2019.

On the other hand, when examined by race and sex, age-adjusted mortality rates increased significantly by an annual percentage change of 7.5% (95% CI, 3.3%-11.9%) among Black women and by 8.2% (95% CI, 6.8%-9.6%) between 1999 and 2009 in White men and by 11.5% (95% CI, 8.9%-14.1%) in White women. “Again, these uptrends were no longer observed after that time interval,” the authors stressed.

Only among Black men was there no turning point in age-adjusted mortality rates; they experienced a steady, significant, 2.7% (95% CI, 1.2%-4.2%) annual percent increase in age-adjusted mortality rate between 1999 and 2019. The highest age-adjusted mortality rate for Black persons was recorded in Indiana, at 6.5 per 1,000,000 population; Utah recorded the highest mortality rate for White persons, at 5.7 per 1,000,000.

For both Black persons and White persons, the lowest mortality rates were in New York, at 1.2 per 1,000,000 and 1.5 per 1,000,000, respectively. Among four geographic regions analyzed, the highest age-adjusted mortality rates were in the Midwest for both sexes; Black men in the West and those in three other regional groups in the Northwest had the lowest mortality rates.
 

Multiple causes of death

Black women were more likely to have multiple causes of death, including cardiac arrest, heart failure, and hypertension. White women were more likely to die of arrhythmia, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and depression. Black men were also more likely to die of cardiac arrest, hypertension, and obesity; arrhythmias, ischemic heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were more common in White men.

The authors pointed out that continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the mainstay of therapy for adults with OSA, but many studies have demonstrated decreased CPAP adherence among Black persons. For example, one report indicated that Black persons use CPAP on average 92 minutes less a day after 1 month of therapy than do White persons, for reasons that are not well understood. Asked by this news organization why Black men are so adversely affected by sleep apnea, Dr. Lee pointed out that studies have shown that sleep apnea is more severe in Black men when first diagnosed.

“We know that the severity of sleep apnea is a risk factor for mortality and cardiovascular outcomes,” he said, “so maybe delayed diagnosis, delayed treatment, and noncompliance with CPAP among Black men may help explain why mortality from sleep apnea among Black men has continued to increase.” Why nonadherence to CPAP is higher among Black men is also not clear. Even when access to CPAP is equal for Black patients and White patients, studies have found that rates of noncompliance to CPAP are higher among Black persons than among White patients.

“This is again a hypothesis,” Dr. Lee emphasized, “but perhaps health literacy among Blacks is lower than it is among White patients, and they may not realize that CPAP can improve health outcomes from sleep apnea,” he suggested. The use of CPAP requires a high level of self-advocacy, which might explain part of their noncompliance.

Other health behaviors and environmental factors may contribute to the tendency among Black patients to be noncompliant with CPAP. “I think this is the first study to show that there is a significant racial disparity in mortality from sleep apnea among Black males, and it should give physicians some insight into the problem; they can develop strategies or interventions to try and reduce racial disparities in outcomes from sleep apnea,” Dr. Lee said.

“So, this study is only the beginning, and we need to have more insight and strategies to improve outcomes among Black males,” he affirmed.

Asked to comment on the findings, Diego Mazzotti, PhD, said the study helps bring attention to existing health disparities related to sleep disorders. “Some of the trends observed by the authors seem to explain the increased recognition that sleep apnea may be a risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” said Dr. Mazzotti, assistant professor in the division of medical informatics at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City.

“Trends in certain minority groups and certain regions in the U.S. suggest that physicians need to recognize the impact of untreated sleep apnea on the cardiovascular health of these patients,” he said.

Dr. Lee and Dr. Mazzotti have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There has been a flattening of sleep apnea–related mortality rates in the United States over the past 10 years. The exception is among Black men, for whom mortality from sleep apnea has continuously increased over the past 21 years, new research shows.

“OSA (obstructive sleep apnea) has been recognized as an important cause of medical morbidity and mortality and contributes to the development of systemic hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and abnormalities in glucose metabolism,” noted Yu-Che Lee, MD, University at Buffalo–Catholic Health System, Buffalo, N.Y., and colleagues.

“This study provides the first systematic assessment and demonstrates remarkable demographic disparities of age-adjusted sleep apnea–related mortality in the U.S., with higher rates in males than females and Blacks than Whites,” they concluded.

The study was published online in Sleep Medicine.
 

Twenty-one year interval

Data on sleep apnea–related mortality were obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics and were provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years 1999-2019. Over that 21-year interval, sleep apnea was documented as the underlying cause of death in 17,053 decedents, including 2,593 Black patients and 14,127 White patients.

The age-adjusted mortality rate attributed to sleep apnea was 2.5 per 1,000,000 population. The mortality rate was higher for men, at 3.1 per 1,000,000, than among women, 1.9 per 1,000,000 (P < .001). For both sexes, “unadjusted mortality rates were higher in groups aged ≥ 35 years, and the highest mortality rates were observed in groups aged 75-84,” the authors noted. The rate was 11.3 per 1,000,000 for those aged 75-84 and 13.3 per 1,000,000 for those older than 85.

This was also true among Black and White patients, the authors added, although the age-adjusted mortality rate was higher among Black patients than among other racial groups, at 3.5 per 1,000,000 (P < .001). “Over the 21-year study period, the overall age-adjusted mortality rate rose from 1.2 per 1,000,000 population in 1999 to 2.8 per 1,000,000 in 2019,” Dr. Lee and colleagues noted. While the annual percentage change in sleep apnea–related mortality rose by 10.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.4%-12.0%) between 1999 and 2018, no significant change was observed between 2008 and 2019.

On the other hand, when examined by race and sex, age-adjusted mortality rates increased significantly by an annual percentage change of 7.5% (95% CI, 3.3%-11.9%) among Black women and by 8.2% (95% CI, 6.8%-9.6%) between 1999 and 2009 in White men and by 11.5% (95% CI, 8.9%-14.1%) in White women. “Again, these uptrends were no longer observed after that time interval,” the authors stressed.

Only among Black men was there no turning point in age-adjusted mortality rates; they experienced a steady, significant, 2.7% (95% CI, 1.2%-4.2%) annual percent increase in age-adjusted mortality rate between 1999 and 2019. The highest age-adjusted mortality rate for Black persons was recorded in Indiana, at 6.5 per 1,000,000 population; Utah recorded the highest mortality rate for White persons, at 5.7 per 1,000,000.

For both Black persons and White persons, the lowest mortality rates were in New York, at 1.2 per 1,000,000 and 1.5 per 1,000,000, respectively. Among four geographic regions analyzed, the highest age-adjusted mortality rates were in the Midwest for both sexes; Black men in the West and those in three other regional groups in the Northwest had the lowest mortality rates.
 

Multiple causes of death

Black women were more likely to have multiple causes of death, including cardiac arrest, heart failure, and hypertension. White women were more likely to die of arrhythmia, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and depression. Black men were also more likely to die of cardiac arrest, hypertension, and obesity; arrhythmias, ischemic heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were more common in White men.

The authors pointed out that continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the mainstay of therapy for adults with OSA, but many studies have demonstrated decreased CPAP adherence among Black persons. For example, one report indicated that Black persons use CPAP on average 92 minutes less a day after 1 month of therapy than do White persons, for reasons that are not well understood. Asked by this news organization why Black men are so adversely affected by sleep apnea, Dr. Lee pointed out that studies have shown that sleep apnea is more severe in Black men when first diagnosed.

“We know that the severity of sleep apnea is a risk factor for mortality and cardiovascular outcomes,” he said, “so maybe delayed diagnosis, delayed treatment, and noncompliance with CPAP among Black men may help explain why mortality from sleep apnea among Black men has continued to increase.” Why nonadherence to CPAP is higher among Black men is also not clear. Even when access to CPAP is equal for Black patients and White patients, studies have found that rates of noncompliance to CPAP are higher among Black persons than among White patients.

“This is again a hypothesis,” Dr. Lee emphasized, “but perhaps health literacy among Blacks is lower than it is among White patients, and they may not realize that CPAP can improve health outcomes from sleep apnea,” he suggested. The use of CPAP requires a high level of self-advocacy, which might explain part of their noncompliance.

Other health behaviors and environmental factors may contribute to the tendency among Black patients to be noncompliant with CPAP. “I think this is the first study to show that there is a significant racial disparity in mortality from sleep apnea among Black males, and it should give physicians some insight into the problem; they can develop strategies or interventions to try and reduce racial disparities in outcomes from sleep apnea,” Dr. Lee said.

“So, this study is only the beginning, and we need to have more insight and strategies to improve outcomes among Black males,” he affirmed.

Asked to comment on the findings, Diego Mazzotti, PhD, said the study helps bring attention to existing health disparities related to sleep disorders. “Some of the trends observed by the authors seem to explain the increased recognition that sleep apnea may be a risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” said Dr. Mazzotti, assistant professor in the division of medical informatics at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City.

“Trends in certain minority groups and certain regions in the U.S. suggest that physicians need to recognize the impact of untreated sleep apnea on the cardiovascular health of these patients,” he said.

Dr. Lee and Dr. Mazzotti have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There has been a flattening of sleep apnea–related mortality rates in the United States over the past 10 years. The exception is among Black men, for whom mortality from sleep apnea has continuously increased over the past 21 years, new research shows.

“OSA (obstructive sleep apnea) has been recognized as an important cause of medical morbidity and mortality and contributes to the development of systemic hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and abnormalities in glucose metabolism,” noted Yu-Che Lee, MD, University at Buffalo–Catholic Health System, Buffalo, N.Y., and colleagues.

“This study provides the first systematic assessment and demonstrates remarkable demographic disparities of age-adjusted sleep apnea–related mortality in the U.S., with higher rates in males than females and Blacks than Whites,” they concluded.

The study was published online in Sleep Medicine.
 

Twenty-one year interval

Data on sleep apnea–related mortality were obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics and were provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years 1999-2019. Over that 21-year interval, sleep apnea was documented as the underlying cause of death in 17,053 decedents, including 2,593 Black patients and 14,127 White patients.

The age-adjusted mortality rate attributed to sleep apnea was 2.5 per 1,000,000 population. The mortality rate was higher for men, at 3.1 per 1,000,000, than among women, 1.9 per 1,000,000 (P < .001). For both sexes, “unadjusted mortality rates were higher in groups aged ≥ 35 years, and the highest mortality rates were observed in groups aged 75-84,” the authors noted. The rate was 11.3 per 1,000,000 for those aged 75-84 and 13.3 per 1,000,000 for those older than 85.

