Mixed Topics

The current pandemic is forcing changes throughout the health care industry. Telehealth is witnessing a surge. Hospitals are struggling without elective care, and remarkably, physicians are being laid off during a time of crisis. While some states have a surplus work force, other states go begging, and they lock the system up with delays in the processing of applications.

Considering the prevalence of noncompete clauses and a schism in state-to-state processing of complaints, patients are suffering and dying under an antiquated system. The Federation of State Medical Boards doesn’t seem to add to the solution, but instead confounds the problem with new directives. The time is nigh for the federal government to eliminate state medical licensure and replace it with a national medical license for all physicians and health care professionals.

Because physicians’ training requirements don’t vary from state to state, it makes sense. We must take national standardized exams to qualify. Locum tenens physicians must maintain licensure in as many states as they practice; this creates an unnecessary burden and expense, when there is a better alternative. Some states have arranged reciprocity licensure with other states. This is commendable but doesn’t go far enough to manage national shortages in rural areas.

Under a national licensing system, physicians and other health care professionals would not only be free to travel anywhere in the United States to practice, they can count on consistent and equal management of their license. The federal government can track regional overages and shortages and redirect physicians and other medical professionals with incentives to areas in need.

The FSMB claims that there is interstate continuity among state medical boards, but the data don’t support this.

Why is this the case? Each medical board fails to manage their charges equally. Often, action taken by one state board when reported to another state board can cause a review and readjudication. This occasionally results in the overturning of a reprimand or suspension because of differences in legislation.

Yet the physician or health care professional must bear the burden of the notification against their license. Once again, the FSMB claims there is interstate continuity in disciplinary actions, but the data do not support this.

Once someone brings a complaint against a health professional, which in this health care climate is inevitable, the medical board must institute an investigation. Even if it has no merit, the process must go forward. Under a national system, a consistent approach to dismiss and investigate issues and complaints might expedite the process. This eliminates inefficiency and delays in clearance of charges.

A report in 2006 identified fragmentation and discontinuities in the way each state medical board manages a physician or other health care personnel’s complaints. The number of hands involved in the process varies and is often onerous and redundant. Several sources may request the same information, tying it up as it moves through an inefficient and uncooperative system. With the increase in internal politics since then, this only compounds rather than improves the problem.

Yet the benefit of national licensure is not just for the health care personnel but also for insurance companies that must register and screen physicians as they move from region to region. In each state, the physician must repeat the accreditation process, delaying reimbursements and denying care. Hospitals also must repeat the credentialing task as well. This, although the physician or health care worker has a clean record with the same company or the same hospital system in their original state.

Perhaps data from one insurance group or hospital in another state get lost or altered in transfer, but under national licensing, this would not be possible. Furthermore, the current system limits the individual professional’s input. By nationalizing, record corrections would go through a federal database rather than state data banks that don’t sync.

This already partially exists with the National Practitioner Identifier. But we can take it one step further. Through nationalization, we could institute a fairer system of reporting where both the professional’s and the complainant’s summary is included. One might argue the National Physician Data Bank performs this function, but in fact, it merely reflects state assessments – which again vary.

The infrastructure is already in place to transition from a state to national system with facilities and records kept in each state’s medical board. It would simply be a matter of replacing state personnel with federal employees who all work from the same script. A national medical license simply makes sense for all parties. It reduces discontinuity and increases efficiency. A national medical license empowers the individual rather than institutions, yet benefits both.

The time is nigh to nationally certify and set physicians free, reduce paperwork and needless fees, and eliminate state supremacy.  


Dr. Raymond is an emergency physician based in Hickory, N.C., and Muckendorf an der Donau, Austria.

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

The current pandemic is forcing changes throughout the health care industry. Telehealth is witnessing a surge. Hospitals are struggling without elective care, and remarkably, physicians are being laid off during a time of crisis. While some states have a surplus work force, other states go begging, and they lock the system up with delays in the processing of applications.

Considering the prevalence of noncompete clauses and a schism in state-to-state processing of complaints, patients are suffering and dying under an antiquated system. The Federation of State Medical Boards doesn’t seem to add to the solution, but instead confounds the problem with new directives. The time is nigh for the federal government to eliminate state medical licensure and replace it with a national medical license for all physicians and health care professionals.

Because physicians’ training requirements don’t vary from state to state, it makes sense. We must take national standardized exams to qualify. Locum tenens physicians must maintain licensure in as many states as they practice; this creates an unnecessary burden and expense, when there is a better alternative. Some states have arranged reciprocity licensure with other states. This is commendable but doesn’t go far enough to manage national shortages in rural areas.