This was also true among Black and White patients, the authors added, although the age-adjusted mortality rate was higher among Black patients than among other racial groups, at 3.5 per 1,000,000 (P < .001). “Over the 21-year study period, the overall age-adjusted mortality rate rose from 1.2 per 1,000,000 population in 1999 to 2.8 per 1,000,000 in 2019,” Dr. Lee and colleagues noted. While the annual percentage change in sleep apnea–related mortality rose by 10.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.4%-12.0%) between 1999 and 2018, no significant change was observed between 2008 and 2019.

On the other hand, when examined by race and sex, age-adjusted mortality rates increased significantly by an annual percentage change of 7.5% (95% CI, 3.3%-11.9%) among Black women and by 8.2% (95% CI, 6.8%-9.6%) between 1999 and 2009 in White men and by 11.5% (95% CI, 8.9%-14.1%) in White women. “Again, these uptrends were no longer observed after that time interval,” the authors stressed.

Only among Black men was there no turning point in age-adjusted mortality rates; they experienced a steady, significant, 2.7% (95% CI, 1.2%-4.2%) annual percent increase in age-adjusted mortality rate between 1999 and 2019. The highest age-adjusted mortality rate for Black persons was recorded in Indiana, at 6.5 per 1,000,000 population; Utah recorded the highest mortality rate for White persons, at 5.7 per 1,000,000.

For both Black persons and White persons, the lowest mortality rates were in New York, at 1.2 per 1,000,000 and 1.5 per 1,000,000, respectively. Among four geographic regions analyzed, the highest age-adjusted mortality rates were in the Midwest for both sexes; Black men in the West and those in three other regional groups in the Northwest had the lowest mortality rates.
 

Multiple causes of death

Black women were more likely to have multiple causes of death, including cardiac arrest, heart failure, and hypertension. White women were more likely to die of arrhythmia, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and depression. Black men were also more likely to die of cardiac arrest, hypertension, and obesity; arrhythmias, ischemic heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were more common in White men.

The authors pointed out that continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the mainstay of therapy for adults with OSA, but many studies have demonstrated decreased CPAP adherence among Black persons. For example, one report indicated that Black persons use CPAP on average 92 minutes less a day after 1 month of therapy than do White persons, for reasons that are not well understood. Asked by this news organization why Black men are so adversely affected by sleep apnea, Dr. Lee pointed out that studies have shown that sleep apnea is more severe in Black men when first diagnosed.

“We know that the severity of sleep apnea is a risk factor for mortality and cardiovascular outcomes,” he said, “so maybe delayed diagnosis, delayed treatment, and noncompliance with CPAP among Black men may help explain why mortality from sleep apnea among Black men has continued to increase.” Why nonadherence to CPAP is higher among Black men is also not clear. Even when access to CPAP is equal for Black patients and White patients, studies have found that rates of noncompliance to CPAP are higher among Black persons than among White patients.

“This is again a hypothesis,” Dr. Lee emphasized, “but perhaps health literacy among Blacks is lower than it is among White patients, and they may not realize that CPAP can improve health outcomes from sleep apnea,” he suggested. The use of CPAP requires a high level of self-advocacy, which might explain part of their noncompliance.

Other health behaviors and environmental factors may contribute to the tendency among Black patients to be noncompliant with CPAP. “I think this is the first study to show that there is a significant racial disparity in mortality from sleep apnea among Black males, and it should give physicians some insight into the problem; they can develop strategies or interventions to try and reduce racial disparities in outcomes from sleep apnea,” Dr. Lee said.

“So, this study is only the beginning, and we need to have more insight and strategies to improve outcomes among Black males,” he affirmed.

Asked to comment on the findings, Diego Mazzotti, PhD, said the study helps bring attention to existing health disparities related to sleep disorders. “Some of the trends observed by the authors seem to explain the increased recognition that sleep apnea may be a risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” said Dr. Mazzotti, assistant professor in the division of medical informatics at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City.

“Trends in certain minority groups and certain regions in the U.S. suggest that physicians need to recognize the impact of untreated sleep apnea on the cardiovascular health of these patients,” he said.

Dr. Lee and Dr. Mazzotti have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Isotretinoin is one of the most highly regulated dermatologic medications on the market. The main reason for regulation through the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–managed iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) is to minimize the drug’s teratogenic potential, as isotretinoin can cause profound birth defects. The program originally categorized patients into 1 of 3 categories: (1) females of reproductive potential, (2) females not of reproductive potential, and (3) males. Unless the patient commits to abstinence, the program required female patients of childbearing potential to be on 2 forms of birth control and undergo regular pregnancy testing before obtaining refills. Over the last few years, the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) has been advocating for changes to the iPLEDGE system. Proposed changes have included decreasing attestation frequency for patients who cannot get pregnant, increasing contraception counseling and options, and changing enrollment guidelines to encompass all gender and sexual minorities. As of December 13, 2021, the iPLEDGE system changed enrollment categories to reflect the AADA’s wishes and rolled out gender-neutral categories for enrollment in iPLEDGE. This change will simplify and enhance patients’ experience when starting isotretinoin.

Developing Inclusive iPLEDGE Categories

In recent years, dermatologists and patients have viewed these strict gender-based categories as limiting and problematic, especially for their transgender patients and female patients of childbearing potential who exclusively engage in intercourse with cisgender females. The United States has more than 10 million LGBTQIA+ citizens and an estimated 1.4 million adults who identify as transgender individuals, rendering the previously established gender-binary iPLEDGE categories outdated.^1,2

As a result, over the last few years, dermatologists, LGBTQIA+ allies, and patients have urged the FDA to create a gender-neutral registration process for iPLEDGE. With support from the AADA, the new modifications were approved for implementation and include 2 risk categories: (1) people who can get pregnant and (2) people who cannot get pregnant.³

As exciting as these changes are for the future of dermatologic practice, the actual transition to the new iPLEDGE system was described as a “failure, chaotic, and a disaster” due to additional changes made at the same time.⁴ The iPLEDGE system was switched to a new website administered by a different vendor and required providers to confirm each patient online by December 13, 2021. In addition, the new system required pharmacists to obtain risk management authorization via the iPLEDGE REMS website or by calling the iPLEDGE REMS center before dispensing isotretinoin. This overhaul did not work as planned, as the new website was constantly down and it was nearly impossible to reach a contact over the telephone. The complications resulted in major disruptions and delayed prescriptions for thousands of patients nationwide as well as a great disruption in workflow for physicians and pharmacists. The AADA subsequently met with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group to create workable solutions for these issues.

On January 14, 2022, the FDA posted updates regarding access to the iPLEDGE system. They have worked with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group to create workable solutions for patients and physicians while transferring the patients’ information to the new database. Their solution includes allowing physicians to send patients login links through their email to access their account instead of waiting for the call center. The majority of iPLEDGE users now have access to their accounts without issues, and the gender-neutral guidelines have been in place since the original change.

Impact of iPLEDGE Categories on Transgender Patients

These changes specifically will improve the experience of transgender men and cisgender women who are at no risk for pregnancy and could be subjected to monthly pregnancy testing when it is not medically necessary.

Consider the following patient scenario. A transgender man presents to your dermatology office seeking treatment of severe nodulocystic acne. He was placed on hormonal replacement therapy with exogenous testosterone—injections, oral pills, topical gel, topical patches, or subdermal pellets—to achieve secondary sex characteristics and promote gender congruence. The patient mentions he has been amenorrheic for several months now. He has tried many topical acne treatments as well as oral antibiotics without much benefit and is now interested in enrolling in iPLEDGE to obtain isotretinoin. With the prior iPLEDGE registration packets, how would this transgender man be classified? As a female with childbearing potential due to his retained ovaries and uterus? What if he did not endorse engaging in sexual intercourse that could result in pregnancy?

Transgender patients have unique and unmet needs that often are overlooked and prevent them from equitable, gender-affirming health care. For example, in a prospective study following 20 transgender men starting hormone replacement therapy, the percentage of patients with facial acne increased from 35% to 82% after 6 months of therapy.⁵ In addition, the increased psychosocial burden of acne may be especially difficult in these patients, as they already report higher rates of depression and suicidal ideation compared with their heterosexual cisgender peers.⁴ Further, the primary patient populations receiving isotretinoin typically are adolescents and young adults who are undergoing major physical, mental, and hormonal changes. Self-discovery and self-actualization develop over time, and our role as physicians is to advocate for all aspects of our patients’ health and eliminate barriers to optimal care.

Inclusive Language in iPLEDGE Categories

It is important to streamline access to care for all patients, and gender-affirming, culturally sensitive language is essential to building trust and understanding between patients and providers. Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, a dermatologist at Emory University (Atlanta, Georgia) who advocated for gender-neutral iPLEDGE registration, welcomes the change and stated it “will make my job easier. I no longer have to struggle between respecting the patient’s gender identity and providing medically necessary care for patients with severe acne.”³

Sanchez et al⁶ provided a list of structured questions providers can ask their patients to assess their risk regarding pregnancy: (1) Do you have a uterus and/or ovaries?, (2) Are you engaging in sexual intercourse with a person who has a penis?, and (3) If yes to these questions, what form(s) of birth control are you using? Providers should preface these questions with the following statement: “It is important that I ask these questions to assess your risk for becoming pregnant on this medication because isotretinoin can cause very serious birth defects.” It is important to review these questions and practice asking them so residents can operate from the same place of openness and understanding when caring for their patients.

Final Thoughts

The landscape of isotretinoin prescribing currently is changing on a day-to-day basis. As residents, it is important we stay up to date with the changes regarding our regularly dispensed medications. The main modification made to the iPLEDGE REMS system was switching the risk categories from 3 (females who can get pregnant, females who cannot get pregnant, males) to 2 (people who can get pregnant, people who cannot get pregnant). This change will make registration for iPLEDGE less complex and more inclusive for all patients. It is important for residents to stay at the forefront of these patient health issues and barriers to equal care, and this change represents a step in the right direction.

Isotretinoin is one of the most highly regulated dermatologic medications on the market. The main reason for regulation through the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–managed iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) is to minimize the drug’s teratogenic potential, as isotretinoin can cause profound birth defects. The program originally categorized patients into 1 of 3 categories: (1) females of reproductive potential, (2) females not of reproductive potential, and (3) males. Unless the patient commits to abstinence, the program required female patients of childbearing potential to be on 2 forms of birth control and undergo regular pregnancy testing before obtaining refills. Over the last few years, the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) has been advocating for changes to the iPLEDGE system. Proposed changes have included decreasing attestation frequency for patients who cannot get pregnant, increasing contraception counseling and options, and changing enrollment guidelines to encompass all gender and sexual minorities. As of December 13, 2021, the iPLEDGE system changed enrollment categories to reflect the AADA’s wishes and rolled out gender-neutral categories for enrollment in iPLEDGE. This change will simplify and enhance patients’ experience when starting isotretinoin.

Developing Inclusive iPLEDGE Categories

In recent years, dermatologists and patients have viewed these strict gender-based categories as limiting and problematic, especially for their transgender patients and female patients of childbearing potential who exclusively engage in intercourse with cisgender females. The United States has more than 10 million LGBTQIA+ citizens and an estimated 1.4 million adults who identify as transgender individuals, rendering the previously established gender-binary iPLEDGE categories outdated.^1,2

As a result, over the last few years, dermatologists, LGBTQIA+ allies, and patients have urged the FDA to create a gender-neutral registration process for iPLEDGE. With support from the AADA, the new modifications were approved for implementation and include 2 risk categories: (1) people who can get pregnant and (2) people who cannot get pregnant.³

As exciting as these changes are for the future of dermatologic practice, the actual transition to the new iPLEDGE system was described as a “failure, chaotic, and a disaster” due to additional changes made at the same time.⁴ The iPLEDGE system was switched to a new website administered by a different vendor and required providers to confirm each patient online by December 13, 2021. In addition, the new system required pharmacists to obtain risk management authorization via the iPLEDGE REMS website or by calling the iPLEDGE REMS center before dispensing isotretinoin. This overhaul did not work as planned, as the new website was constantly down and it was nearly impossible to reach a contact over the telephone. The complications resulted in major disruptions and delayed prescriptions for thousands of patients nationwide as well as a great disruption in workflow for physicians and pharmacists. The AADA subsequently met with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group to create workable solutions for these issues.

On January 14, 2022, the FDA posted updates regarding access to the iPLEDGE system. They have worked with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group to create workable solutions for patients and physicians while transferring the patients’ information to the new database. Their solution includes allowing physicians to send patients login links through their email to access their account instead of waiting for the call center. The majority of iPLEDGE users now have access to their accounts without issues, and the gender-neutral guidelines have been in place since the original change.

Impact of iPLEDGE Categories on Transgender Patients

These changes specifically will improve the experience of transgender men and cisgender women who are at no risk for pregnancy and could be subjected to monthly pregnancy testing when it is not medically necessary.

Consider the following patient scenario. A transgender man presents to your dermatology office seeking treatment of severe nodulocystic acne. He was placed on hormonal replacement therapy with exogenous testosterone—injections, oral pills, topical gel, topical patches, or subdermal pellets—to achieve secondary sex characteristics and promote gender congruence. The patient mentions he has been amenorrheic for several months now. He has tried many topical acne treatments as well as oral antibiotics without much benefit and is now interested in enrolling in iPLEDGE to obtain isotretinoin. With the prior iPLEDGE registration packets, how would this transgender man be classified? As a female with childbearing potential due to his retained ovaries and uterus? What if he did not endorse engaging in sexual intercourse that could result in pregnancy?

Transgender patients have unique and unmet needs that often are overlooked and prevent them from equitable, gender-affirming health care. For example, in a prospective study following 20 transgender men starting hormone replacement therapy, the percentage of patients with facial acne increased from 35% to 82% after 6 months of therapy.⁵ In addition, the increased psychosocial burden of acne may be especially difficult in these patients, as they already report higher rates of depression and suicidal ideation compared with their heterosexual cisgender peers.⁴ Further, the primary patient populations receiving isotretinoin typically are adolescents and young adults who are undergoing major physical, mental, and hormonal changes. Self-discovery and self-actualization develop over time, and our role as physicians is to advocate for all aspects of our patients’ health and eliminate barriers to optimal care.

Inclusive Language in iPLEDGE Categories

It is important to streamline access to care for all patients, and gender-affirming, culturally sensitive language is essential to building trust and understanding between patients and providers. Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, a dermatologist at Emory University (Atlanta, Georgia) who advocated for gender-neutral iPLEDGE registration, welcomes the change and stated it “will make my job easier. I no longer have to struggle between respecting the patient’s gender identity and providing medically necessary care for patients with severe acne.”³

Sanchez et al⁶ provided a list of structured questions providers can ask their patients to assess their risk regarding pregnancy: (1) Do you have a uterus and/or ovaries?, (2) Are you engaging in sexual intercourse with a person who has a penis?, and (3) If yes to these questions, what form(s) of birth control are you using? Providers should preface these questions with the following statement: “It is important that I ask these questions to assess your risk for becoming pregnant on this medication because isotretinoin can cause very serious birth defects.” It is important to review these questions and practice asking them so residents can operate from the same place of openness and understanding when caring for their patients.

Final Thoughts

The landscape of isotretinoin prescribing currently is changing on a day-to-day basis. As residents, it is important we stay up to date with the changes regarding our regularly dispensed medications. The main modification made to the iPLEDGE REMS system was switching the risk categories from 3 (females who can get pregnant, females who cannot get pregnant, males) to 2 (people who can get pregnant, people who cannot get pregnant). This change will make registration for iPLEDGE less complex and more inclusive for all patients. It is important for residents to stay at the forefront of these patient health issues and barriers to equal care, and this change represents a step in the right direction.

Isotretinoin is one of the most highly regulated dermatologic medications on the market. The main reason for regulation through the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–managed iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) is to minimize the drug’s teratogenic potential, as isotretinoin can cause profound birth defects. The program originally categorized patients into 1 of 3 categories: (1) females of reproductive potential, (2) females not of reproductive potential, and (3) males. Unless the patient commits to abstinence, the program required female patients of childbearing potential to be on 2 forms of birth control and undergo regular pregnancy testing before obtaining refills. Over the last few years, the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) has been advocating for changes to the iPLEDGE system. Proposed changes have included decreasing attestation frequency for patients who cannot get pregnant, increasing contraception counseling and options, and changing enrollment guidelines to encompass all gender and sexual minorities. As of December 13, 2021, the iPLEDGE system changed enrollment categories to reflect the AADA’s wishes and rolled out gender-neutral categories for enrollment in iPLEDGE. This change will simplify and enhance patients’ experience when starting isotretinoin.

Developing Inclusive iPLEDGE Categories

In recent years, dermatologists and patients have viewed these strict gender-based categories as limiting and problematic, especially for their transgender patients and female patients of childbearing potential who exclusively engage in intercourse with cisgender females. The United States has more than 10 million LGBTQIA+ citizens and an estimated 1.4 million adults who identify as transgender individuals, rendering the previously established gender-binary iPLEDGE categories outdated.^1,2

As a result, over the last few years, dermatologists, LGBTQIA+ allies, and patients have urged the FDA to create a gender-neutral registration process for iPLEDGE. With support from the AADA, the new modifications were approved for implementation and include 2 risk categories: (1) people who can get pregnant and (2) people who cannot get pregnant.³

As exciting as these changes are for the future of dermatologic practice, the actual transition to the new iPLEDGE system was described as a “failure, chaotic, and a disaster” due to additional changes made at the same time.⁴ The iPLEDGE system was switched to a new website administered by a different vendor and required providers to confirm each patient online by December 13, 2021. In addition, the new system required pharmacists to obtain risk management authorization via the iPLEDGE REMS website or by calling the iPLEDGE REMS center before dispensing isotretinoin. This overhaul did not work as planned, as the new website was constantly down and it was nearly impossible to reach a contact over the telephone. The complications resulted in major disruptions and delayed prescriptions for thousands of patients nationwide as well as a great disruption in workflow for physicians and pharmacists. The AADA subsequently met with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group to create workable solutions for these issues.

On January 14, 2022, the FDA posted updates regarding access to the iPLEDGE system. They have worked with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group to create workable solutions for patients and physicians while transferring the patients’ information to the new database. Their solution includes allowing physicians to send patients login links through their email to access their account instead of waiting for the call center. The majority of iPLEDGE users now have access to their accounts without issues, and the gender-neutral guidelines have been in place since the original change.

Impact of iPLEDGE Categories on Transgender Patients

These changes specifically will improve the experience of transgender men and cisgender women who are at no risk for pregnancy and could be subjected to monthly pregnancy testing when it is not medically necessary.

Consider the following patient scenario. A transgender man presents to your dermatology office seeking treatment of severe nodulocystic acne. He was placed on hormonal replacement therapy with exogenous testosterone—injections, oral pills, topical gel, topical patches, or subdermal pellets—to achieve secondary sex characteristics and promote gender congruence. The patient mentions he has been amenorrheic for several months now. He has tried many topical acne treatments as well as oral antibiotics without much benefit and is now interested in enrolling in iPLEDGE to obtain isotretinoin. With the prior iPLEDGE registration packets, how would this transgender man be classified? As a female with childbearing potential due to his retained ovaries and uterus? What if he did not endorse engaging in sexual intercourse that could result in pregnancy?

Transgender patients have unique and unmet needs that often are overlooked and prevent them from equitable, gender-affirming health care. For example, in a prospective study following 20 transgender men starting hormone replacement therapy, the percentage of patients with facial acne increased from 35% to 82% after 6 months of therapy.⁵ In addition, the increased psychosocial burden of acne may be especially difficult in these patients, as they already report higher rates of depression and suicidal ideation compared with their heterosexual cisgender peers.⁴ Further, the primary patient populations receiving isotretinoin typically are adolescents and young adults who are undergoing major physical, mental, and hormonal changes. Self-discovery and self-actualization develop over time, and our role as physicians is to advocate for all aspects of our patients’ health and eliminate barriers to optimal care.

Inclusive Language in iPLEDGE Categories

It is important to streamline access to care for all patients, and gender-affirming, culturally sensitive language is essential to building trust and understanding between patients and providers. Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, a dermatologist at Emory University (Atlanta, Georgia) who advocated for gender-neutral iPLEDGE registration, welcomes the change and stated it “will make my job easier. I no longer have to struggle between respecting the patient’s gender identity and providing medically necessary care for patients with severe acne.”³

Sanchez et al⁶ provided a list of structured questions providers can ask their patients to assess their risk regarding pregnancy: (1) Do you have a uterus and/or ovaries?, (2) Are you engaging in sexual intercourse with a person who has a penis?, and (3) If yes to these questions, what form(s) of birth control are you using? Providers should preface these questions with the following statement: “It is important that I ask these questions to assess your risk for becoming pregnant on this medication because isotretinoin can cause very serious birth defects.” It is important to review these questions and practice asking them so residents can operate from the same place of openness and understanding when caring for their patients.