Under a national licensing system, physicians and other health care professionals would not only be free to travel anywhere in the United States to practice, they can count on consistent and equal management of their license. The federal government can track regional overages and shortages and redirect physicians and other medical professionals with incentives to areas in need.

The FSMB claims that there is interstate continuity among state medical boards, but the data don’t support this.

Why is this the case? Each medical board fails to manage their charges equally. Often, action taken by one state board when reported to another state board can cause a review and readjudication. This occasionally results in the overturning of a reprimand or suspension because of differences in legislation.

Yet the physician or health care professional must bear the burden of the notification against their license. Once again, the FSMB claims there is interstate continuity in disciplinary actions, but the data do not support this.

Once someone brings a complaint against a health professional, which in this health care climate is inevitable, the medical board must institute an investigation. Even if it has no merit, the process must go forward. Under a national system, a consistent approach to dismiss and investigate issues and complaints might expedite the process. This eliminates inefficiency and delays in clearance of charges.

A report in 2006 identified fragmentation and discontinuities in the way each state medical board manages a physician or other health care personnel’s complaints. The number of hands involved in the process varies and is often onerous and redundant. Several sources may request the same information, tying it up as it moves through an inefficient and uncooperative system. With the increase in internal politics since then, this only compounds rather than improves the problem.

Yet the benefit of national licensure is not just for the health care personnel but also for insurance companies that must register and screen physicians as they move from region to region. In each state, the physician must repeat the accreditation process, delaying reimbursements and denying care. Hospitals also must repeat the credentialing task as well. This, although the physician or health care worker has a clean record with the same company or the same hospital system in their original state.

Perhaps data from one insurance group or hospital in another state get lost or altered in transfer, but under national licensing, this would not be possible. Furthermore, the current system limits the individual professional’s input. By nationalizing, record corrections would go through a federal database rather than state data banks that don’t sync.

This already partially exists with the National Practitioner Identifier. But we can take it one step further. Through nationalization, we could institute a fairer system of reporting where both the professional’s and the complainant’s summary is included. One might argue the National Physician Data Bank performs this function, but in fact, it merely reflects state assessments – which again vary.

The infrastructure is already in place to transition from a state to national system with facilities and records kept in each state’s medical board. It would simply be a matter of replacing state personnel with federal employees who all work from the same script. A national medical license simply makes sense for all parties. It reduces discontinuity and increases efficiency. A national medical license empowers the individual rather than institutions, yet benefits both.

The time is nigh to nationally certify and set physicians free, reduce paperwork and needless fees, and eliminate state supremacy.  


Dr. Raymond is an emergency physician based in Hickory, N.C., and Muckendorf an der Donau, Austria.

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

The current pandemic is forcing changes throughout the health care industry. Telehealth is witnessing a surge. Hospitals are struggling without elective care, and remarkably, physicians are being laid off during a time of crisis. While some states have a surplus work force, other states go begging, and they lock the system up with delays in the processing of applications.

Considering the prevalence of noncompete clauses and a schism in state-to-state processing of complaints, patients are suffering and dying under an antiquated system. The Federation of State Medical Boards doesn’t seem to add to the solution, but instead confounds the problem with new directives. The time is nigh for the federal government to eliminate state medical licensure and replace it with a national medical license for all physicians and health care professionals.

Because physicians’ training requirements don’t vary from state to state, it makes sense. We must take national standardized exams to qualify. Locum tenens physicians must maintain licensure in as many states as they practice; this creates an unnecessary burden and expense, when there is a better alternative. Some states have arranged reciprocity licensure with other states. This is commendable but doesn’t go far enough to manage national shortages in rural areas.

Under a national licensing system, physicians and other health care professionals would not only be free to travel anywhere in the United States to practice, they can count on consistent and equal management of their license. The federal government can track regional overages and shortages and redirect physicians and other medical professionals with incentives to areas in need.

The FSMB claims that there is interstate continuity among state medical boards, but the data don’t support this.

Why is this the case? Each medical board fails to manage their charges equally. Often, action taken by one state board when reported to another state board can cause a review and readjudication. This occasionally results in the overturning of a reprimand or suspension because of differences in legislation.

Yet the physician or health care professional must bear the burden of the notification against their license. Once again, the FSMB claims there is interstate continuity in disciplinary actions, but the data do not support this.

Once someone brings a complaint against a health professional, which in this health care climate is inevitable, the medical board must institute an investigation. Even if it has no merit, the process must go forward. Under a national system, a consistent approach to dismiss and investigate issues and complaints might expedite the process. This eliminates inefficiency and delays in clearance of charges.

A report in 2006 identified fragmentation and discontinuities in the way each state medical board manages a physician or other health care personnel’s complaints. The number of hands involved in the process varies and is often onerous and redundant. Several sources may request the same information, tying it up as it moves through an inefficient and uncooperative system. With the increase in internal politics since then, this only compounds rather than improves the problem.

Yet the benefit of national licensure is not just for the health care personnel but also for insurance companies that must register and screen physicians as they move from region to region. In each state, the physician must repeat the accreditation process, delaying reimbursements and denying care. Hospitals also must repeat the credentialing task as well. This, although the physician or health care worker has a clean record with the same company or the same hospital system in their original state.

Perhaps data from one insurance group or hospital in another state get lost or altered in transfer, but under national licensing, this would not be possible. Furthermore, the current system limits the individual professional’s input. By nationalizing, record corrections would go through a federal database rather than state data banks that don’t sync.

This already partially exists with the National Practitioner Identifier. But we can take it one step further. Through nationalization, we could institute a fairer system of reporting where both the professional’s and the complainant’s summary is included. One might argue the National Physician Data Bank performs this function, but in fact, it merely reflects state assessments – which again vary.

The infrastructure is already in place to transition from a state to national system with facilities and records kept in each state’s medical board. It would simply be a matter of replacing state personnel with federal employees who all work from the same script. A national medical license simply makes sense for all parties. It reduces discontinuity and increases efficiency. A national medical license empowers the individual rather than institutions, yet benefits both.

The time is nigh to nationally certify and set physicians free, reduce paperwork and needless fees, and eliminate state supremacy.  


Dr. Raymond is an emergency physician based in Hickory, N.C., and Muckendorf an der Donau, Austria.

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

Anaplasmosis prevalence in New York state nearly quadrupled statewide from 2010 to 2018, new research suggests, increasing by more than eightfold in the region surrounding Albany, the state capital. The proportion of ticks carrying Anaplasma phagocytophilum, the bacterium that causes the tick-borne disease, also increased during the study period. 

Although not as well-recognized as Lyme disease, anaplasmosis is one of the most common tickborne diseases in the United States. The bacterial disease is primarily transmitted to humans by the bites of blacklegged ticks infected with A. phagocytophilum, and often causes fever, headache, muscle aches, and chills. If treatment is delayed – or if a patient has underlying medical conditions – anaplasmosis can lead to difficulty breathing, bleeding problems, organ failure, and even death.

Since anaplasmosis become a nationally notifiable disease in 1999, cases have increased 16-fold in the United States, from 351 cases in 2000 to a high of 5,762 cases in 2017, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Just eight states – Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and New York – make up 90% of reported cases.

“While Lyme disease remains the most common tick-borne illness reported in New York state, anaplasmosis continues to account for a growing proportion of our tick-borne disease cases each year,” Melissa Prusinski, a research scientist at the New York State Department of Health and author of the study, told this news organization in an email. “It is critically important to investigate the environmental and epidemiological drivers facilitating this increase to better understand why and how risk for this serious illness is increasing.” The results were published in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

For the study, investigators analyzed human anaplasmosis cases reported to the New York State Department of Health from 2010-2018. They also included data from tick collection and pathogen testing in order to determine whether the prevalence of A. phagocytophilum in ticks increased along with cases. All New York State counties were included in the study, apart from the five boroughs of New York City: Manhattan, Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island.

There were 5,146 reported anaplasmosis cases in New York, with annual case numbers peaking at 1,112 in 2017. Researchers reported a dip in cases in 2018, a trend that was also seen nationally. Anaplasmosis incidence surged in the area surrounding Albany, increasing 8.4-fold from 4.3 cases per 100,000 people in 2010 to 36.3 cases per 100,000 persons in 2018.

Ms. Prusinski noted that the rapid increase in and around this inland hot spot is unlike the gradual spread of Lyme disease and other tick-borne illnesses like babesiosis, which spreads from coastal areas both northward and westward across New York. The research team also found that the incidence of ticks infected with A. phagocytophilum nearly doubled statewide and increased fourfold – from 2.9% to 12% – between 2010 and 2018 in the Albany area.

This increase in cases could be the result, at least in part, of more robust testing efforts over time, said Susan Elias, PhD, of the Vector-Borne Disease Laboratory at the Maine Medical Center Research Institute in Scarborough. She was not involved with the recently published study. “The more you look for something, the more you find,” she said. For example, she added, a 602% surge in anaplasmosis cases in Maine from 2013-2017 occurred alongside a 10-fold increase in use of tick-borne disease panels that test for multiple pathogens.

Ms. Prusinski agreed that increased testing at least partially explains the surge of cases in New York, but she did not have data on how many tick-borne disease panels were used to diagnose cases in the state.