Final Thoughts

The landscape of isotretinoin prescribing currently is changing on a day-to-day basis. As residents, it is important we stay up to date with the changes regarding our regularly dispensed medications. The main modification made to the iPLEDGE REMS system was switching the risk categories from 3 (females who can get pregnant, females who cannot get pregnant, males) to 2 (people who can get pregnant, people who cannot get pregnant). This change will make registration for iPLEDGE less complex and more inclusive for all patients. It is important for residents to stay at the forefront of these patient health issues and barriers to equal care, and this change represents a step in the right direction.

The vast majority of U.S. physicians regularly treat patients with socioeconomic challenges – from financial instability and a lack of transportation to eviction threats and domestic problems – but are deeply frustrated by their inability to adequately address these issues, a new survey has found.

The survey, conducted in February by The Physicians Foundation, queried 1,502 doctors (500 primary care physicians and 1,002 specialists) about their experience with social drivers – also known as determinants – of health (SDOH). Among the key findings: More than 60% of respondents said they had little or no time to effectively address the SDOH needs of their patients, yet nearly 9 in 10 (87%) said they would like to be able to do so in the future.

Most (63%) said they feel burned out when they try to help patients with their SDOH needs; and nearly 7 in 10 (68%) said managing SDOH for their patients has a “major impact” on their mental health and well-being.

This news organization spoke with Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, about the findings.

Q: These issues aren’t new. Why did you undertake this survey now?

The Physicians Foundation has surveyed America’s physicians for a decade on their practice and the broader health care environment, which included questions on SDOH. However, this is the first one we’ve done that concentrated entirely on SDOH. We think it’s particularly timely now.

The COVID-19 pandemic focused a very harsh spotlight on the tremendous impact SDOH can have on patient health, care outcomes, costs, physician burden, and the physician-patient relationship. It’s become increasingly apparent that for our country to achieve health equity and improve our health care system, including physician satisfaction, we must address the impact of SDOH on patients and physicians.

Even before the pandemic, we had an epidemic of physician burnout. That was driven in large part by the huge amount of time being wasted on administrative tasks such as pre-approvals, insurance forms, and working with electronic medical records. Now we’re recognizing that the causes of physician burnout are much larger than that.

Q: The results of the survey show that physicians are seeing the effects of SDOH no matter where they practice – rural (81%), urban (81%), suburban (73%) – how old they are, or their own racial or ethnic heritage. Is that surprising?

I was, in fact, surprised by the pervasiveness. Every physician is seeing the impact of social drivers on their patients every day. For a long time, physicians tried to ignore these problems because they couldn’t deal with them at the practice level; it was too big a task. But if we’re going to decrease the cost of health care and increase the quality of outcomes and decrease the enormous disparities we see, we’re going to have to deal with these SDOH.

I think the problem is grim, but physicians recognize this issue. It’s not one that they traditionally are trained to deal with – and, more importantly, they are not reimbursed on these issues. But despite that, they all want to help.

Q: The survey found that 83% of physicians believed their inability to adequately deal with SDOH moderately (60%) or significantly (23%) contributed to their feelings of burnout. Why do you think physicians find these problems so frustrating and stressful?

The definition of burnout is feeling that you’re being held responsible for things you no longer have any control or authority over. A patient’s inability to find transportation to get to an appointment, or who has financial instability that can lead them to have to make a choice between buying medicine or buying food for their family, isn’t something a physician can change. The overwhelming majority of physicians in our survey not only recognize that their patients have needs in these areas, but they don’t have time to be able to deal with them the way that they’d like to – either the resources aren’t there, or they aren’t effective, or they simply don’t know where to turn.

This phenomenon has been quantified by research. A 2020 study in JAMA, by the Physicians Foundation Center for the Study of Physician Practice and Leadership at Weill Cornell Medicine, found that physicians who had a larger burden of patients with more social needs received lower quality scores from Medicare and were less likely to receive bonuses for the care they provided. But the lower scores were related to the patients’ socioeconomic environment and had nothing do with the quality of the care they received.

Q: Researchers have looked at the relationship between SDOH and burnout, and what happens when physicians incorporate resources to address social issues into their practice. And it seems that doing so can help ease burnout at least a little.

That makes perfect sense. You’re now giving them the ability to intervene and do something about a health-related issue that’s going to help their patients get better quicker. At the same time, addressing these social issues can reduce health care costs to the system while improving outcomes. For example, when a patient with diabetes who needs insulin has their electricity cut off, they can no longer refrigerate the insulin. So simply having their electricity restored could keep them from being hospitalized for a diabetic coma because they weren’t able to follow their treatment.

The Health Leads Grow and Catalyze project, which we helped fund in 2014-2018, trained college students to make lists of key resources patients might require – like food, electricity, or heat – and work with physicians in the emergency room to get a prescription for that need. We’ve seen a very excellent return on investment and it’s now in health systems all over the country.

Q: The survey does a good job of highlighting the nature and scope of the problem, but what about solutions? What, if anything, can physicians be doing now to reduce the burden of SDOH for their patients?

The most important thing we’re doing now is drawing attention to the problem, not only to the impact it’s having on patients’ health but the health and well-being of our physicians.

The greatest challenge physicians said they faced was not having enough time to address these issues in their practice, and that stems directly from a lot of time that gets wasted on other things – preapprovals, inefficient EHRs, checkboxes. Our doctors reported that even when they know where the resources exist, they are hard to access or unavailable when they want them.

Almost all these things are going to require innovative solutions, and in some cases might vary by the individual. With transportation, for example, maybe we need a system like Meals on Wheels, where part of the solution could be a system of volunteer drivers to take patients to appointments. Or we might need more funding for transportation directly aimed at people who don’t have access to a bus line. But when you think about how much a ride in an ambulance costs versus how much it would cost to get someone to the doctor before they got sick enough to require that ambulance, that kind of expenditure makes a lot of sense for driving down individual and system costs. 

Q: The problem of unconscious bias in medicine has been receiving increasing attention. Do you think this bias is related to the issues of SDOH the new survey reveals?

Discrimination and racism are examples of SDOH. Implicit bias can happen in any aspect of our lives and interactions with others – so for physicians this can happen with our patients. Our survey didn’t specifically dive into how bias plays a role in addressing the impact of SDOH, but as a society we can no longer ignore any factor that hinders a person from accessing high-quality, cost-effective health care, including our own unconscious bias.

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

The vast majority of U.S. physicians regularly treat patients with socioeconomic challenges – from financial instability and a lack of transportation to eviction threats and domestic problems – but are deeply frustrated by their inability to adequately address these issues, a new survey has found.

The survey, conducted in February by The Physicians Foundation, queried 1,502 doctors (500 primary care physicians and 1,002 specialists) about their experience with social drivers – also known as determinants – of health (SDOH). Among the key findings: More than 60% of respondents said they had little or no time to effectively address the SDOH needs of their patients, yet nearly 9 in 10 (87%) said they would like to be able to do so in the future.

Most (63%) said they feel burned out when they try to help patients with their SDOH needs; and nearly 7 in 10 (68%) said managing SDOH for their patients has a “major impact” on their mental health and well-being.

This news organization spoke with Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, about the findings.

Q: These issues aren’t new. Why did you undertake this survey now?

The Physicians Foundation has surveyed America’s physicians for a decade on their practice and the broader health care environment, which included questions on SDOH. However, this is the first one we’ve done that concentrated entirely on SDOH. We think it’s particularly timely now.

The COVID-19 pandemic focused a very harsh spotlight on the tremendous impact SDOH can have on patient health, care outcomes, costs, physician burden, and the physician-patient relationship. It’s become increasingly apparent that for our country to achieve health equity and improve our health care system, including physician satisfaction, we must address the impact of SDOH on patients and physicians.

Even before the pandemic, we had an epidemic of physician burnout. That was driven in large part by the huge amount of time being wasted on administrative tasks such as pre-approvals, insurance forms, and working with electronic medical records. Now we’re recognizing that the causes of physician burnout are much larger than that.

Q: The results of the survey show that physicians are seeing the effects of SDOH no matter where they practice – rural (81%), urban (81%), suburban (73%) – how old they are, or their own racial or ethnic heritage. Is that surprising?

I was, in fact, surprised by the pervasiveness. Every physician is seeing the impact of social drivers on their patients every day. For a long time, physicians tried to ignore these problems because they couldn’t deal with them at the practice level; it was too big a task. But if we’re going to decrease the cost of health care and increase the quality of outcomes and decrease the enormous disparities we see, we’re going to have to deal with these SDOH.

I think the problem is grim, but physicians recognize this issue. It’s not one that they traditionally are trained to deal with – and, more importantly, they are not reimbursed on these issues. But despite that, they all want to help.

Q: The survey found that 83% of physicians believed their inability to adequately deal with SDOH moderately (60%) or significantly (23%) contributed to their feelings of burnout. Why do you think physicians find these problems so frustrating and stressful?

The definition of burnout is feeling that you’re being held responsible for things you no longer have any control or authority over. A patient’s inability to find transportation to get to an appointment, or who has financial instability that can lead them to have to make a choice between buying medicine or buying food for their family, isn’t something a physician can change. The overwhelming majority of physicians in our survey not only recognize that their patients have needs in these areas, but they don’t have time to be able to deal with them the way that they’d like to – either the resources aren’t there, or they aren’t effective, or they simply don’t know where to turn.

This phenomenon has been quantified by research. A 2020 study in JAMA, by the Physicians Foundation Center for the Study of Physician Practice and Leadership at Weill Cornell Medicine, found that physicians who had a larger burden of patients with more social needs received lower quality scores from Medicare and were less likely to receive bonuses for the care they provided. But the lower scores were related to the patients’ socioeconomic environment and had nothing do with the quality of the care they received.

Q: Researchers have looked at the relationship between SDOH and burnout, and what happens when physicians incorporate resources to address social issues into their practice. And it seems that doing so can help ease burnout at least a little.

That makes perfect sense. You’re now giving them the ability to intervene and do something about a health-related issue that’s going to help their patients get better quicker. At the same time, addressing these social issues can reduce health care costs to the system while improving outcomes. For example, when a patient with diabetes who needs insulin has their electricity cut off, they can no longer refrigerate the insulin. So simply having their electricity restored could keep them from being hospitalized for a diabetic coma because they weren’t able to follow their treatment.

The Health Leads Grow and Catalyze project, which we helped fund in 2014-2018, trained college students to make lists of key resources patients might require – like food, electricity, or heat – and work with physicians in the emergency room to get a prescription for that need. We’ve seen a very excellent return on investment and it’s now in health systems all over the country.

Q: The survey does a good job of highlighting the nature and scope of the problem, but what about solutions? What, if anything, can physicians be doing now to reduce the burden of SDOH for their patients?

The most important thing we’re doing now is drawing attention to the problem, not only to the impact it’s having on patients’ health but the health and well-being of our physicians.

The greatest challenge physicians said they faced was not having enough time to address these issues in their practice, and that stems directly from a lot of time that gets wasted on other things – preapprovals, inefficient EHRs, checkboxes. Our doctors reported that even when they know where the resources exist, they are hard to access or unavailable when they want them.

Almost all these things are going to require innovative solutions, and in some cases might vary by the individual. With transportation, for example, maybe we need a system like Meals on Wheels, where part of the solution could be a system of volunteer drivers to take patients to appointments. Or we might need more funding for transportation directly aimed at people who don’t have access to a bus line. But when you think about how much a ride in an ambulance costs versus how much it would cost to get someone to the doctor before they got sick enough to require that ambulance, that kind of expenditure makes a lot of sense for driving down individual and system costs. 

Q: The problem of unconscious bias in medicine has been receiving increasing attention. Do you think this bias is related to the issues of SDOH the new survey reveals?

Discrimination and racism are examples of SDOH. Implicit bias can happen in any aspect of our lives and interactions with others – so for physicians this can happen with our patients. Our survey didn’t specifically dive into how bias plays a role in addressing the impact of SDOH, but as a society we can no longer ignore any factor that hinders a person from accessing high-quality, cost-effective health care, including our own unconscious bias.

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

The vast majority of U.S. physicians regularly treat patients with socioeconomic challenges – from financial instability and a lack of transportation to eviction threats and domestic problems – but are deeply frustrated by their inability to adequately address these issues, a new survey has found.

The survey, conducted in February by The Physicians Foundation, queried 1,502 doctors (500 primary care physicians and 1,002 specialists) about their experience with social drivers – also known as determinants – of health (SDOH). Among the key findings: More than 60% of respondents said they had little or no time to effectively address the SDOH needs of their patients, yet nearly 9 in 10 (87%) said they would like to be able to do so in the future.

Most (63%) said they feel burned out when they try to help patients with their SDOH needs; and nearly 7 in 10 (68%) said managing SDOH for their patients has a “major impact” on their mental health and well-being.

This news organization spoke with Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, about the findings.

Q: These issues aren’t new. Why did you undertake this survey now?

The Physicians Foundation has surveyed America’s physicians for a decade on their practice and the broader health care environment, which included questions on SDOH. However, this is the first one we’ve done that concentrated entirely on SDOH. We think it’s particularly timely now.

The COVID-19 pandemic focused a very harsh spotlight on the tremendous impact SDOH can have on patient health, care outcomes, costs, physician burden, and the physician-patient relationship. It’s become increasingly apparent that for our country to achieve health equity and improve our health care system, including physician satisfaction, we must address the impact of SDOH on patients and physicians.

Even before the pandemic, we had an epidemic of physician burnout. That was driven in large part by the huge amount of time being wasted on administrative tasks such as pre-approvals, insurance forms, and working with electronic medical records. Now we’re recognizing that the causes of physician burnout are much larger than that.

Q: The results of the survey show that physicians are seeing the effects of SDOH no matter where they practice – rural (81%), urban (81%), suburban (73%) – how old they are, or their own racial or ethnic heritage. Is that surprising?

I was, in fact, surprised by the pervasiveness. Every physician is seeing the impact of social drivers on their patients every day. For a long time, physicians tried to ignore these problems because they couldn’t deal with them at the practice level; it was too big a task. But if we’re going to decrease the cost of health care and increase the quality of outcomes and decrease the enormous disparities we see, we’re going to have to deal with these SDOH.

I think the problem is grim, but physicians recognize this issue. It’s not one that they traditionally are trained to deal with – and, more importantly, they are not reimbursed on these issues. But despite that, they all want to help.

Q: The survey found that 83% of physicians believed their inability to adequately deal with SDOH moderately (60%) or significantly (23%) contributed to their feelings of burnout. Why do you think physicians find these problems so frustrating and stressful?

The definition of burnout is feeling that you’re being held responsible for things you no longer have any control or authority over. A patient’s inability to find transportation to get to an appointment, or who has financial instability that can lead them to have to make a choice between buying medicine or buying food for their family, isn’t something a physician can change. The overwhelming majority of physicians in our survey not only recognize that their patients have needs in these areas, but they don’t have time to be able to deal with them the way that they’d like to – either the resources aren’t there, or they aren’t effective, or they simply don’t know where to turn.

This phenomenon has been quantified by research. A 2020 study in JAMA, by the Physicians Foundation Center for the Study of Physician Practice and Leadership at Weill Cornell Medicine, found that physicians who had a larger burden of patients with more social needs received lower quality scores from Medicare and were less likely to receive bonuses for the care they provided. But the lower scores were related to the patients’ socioeconomic environment and had nothing do with the quality of the care they received.

Q: Researchers have looked at the relationship between SDOH and burnout, and what happens when physicians incorporate resources to address social issues into their practice. And it seems that doing so can help ease burnout at least a little.

That makes perfect sense. You’re now giving them the ability to intervene and do something about a health-related issue that’s going to help their patients get better quicker. At the same time, addressing these social issues can reduce health care costs to the system while improving outcomes. For example, when a patient with diabetes who needs insulin has their electricity cut off, they can no longer refrigerate the insulin. So simply having their electricity restored could keep them from being hospitalized for a diabetic coma because they weren’t able to follow their treatment.

The Health Leads Grow and Catalyze project, which we helped fund in 2014-2018, trained college students to make lists of key resources patients might require – like food, electricity, or heat – and work with physicians in the emergency room to get a prescription for that need. We’ve seen a very excellent return on investment and it’s now in health systems all over the country.

Q: The survey does a good job of highlighting the nature and scope of the problem, but what about solutions? What, if anything, can physicians be doing now to reduce the burden of SDOH for their patients?

The most important thing we’re doing now is drawing attention to the problem, not only to the impact it’s having on patients’ health but the health and well-being of our physicians.

The greatest challenge physicians said they faced was not having enough time to address these issues in their practice, and that stems directly from a lot of time that gets wasted on other things – preapprovals, inefficient EHRs, checkboxes. Our doctors reported that even when they know where the resources exist, they are hard to access or unavailable when they want them.

Almost all these things are going to require innovative solutions, and in some cases might vary by the individual. With transportation, for example, maybe we need a system like Meals on Wheels, where part of the solution could be a system of volunteer drivers to take patients to appointments. Or we might need more funding for transportation directly aimed at people who don’t have access to a bus line. But when you think about how much a ride in an ambulance costs versus how much it would cost to get someone to the doctor before they got sick enough to require that ambulance, that kind of expenditure makes a lot of sense for driving down individual and system costs. 

Q: The problem of unconscious bias in medicine has been receiving increasing attention. Do you think this bias is related to the issues of SDOH the new survey reveals?

Discrimination and racism are examples of SDOH. Implicit bias can happen in any aspect of our lives and interactions with others – so for physicians this can happen with our patients. Our survey didn’t specifically dive into how bias plays a role in addressing the impact of SDOH, but as a society we can no longer ignore any factor that hinders a person from accessing high-quality, cost-effective health care, including our own unconscious bias.

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

As family medicine physicians it is our duty to help facilitate patients’ health care based on what is in patients’ best interests and aligns with the goals they have for their lives.

I am aware of how intersecting social, economic, familial, and environmental factors influence what is best for patient’s lives, and I consider having this awareness to be part of being a family medicine physician.

People being able to make choices about their reproductive health and their reproductive futures without unnecessary and harmful barriers is a part of a person’s overall health that family medicine physicians should recognize and prioritize. Helping people achieve their reproductive health care goals includes helping patients access abortion care if that is the care that they decide that they need.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 2021 was “the worst year for abortion rights in almost half a century” as 108 abortion restrictions were enacted throughout the country. The most damaging restriction was introduced in Texas in the fall of 2021 called SB8, which has virtually stopped all abortion care in person for any person with a pregnancy greater than 6 weeks’ gestation. Now, in 2022 we are seeing several other states, including Idaho and Oklahoma, set to pass similar laws that will essentially halt most abortion care in the clinical setting in those states.

Abortion access had already been a problem in much of the country prior to 2021 because of burdensome and not medically necessary restrictions. Based on current political trends we are getting to a place where it is not hard to imagine that up to half of the states in this country will not allow their communities to access abortion care in the clinical setting at all in the very near future. This is not reproductive freedom, and I am outraged that people are being forced to travel hundreds of miles for their abortion care, forced to continue pregnancies that they don’t want, or forced to find other ways to obtain medication abortion pills.

While obtaining medication abortion pills online and managing the abortion process at home is safe and recognized as safe by the World Health Organization, no one should be forced to utilize a certain type of care based on their state of residence, in my opinion.

Providing evidence-based medicine to patients is ‘my duty’

Abortion care is health care and is primary care. One in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45, and we know that transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people also have abortions. That means on any given day as family medicine physicians we are likely taking care of more than one person who has had an abortion, will have an abortion, and/or is considering an abortion. Therefore, all family medicine physicians need to be prepared to counsel patients about all of their pregnancy options, answer questions about pregnancy and abortion, and help people get the compassionate care that they deserve.

Our patients turn to us as trusted sources of information. When they reach out to us, I consider providing evidence-based medicine to patients – that includes factual information about abortion care if and when our patients need it – to be my duty as a family medicine physician.
 

Resources on abortion care for family medicine physicians

For family medicine physicians who did not have adequate exposure to abortion care during residency, there are many evidence-based resources to review in order to become more knowledgeable in abortion care.

In many areas of medicine, we have to continue to learn and seek out references, and abortion care is no different. One could argue that understanding abortion care and providing patients with factual information about their options and abortion care is even more important because of stigma surrounding abortion care and the rampant lies about abortion care that are easily accessible and that even other medical professionals and politicians spread. There are even fake clinics, often called “crisis pregnancy centers”, that intimidate, lie about abortion, and coerce patients to make decisions that are against their desires. Thus, being that trusted source of factual information about abortion care is even more important in the face of so many lies.

There are several organizations that are dedicated to education surrounding abortion care, in particular within the primary care setting. The Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP), Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine (RHEDI), and Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare (TEACH) all provide free resources on abortion care, how to incorporate abortion care into primary care, and how to teach medical students and residents about abortion care.

In addition, the National Network of Abortion Funds connects people to community-led organizations that provide assistance related to direct financial and logistical support for obtaining abortion care. I believe it is critical that we familiarize ourselves with our local abortion funds and share what we learn about these resources with our patients.

As abortion access continues to be further stripped away from many people that we take care of, I think standing up for what is right and what is our duty as physicians becomes more important. That duty is to provide our patients with evidence-based medicine and compassionate care so that our communities can obtain reproductive health outcomes and freedom that are best for their lives.
 

Dr. Lockley is a family physician currently living in Harlem, N.Y., and a member of the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. She currently works for Public Health Solutions’ Sexual and Reproductive Health Centers in Brooklyn, providing primary care and reproductive health care services there, and as an abortion provider throughout the New York region. She completed both medical school and residency in Philadelphia and then did a fellowship in reproductive health care and advocacy through the Family Health Center of Harlem and the Reproductive Health Access Project. She can be reached at [email protected].

As family medicine physicians it is our duty to help facilitate patients’ health care based on what is in patients’ best interests and aligns with the goals they have for their lives.

I am aware of how intersecting social, economic, familial, and environmental factors influence what is best for patient’s lives, and I consider having this awareness to be part of being a family medicine physician.

People being able to make choices about their reproductive health and their reproductive futures without unnecessary and harmful barriers is a part of a person’s overall health that family medicine physicians should recognize and prioritize. Helping people achieve their reproductive health care goals includes helping patients access abortion care if that is the care that they decide that they need.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 2021 was “the worst year for abortion rights in almost half a century” as 108 abortion restrictions were enacted throughout the country. The most damaging restriction was introduced in Texas in the fall of 2021 called SB8, which has virtually stopped all abortion care in person for any person with a pregnancy greater than 6 weeks’ gestation. Now, in 2022 we are seeing several other states, including Idaho and Oklahoma, set to pass similar laws that will essentially halt most abortion care in the clinical setting in those states.

Abortion access had already been a problem in much of the country prior to 2021 because of burdensome and not medically necessary restrictions. Based on current political trends we are getting to a place where it is not hard to imagine that up to half of the states in this country will not allow their communities to access abortion care in the clinical setting at all in the very near future. This is not reproductive freedom, and I am outraged that people are being forced to travel hundreds of miles for their abortion care, forced to continue pregnancies that they don’t want, or forced to find other ways to obtain medication abortion pills.

While obtaining medication abortion pills online and managing the abortion process at home is safe and recognized as safe by the World Health Organization, no one should be forced to utilize a certain type of care based on their state of residence, in my opinion.

Providing evidence-based medicine to patients is ‘my duty’

Abortion care is health care and is primary care. One in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45, and we know that transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people also have abortions. That means on any given day as family medicine physicians we are likely taking care of more than one person who has had an abortion, will have an abortion, and/or is considering an abortion. Therefore, all family medicine physicians need to be prepared to counsel patients about all of their pregnancy options, answer questions about pregnancy and abortion, and help people get the compassionate care that they deserve.

Our patients turn to us as trusted sources of information. When they reach out to us, I consider providing evidence-based medicine to patients – that includes factual information about abortion care if and when our patients need it – to be my duty as a family medicine physician.
 

Resources on abortion care for family medicine physicians

For family medicine physicians who did not have adequate exposure to abortion care during residency, there are many evidence-based resources to review in order to become more knowledgeable in abortion care.

In many areas of medicine, we have to continue to learn and seek out references, and abortion care is no different. One could argue that understanding abortion care and providing patients with factual information about their options and abortion care is even more important because of stigma surrounding abortion care and the rampant lies about abortion care that are easily accessible and that even other medical professionals and politicians spread. There are even fake clinics, often called “crisis pregnancy centers”, that intimidate, lie about abortion, and coerce patients to make decisions that are against their desires. Thus, being that trusted source of factual information about abortion care is even more important in the face of so many lies.

There are several organizations that are dedicated to education surrounding abortion care, in particular within the primary care setting. The Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP), Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine (RHEDI), and Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare (TEACH) all provide free resources on abortion care, how to incorporate abortion care into primary care, and how to teach medical students and residents about abortion care.

In addition, the National Network of Abortion Funds connects people to community-led organizations that provide assistance related to direct financial and logistical support for obtaining abortion care. I believe it is critical that we familiarize ourselves with our local abortion funds and share what we learn about these resources with our patients.

As abortion access continues to be further stripped away from many people that we take care of, I think standing up for what is right and what is our duty as physicians becomes more important. That duty is to provide our patients with evidence-based medicine and compassionate care so that our communities can obtain reproductive health outcomes and freedom that are best for their lives.
 

Dr. Lockley is a family physician currently living in Harlem, N.Y., and a member of the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. She currently works for Public Health Solutions’ Sexual and Reproductive Health Centers in Brooklyn, providing primary care and reproductive health care services there, and as an abortion provider throughout the New York region. She completed both medical school and residency in Philadelphia and then did a fellowship in reproductive health care and advocacy through the Family Health Center of Harlem and the Reproductive Health Access Project. She can be reached at [email protected].

As family medicine physicians it is our duty to help facilitate patients’ health care based on what is in patients’ best interests and aligns with the goals they have for their lives.

I am aware of how intersecting social, economic, familial, and environmental factors influence what is best for patient’s lives, and I consider having this awareness to be part of being a family medicine physician.

People being able to make choices about their reproductive health and their reproductive futures without unnecessary and harmful barriers is a part of a person’s overall health that family medicine physicians should recognize and prioritize. Helping people achieve their reproductive health care goals includes helping patients access abortion care if that is the care that they decide that they need.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 2021 was “the worst year for abortion rights in almost half a century” as 108 abortion restrictions were enacted throughout the country. The most damaging restriction was introduced in Texas in the fall of 2021 called SB8, which has virtually stopped all abortion care in person for any person with a pregnancy greater than 6 weeks’ gestation. Now, in 2022 we are seeing several other states, including Idaho and Oklahoma, set to pass similar laws that will essentially halt most abortion care in the clinical setting in those states.

Abortion access had already been a problem in much of the country prior to 2021 because of burdensome and not medically necessary restrictions. Based on current political trends we are getting to a place where it is not hard to imagine that up to half of the states in this country will not allow their communities to access abortion care in the clinical setting at all in the very near future. This is not reproductive freedom, and I am outraged that people are being forced to travel hundreds of miles for their abortion care, forced to continue pregnancies that they don’t want, or forced to find other ways to obtain medication abortion pills.

While obtaining medication abortion pills online and managing the abortion process at home is safe and recognized as safe by the World Health Organization, no one should be forced to utilize a certain type of care based on their state of residence, in my opinion.

Providing evidence-based medicine to patients is ‘my duty’

Abortion care is health care and is primary care. One in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45, and we know that transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people also have abortions. That means on any given day as family medicine physicians we are likely taking care of more than one person who has had an abortion, will have an abortion, and/or is considering an abortion. Therefore, all family medicine physicians need to be prepared to counsel patients about all of their pregnancy options, answer questions about pregnancy and abortion, and help people get the compassionate care that they deserve.

Our patients turn to us as trusted sources of information. When they reach out to us, I consider providing evidence-based medicine to patients – that includes factual information about abortion care if and when our patients need it – to be my duty as a family medicine physician.
 

Resources on abortion care for family medicine physicians

For family medicine physicians who did not have adequate exposure to abortion care during residency, there are many evidence-based resources to review in order to become more knowledgeable in abortion care.

In many areas of medicine, we have to continue to learn and seek out references, and abortion care is no different. One could argue that understanding abortion care and providing patients with factual information about their options and abortion care is even more important because of stigma surrounding abortion care and the rampant lies about abortion care that are easily accessible and that even other medical professionals and politicians spread. There are even fake clinics, often called “crisis pregnancy centers”, that intimidate, lie about abortion, and coerce patients to make decisions that are against their desires. Thus, being that trusted source of factual information about abortion care is even more important in the face of so many lies.

There are several organizations that are dedicated to education surrounding abortion care, in particular within the primary care setting. The Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP), Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine (RHEDI), and Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare (TEACH) all provide free resources on abortion care, how to incorporate abortion care into primary care, and how to teach medical students and residents about abortion care.

In addition, the National Network of Abortion Funds connects people to community-led organizations that provide assistance related to direct financial and logistical support for obtaining abortion care. I believe it is critical that we familiarize ourselves with our local abortion funds and share what we learn about these resources with our patients.

As abortion access continues to be further stripped away from many people that we take care of, I think standing up for what is right and what is our duty as physicians becomes more important. That duty is to provide our patients with evidence-based medicine and compassionate care so that our communities can obtain reproductive health outcomes and freedom that are best for their lives.
 

Dr. Lockley is a family physician currently living in Harlem, N.Y., and a member of the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. She currently works for Public Health Solutions’ Sexual and Reproductive Health Centers in Brooklyn, providing primary care and reproductive health care services there, and as an abortion provider throughout the New York region. She completed both medical school and residency in Philadelphia and then did a fellowship in reproductive health care and advocacy through the Family Health Center of Harlem and the Reproductive Health Access Project. She can be reached at [email protected].

The American College of Cardiology has issued a new health policy statement directed at eliminating the bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment that hamstrings the delivery of quality cardiovascular care.

“We pay a lot of attention, of course, to our patients and patient care issues but our ability to care optimally for patients is limited if the workforce is handicapped in any way,” said Pamela S. Douglas, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who cochaired the writing committee.

The document is the second in the ACC’s diversity inclusion initiative, following the 2019 report on equal compensation and opportunity in cardiology, but the foundation for the work actually started 5 years ago, she told this news organization.

“Unfortunately, COVID and other world events have created a climate in the United States where people don’t treat each other terribly well,” Dr. Douglas said. “It’s divisive and confrontational often, when it should be collaborative. So this document, at this time, was serendipitous but wonderful timing.”

The 2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Building Respect, Civility, and Inclusion in the Cardiovascular Workforce was published online March 17 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The 63-page document provides 12 principles for building a better workplace, starting with the belief that civil behavior and respect are inherent in its core values of teamwork, collaboration, and professionalism.

The ACC calls on all organizations and individuals involved in providing cardiovascular care, education, or research to recognize the “ubiquity” of uncivil behavior and the continuum of bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment (BDBH) that characterize it.

Some of the recommendations they offer to eliminate these behaviors include:

• Creating institutional policies and resources to ensure hiring decisions, evaluations, and departmental/program/center reviews are objective.
• Including assessments of personal behaviors related to respect and civility in performance reviews.
• Establishing confidential, fair, and transparent mechanisms for reporting and investigating individuals and/or departments suspected of BDBH.
• Adopting longitudinal metrics and accurate data collection to track progress and inform future policy and interventions.
• Encouraging independent evaluation of institutional culture and efforts to reduce BDBH.
• Celebrating those who promote and achieve excellence in reducing BDBH.

Patients behaving badly

What’s new, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, is the number of patients who themselves engage in disrespectful and uncivil behavior, observed Dr. Douglas.

“As physicians, it was the patient’s always right. So you work to do backflips to accommodate the patient,” she said. “But when the patient says: I don’t want to be treated by anybody that comes from outside the United States, that’s not our society anymore. And that has to be addressed and dealt with.”

The policy statement features a suite of online tools and resources including 15 case examples and 30 sample policies from institutions that have been anonymized and some provide an action framework for addressing this type of patient behavior, Dr. Douglas said. An individual, for example, can ask the patient why they made the remark, explaining that the provider is qualified and someone they’d like to have care for their own family. If it was a trainee on the receiving end, it’s fair for them to go back to their supervisor, mentor, or training director.

“They should back you up and explain to the patient that it’s not who we are at this hospital and that they’re happy to provide care, but they are part of the hospital and need to obey the rules and environment in this hospital,” she said.

Writing committee cochair Michael J. Mack, MD, of Baylor Scott & White Health, Plano, Tex., told tthis news organization that “one of the concepts that I hadn’t heard before that resonated with me was the term ‘upstander’ – that you can’t just be a bystander and watch this happen and do nothing. If you’re witness to this in the workplace, if it’s gender bias or racial bias, you need to get involved and reach out to that individual and see what you can do to help and be a reporter of it.”
 

But it’s all too costly

Financial constraints are often cited as a reason not to focus on bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment in the workplace or to shelve initiatives, but it’s a false argument, say Dr. Mack and Dr. Douglas.

“One of the case examples is a cardiology practice that is suffering a decline in finances, and the board makes the recommendation that the efforts at diversity and civil workplaces need to be the first to go,” Dr. Mack explained. “And the point that’s being made in this is you can’t afford not to do it because it ends up being more costly to the business in the long run.”

Part of that cost is associated with losing valuable employees that were contributing but left because there wasn’t a culture of respectfulness and positivity in their workplace. While that’s always been a risk, it’s become a particularly compelling issue because of the workforce shortages present 3 years on in the pandemic, he said.

“There’s a new reexamination to be sure that we have a positive work environment that people want to come to work at every day,” he said. “I run our Research Institute, and normally we have a 5% vacancy rate, and our unfilled-position rate is 25% right now.”

Health care is delivered as a team today, but if a member feels disrespected, or worse – harassed, bullied, or discriminated against – they’re not going to contribute at the top of their game, Dr. Douglas said.

“It’s very well documented that bad behavior exists and that it has negative consequences for patient care for institutions, who are at great risk legally and regulatory wise,” she said. “And the document makes that clear that that risk is increasing.”

Dr. Douglas pointed out that the Joint Commission now requires good behavior in institutions that it accredits and that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires education around professionalism and evidence that their trainees are treated as professionals.

Funding agencies like the National Institutes of Health have also jumped into this space, recently establishing a hotline to report harassment, discrimination, and bullying perpetrated by an NIH-funded investigator, and giving institutions 30 days to investigate.

“In the last 2 years they have defunded, taken away the grants of 75 investigators, compared to zero in the 5 years before that,” Dr. Douglas said. “So I think, even though the bad behavior may be escalating, the consequences are escalating too.”

The new “2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Building Respect, Civility, and Inclusion in the Cardiovascular Workplace” will be discussed in a session at the ACC 2022 Scientific Sessions on April 2 at 4:15 p.m. ET.

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

The American College of Cardiology has issued a new health policy statement directed at eliminating the bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment that hamstrings the delivery of quality cardiovascular care.

“We pay a lot of attention, of course, to our patients and patient care issues but our ability to care optimally for patients is limited if the workforce is handicapped in any way,” said Pamela S. Douglas, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who cochaired the writing committee.

The document is the second in the ACC’s diversity inclusion initiative, following the 2019 report on equal compensation and opportunity in cardiology, but the foundation for the work actually started 5 years ago, she told this news organization.

“Unfortunately, COVID and other world events have created a climate in the United States where people don’t treat each other terribly well,” Dr. Douglas said. “It’s divisive and confrontational often, when it should be collaborative. So this document, at this time, was serendipitous but wonderful timing.”

The 2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Building Respect, Civility, and Inclusion in the Cardiovascular Workforce was published online March 17 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The 63-page document provides 12 principles for building a better workplace, starting with the belief that civil behavior and respect are inherent in its core values of teamwork, collaboration, and professionalism.

The ACC calls on all organizations and individuals involved in providing cardiovascular care, education, or research to recognize the “ubiquity” of uncivil behavior and the continuum of bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment (BDBH) that characterize it.

Some of the recommendations they offer to eliminate these behaviors include:

• Creating institutional policies and resources to ensure hiring decisions, evaluations, and departmental/program/center reviews are objective.
• Including assessments of personal behaviors related to respect and civility in performance reviews.
• Establishing confidential, fair, and transparent mechanisms for reporting and investigating individuals and/or departments suspected of BDBH.
• Adopting longitudinal metrics and accurate data collection to track progress and inform future policy and interventions.
• Encouraging independent evaluation of institutional culture and efforts to reduce BDBH.
• Celebrating those who promote and achieve excellence in reducing BDBH.

Patients behaving badly

What’s new, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, is the number of patients who themselves engage in disrespectful and uncivil behavior, observed Dr. Douglas.

“As physicians, it was the patient’s always right. So you work to do backflips to accommodate the patient,” she said. “But when the patient says: I don’t want to be treated by anybody that comes from outside the United States, that’s not our society anymore. And that has to be addressed and dealt with.”

The policy statement features a suite of online tools and resources including 15 case examples and 30 sample policies from institutions that have been anonymized and some provide an action framework for addressing this type of patient behavior, Dr. Douglas said. An individual, for example, can ask the patient why they made the remark, explaining that the provider is qualified and someone they’d like to have care for their own family. If it was a trainee on the receiving end, it’s fair for them to go back to their supervisor, mentor, or training director.

“They should back you up and explain to the patient that it’s not who we are at this hospital and that they’re happy to provide care, but they are part of the hospital and need to obey the rules and environment in this hospital,” she said.

Writing committee cochair Michael J. Mack, MD, of Baylor Scott & White Health, Plano, Tex., told tthis news organization that “one of the concepts that I hadn’t heard before that resonated with me was the term ‘upstander’ – that you can’t just be a bystander and watch this happen and do nothing. If you’re witness to this in the workplace, if it’s gender bias or racial bias, you need to get involved and reach out to that individual and see what you can do to help and be a reporter of it.”
 

But it’s all too costly

Financial constraints are often cited as a reason not to focus on bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment in the workplace or to shelve initiatives, but it’s a false argument, say Dr. Mack and Dr. Douglas.

“One of the case examples is a cardiology practice that is suffering a decline in finances, and the board makes the recommendation that the efforts at diversity and civil workplaces need to be the first to go,” Dr. Mack explained. “And the point that’s being made in this is you can’t afford not to do it because it ends up being more costly to the business in the long run.”

Part of that cost is associated with losing valuable employees that were contributing but left because there wasn’t a culture of respectfulness and positivity in their workplace. While that’s always been a risk, it’s become a particularly compelling issue because of the workforce shortages present 3 years on in the pandemic, he said.

“There’s a new reexamination to be sure that we have a positive work environment that people want to come to work at every day,” he said. “I run our Research Institute, and normally we have a 5% vacancy rate, and our unfilled-position rate is 25% right now.”

Health care is delivered as a team today, but if a member feels disrespected, or worse – harassed, bullied, or discriminated against – they’re not going to contribute at the top of their game, Dr. Douglas said.

“It’s very well documented that bad behavior exists and that it has negative consequences for patient care for institutions, who are at great risk legally and regulatory wise,” she said. “And the document makes that clear that that risk is increasing.”

Dr. Douglas pointed out that the Joint Commission now requires good behavior in institutions that it accredits and that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires education around professionalism and evidence that their trainees are treated as professionals.

Funding agencies like the National Institutes of Health have also jumped into this space, recently establishing a hotline to report harassment, discrimination, and bullying perpetrated by an NIH-funded investigator, and giving institutions 30 days to investigate.

“In the last 2 years they have defunded, taken away the grants of 75 investigators, compared to zero in the 5 years before that,” Dr. Douglas said. “So I think, even though the bad behavior may be escalating, the consequences are escalating too.”

The new “2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Building Respect, Civility, and Inclusion in the Cardiovascular Workplace” will be discussed in a session at the ACC 2022 Scientific Sessions on April 2 at 4:15 p.m. ET.

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

The American College of Cardiology has issued a new health policy statement directed at eliminating the bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment that hamstrings the delivery of quality cardiovascular care.

“We pay a lot of attention, of course, to our patients and patient care issues but our ability to care optimally for patients is limited if the workforce is handicapped in any way,” said Pamela S. Douglas, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who cochaired the writing committee.

The document is the second in the ACC’s diversity inclusion initiative, following the 2019 report on equal compensation and opportunity in cardiology, but the foundation for the work actually started 5 years ago, she told this news organization.

“Unfortunately, COVID and other world events have created a climate in the United States where people don’t treat each other terribly well,” Dr. Douglas said. “It’s divisive and confrontational often, when it should be collaborative. So this document, at this time, was serendipitous but wonderful timing.”

The 2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Building Respect, Civility, and Inclusion in the Cardiovascular Workforce was published online March 17 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The 63-page document provides 12 principles for building a better workplace, starting with the belief that civil behavior and respect are inherent in its core values of teamwork, collaboration, and professionalism.

The ACC calls on all organizations and individuals involved in providing cardiovascular care, education, or research to recognize the “ubiquity” of uncivil behavior and the continuum of bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment (BDBH) that characterize it.

Some of the recommendations they offer to eliminate these behaviors include:

• Creating institutional policies and resources to ensure hiring decisions, evaluations, and departmental/program/center reviews are objective.
• Including assessments of personal behaviors related to respect and civility in performance reviews.
• Establishing confidential, fair, and transparent mechanisms for reporting and investigating individuals and/or departments suspected of BDBH.
• Adopting longitudinal metrics and accurate data collection to track progress and inform future policy and interventions.
• Encouraging independent evaluation of institutional culture and efforts to reduce BDBH.
• Celebrating those who promote and achieve excellence in reducing BDBH.

Patients behaving badly

What’s new, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, is the number of patients who themselves engage in disrespectful and uncivil behavior, observed Dr. Douglas.

“As physicians, it was the patient’s always right. So you work to do backflips to accommodate the patient,” she said. “But when the patient says: I don’t want to be treated by anybody that comes from outside the United States, that’s not our society anymore. And that has to be addressed and dealt with.”

The policy statement features a suite of online tools and resources including 15 case examples and 30 sample policies from institutions that have been anonymized and some provide an action framework for addressing this type of patient behavior, Dr. Douglas said. An individual, for example, can ask the patient why they made the remark, explaining that the provider is qualified and someone they’d like to have care for their own family. If it was a trainee on the receiving end, it’s fair for them to go back to their supervisor, mentor, or training director.

“They should back you up and explain to the patient that it’s not who we are at this hospital and that they’re happy to provide care, but they are part of the hospital and need to obey the rules and environment in this hospital,” she said.

Writing committee cochair Michael J. Mack, MD, of Baylor Scott & White Health, Plano, Tex., told tthis news organization that “one of the concepts that I hadn’t heard before that resonated with me was the term ‘upstander’ – that you can’t just be a bystander and watch this happen and do nothing. If you’re witness to this in the workplace, if it’s gender bias or racial bias, you need to get involved and reach out to that individual and see what you can do to help and be a reporter of it.”
 

But it’s all too costly

Financial constraints are often cited as a reason not to focus on bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment in the workplace or to shelve initiatives, but it’s a false argument, say Dr. Mack and Dr. Douglas.

“One of the case examples is a cardiology practice that is suffering a decline in finances, and the board makes the recommendation that the efforts at diversity and civil workplaces need to be the first to go,” Dr. Mack explained. “And the point that’s being made in this is you can’t afford not to do it because it ends up being more costly to the business in the long run.”

Part of that cost is associated with losing valuable employees that were contributing but left because there wasn’t a culture of respectfulness and positivity in their workplace. While that’s always been a risk, it’s become a particularly compelling issue because of the workforce shortages present 3 years on in the pandemic, he said.

“There’s a new reexamination to be sure that we have a positive work environment that people want to come to work at every day,” he said. “I run our Research Institute, and normally we have a 5% vacancy rate, and our unfilled-position rate is 25% right now.”

Health care is delivered as a team today, but if a member feels disrespected, or worse – harassed, bullied, or discriminated against – they’re not going to contribute at the top of their game, Dr. Douglas said.

“It’s very well documented that bad behavior exists and that it has negative consequences for patient care for institutions, who are at great risk legally and regulatory wise,” she said. “And the document makes that clear that that risk is increasing.”

Dr. Douglas pointed out that the Joint Commission now requires good behavior in institutions that it accredits and that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires education around professionalism and evidence that their trainees are treated as professionals.

Funding agencies like the National Institutes of Health have also jumped into this space, recently establishing a hotline to report harassment, discrimination, and bullying perpetrated by an NIH-funded investigator, and giving institutions 30 days to investigate.

“In the last 2 years they have defunded, taken away the grants of 75 investigators, compared to zero in the 5 years before that,” Dr. Douglas said. “So I think, even though the bad behavior may be escalating, the consequences are escalating too.”

The new “2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Building Respect, Civility, and Inclusion in the Cardiovascular Workplace” will be discussed in a session at the ACC 2022 Scientific Sessions on April 2 at 4:15 p.m. ET.

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

Among Black and White children, higher socioeconomic status (SES) was associated with lower pediatric postoperative mortality, according to a cohort study published in JAMA Network Open. However, this association was not equitable when comparing Black and White children.

The results showed that postoperative mortality rates were significantly higher in Black children in the highest income category, compared with White children in the same category.

“[We] assessed whether increasing family SES is associated with lower pediatric postoperative mortality and, if so, whether this association is equitable among Black and White children,” Brittany L. Willer, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues wrote.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from 51 pediatric tertiary care hospitals apart of the Children’s Hospital Association Pediatric Health Information System. The cohort included children younger than 18 years who underwent inpatient surgical procedures between January 2004 and December 2020.

The exposures of interest were race and parental income quartile; the primary endpoint was risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality rates by race and parental income quartile.
 

Results

The study cohort included 1,378,111 participants, including 248,464 (18.0%) Black and 1,129,647 (82.0%) White children, respectively.

The overall mortality rate was 1.2%, and rates decreased as income quartile increased (1.4% in quartile 1 [lowest income]; 1.3% in quartile 2; 1.0% in quartile 3; and 0.9% in quartile 4 [highest income]; P < .001).

Among participants in the three lowest income quartiles, Black children had 33% greater odds of postoperative death versus White children (adjusted odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.39; P < .001). This difference persisted in children in the highest income quartile (aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.25-1.54; P < .001).

In addition, postoperative mortality rates in Black children in the highest income quartile (1.30%; 95% CI, 1.19%-1.42%) were similar to those of White children in the lowest income quartile (1.20%; 95% CI, 1.16%-1.25%).

“These findings suggest that increasing family SES did not provide equitable advantage to Black, compared with White children, and interventions that target socioeconomic inequities alone may not fully address persistent racial disparities in pediatric postoperative mortality,” wrote Dr. Willer and colleagues. “A multifaceted approach that includes dismantling of socioeconomic barriers, equitable availability of comprehensive pediatric surgical care, and personalized care for children of all races is needed.”

The researchers acknowledged that a potential limitation of the study was the use of zip code–level median household income as a proxy for family SES.
 

A perspective

In an interview, Timothy Joos, MD, a Seattle internist and pediatrician in private practice, said “there is a fair dose of racism and classism inside all of us – recognizing and coming to terms with it are steps toward improving equity issues.

“As providers, we have to remind ourselves to give our most prompt and thorough care to the patients with the most acute and severe illnesses,” Dr. Joos said. “As organizations, we have to pursue feedback from all our clients, but with special outreach to those that are used to not having their voices heard.”

No funding sources were reported. The authors reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Joos is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board but had no other disclosures.

Among Black and White children, higher socioeconomic status (SES) was associated with lower pediatric postoperative mortality, according to a cohort study published in JAMA Network Open. However, this association was not equitable when comparing Black and White children.

The results showed that postoperative mortality rates were significantly higher in Black children in the highest income category, compared with White children in the same category.

“[We] assessed whether increasing family SES is associated with lower pediatric postoperative mortality and, if so, whether this association is equitable among Black and White children,” Brittany L. Willer, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues wrote.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from 51 pediatric tertiary care hospitals apart of the Children’s Hospital Association Pediatric Health Information System. The cohort included children younger than 18 years who underwent inpatient surgical procedures between January 2004 and December 2020.

The exposures of interest were race and parental income quartile; the primary endpoint was risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality rates by race and parental income quartile.
 

Results

The study cohort included 1,378,111 participants, including 248,464 (18.0%) Black and 1,129,647 (82.0%) White children, respectively.

The overall mortality rate was 1.2%, and rates decreased as income quartile increased (1.4% in quartile 1 [lowest income]; 1.3% in quartile 2; 1.0% in quartile 3; and 0.9% in quartile 4 [highest income]; P < .001).

Among participants in the three lowest income quartiles, Black children had 33% greater odds of postoperative death versus White children (adjusted odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.39; P < .001). This difference persisted in children in the highest income quartile (aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.25-1.54; P < .001).

In addition, postoperative mortality rates in Black children in the highest income quartile (1.30%; 95% CI, 1.19%-1.42%) were similar to those of White children in the lowest income quartile (1.20%; 95% CI, 1.16%-1.25%).

“These findings suggest that increasing family SES did not provide equitable advantage to Black, compared with White children, and interventions that target socioeconomic inequities alone may not fully address persistent racial disparities in pediatric postoperative mortality,” wrote Dr. Willer and colleagues. “A multifaceted approach that includes dismantling of socioeconomic barriers, equitable availability of comprehensive pediatric surgical care, and personalized care for children of all races is needed.”

The researchers acknowledged that a potential limitation of the study was the use of zip code–level median household income as a proxy for family SES.
 

A perspective

In an interview, Timothy Joos, MD, a Seattle internist and pediatrician in private practice, said “there is a fair dose of racism and classism inside all of us – recognizing and coming to terms with it are steps toward improving equity issues.

“As providers, we have to remind ourselves to give our most prompt and thorough care to the patients with the most acute and severe illnesses,” Dr. Joos said. “As organizations, we have to pursue feedback from all our clients, but with special outreach to those that are used to not having their voices heard.”

No funding sources were reported. The authors reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Joos is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board but had no other disclosures.

Among Black and White children, higher socioeconomic status (SES) was associated with lower pediatric postoperative mortality, according to a cohort study published in JAMA Network Open. However, this association was not equitable when comparing Black and White children.

The results showed that postoperative mortality rates were significantly higher in Black children in the highest income category, compared with White children in the same category.

“[We] assessed whether increasing family SES is associated with lower pediatric postoperative mortality and, if so, whether this association is equitable among Black and White children,” Brittany L. Willer, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues wrote.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from 51 pediatric tertiary care hospitals apart of the Children’s Hospital Association Pediatric Health Information System. The cohort included children younger than 18 years who underwent inpatient surgical procedures between January 2004 and December 2020.

The exposures of interest were race and parental income quartile; the primary endpoint was risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality rates by race and parental income quartile.
 

Results

The study cohort included 1,378,111 participants, including 248,464 (18.0%) Black and 1,129,647 (82.0%) White children, respectively.

The overall mortality rate was 1.2%, and rates decreased as income quartile increased (1.4% in quartile 1 [lowest income]; 1.3% in quartile 2; 1.0% in quartile 3; and 0.9% in quartile 4 [highest income]; P < .001).

Among participants in the three lowest income quartiles, Black children had 33% greater odds of postoperative death versus White children (adjusted odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.39; P < .001). This difference persisted in children in the highest income quartile (aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.25-1.54; P < .001).

In addition, postoperative mortality rates in Black children in the highest income quartile (1.30%; 95% CI, 1.19%-1.42%) were similar to those of White children in the lowest income quartile (1.20%; 95% CI, 1.16%-1.25%).

“These findings suggest that increasing family SES did not provide equitable advantage to Black, compared with White children, and interventions that target socioeconomic inequities alone may not fully address persistent racial disparities in pediatric postoperative mortality,” wrote Dr. Willer and colleagues. “A multifaceted approach that includes dismantling of socioeconomic barriers, equitable availability of comprehensive pediatric surgical care, and personalized care for children of all races is needed.”

The researchers acknowledged that a potential limitation of the study was the use of zip code–level median household income as a proxy for family SES.
 

A perspective

In an interview, Timothy Joos, MD, a Seattle internist and pediatrician in private practice, said “there is a fair dose of racism and classism inside all of us – recognizing and coming to terms with it are steps toward improving equity issues.

“As providers, we have to remind ourselves to give our most prompt and thorough care to the patients with the most acute and severe illnesses,” Dr. Joos said. “As organizations, we have to pursue feedback from all our clients, but with special outreach to those that are used to not having their voices heard.”

No funding sources were reported. The authors reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Joos is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board but had no other disclosures.