Proliferation of A. phagocytophilum in tick populations could also partially explain this dramatic increase in cases. With the suburbanization of America, “we have basically laid out a buffet” for ticks, Dr. Elias said. Patches of forest and yards create edge habitats where ticks, and the small mammals they feed on, thrive. “Then, once you have a large expanding blacklegged tick population, it makes it easier for the pathogens and carriers to amplify,” she added.

While the study did not differentiate between a variant of A. phagocytophilum associated with small mammals that causes illness and another found in white-tailed deer that is nonpathogenic, Ms. Prusinski suspects that the infectious variant is likely more prevalent and is circulating in animals and ticks in and around Albany. Research is ongoing to see if this could help explain the spread of disease in this anaplasmosis hotspot.

“The unique geographic pattern of anaplasmosis spread in New York state and elsewhere leads to many further questions about the vector ecology and epidemiology of this emerging tick-borne illness,” Ms. Prusinski added. “Learning all we can about this dynamic disease system will help us better identify at-risk populations and may lead to novel ways to prevent anaplasmosis.”

Dr. Elias and Ms. Prusinski disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Anaplasmosis prevalence in New York state nearly quadrupled statewide from 2010 to 2018, new research suggests, increasing by more than eightfold in the region surrounding Albany, the state capital. The proportion of ticks carrying Anaplasma phagocytophilum, the bacterium that causes the tick-borne disease, also increased during the study period. 

Although not as well-recognized as Lyme disease, anaplasmosis is one of the most common tickborne diseases in the United States. The bacterial disease is primarily transmitted to humans by the bites of blacklegged ticks infected with A. phagocytophilum, and often causes fever, headache, muscle aches, and chills. If treatment is delayed – or if a patient has underlying medical conditions – anaplasmosis can lead to difficulty breathing, bleeding problems, organ failure, and even death.

Since anaplasmosis become a nationally notifiable disease in 1999, cases have increased 16-fold in the United States, from 351 cases in 2000 to a high of 5,762 cases in 2017, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Just eight states – Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and New York – make up 90% of reported cases.

“While Lyme disease remains the most common tick-borne illness reported in New York state, anaplasmosis continues to account for a growing proportion of our tick-borne disease cases each year,” Melissa Prusinski, a research scientist at the New York State Department of Health and author of the study, told this news organization in an email. “It is critically important to investigate the environmental and epidemiological drivers facilitating this increase to better understand why and how risk for this serious illness is increasing.” The results were published in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

For the study, investigators analyzed human anaplasmosis cases reported to the New York State Department of Health from 2010-2018. They also included data from tick collection and pathogen testing in order to determine whether the prevalence of A. phagocytophilum in ticks increased along with cases. All New York State counties were included in the study, apart from the five boroughs of New York City: Manhattan, Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island.

There were 5,146 reported anaplasmosis cases in New York, with annual case numbers peaking at 1,112 in 2017. Researchers reported a dip in cases in 2018, a trend that was also seen nationally. Anaplasmosis incidence surged in the area surrounding Albany, increasing 8.4-fold from 4.3 cases per 100,000 people in 2010 to 36.3 cases per 100,000 persons in 2018.

Ms. Prusinski noted that the rapid increase in and around this inland hot spot is unlike the gradual spread of Lyme disease and other tick-borne illnesses like babesiosis, which spreads from coastal areas both northward and westward across New York. The research team also found that the incidence of ticks infected with A. phagocytophilum nearly doubled statewide and increased fourfold – from 2.9% to 12% – between 2010 and 2018 in the Albany area.

This increase in cases could be the result, at least in part, of more robust testing efforts over time, said Susan Elias, PhD, of the Vector-Borne Disease Laboratory at the Maine Medical Center Research Institute in Scarborough. She was not involved with the recently published study. “The more you look for something, the more you find,” she said. For example, she added, a 602% surge in anaplasmosis cases in Maine from 2013-2017 occurred alongside a 10-fold increase in use of tick-borne disease panels that test for multiple pathogens.

Ms. Prusinski agreed that increased testing at least partially explains the surge of cases in New York, but she did not have data on how many tick-borne disease panels were used to diagnose cases in the state.

Proliferation of A. phagocytophilum in tick populations could also partially explain this dramatic increase in cases. With the suburbanization of America, “we have basically laid out a buffet” for ticks, Dr. Elias said. Patches of forest and yards create edge habitats where ticks, and the small mammals they feed on, thrive. “Then, once you have a large expanding blacklegged tick population, it makes it easier for the pathogens and carriers to amplify,” she added.

While the study did not differentiate between a variant of A. phagocytophilum associated with small mammals that causes illness and another found in white-tailed deer that is nonpathogenic, Ms. Prusinski suspects that the infectious variant is likely more prevalent and is circulating in animals and ticks in and around Albany. Research is ongoing to see if this could help explain the spread of disease in this anaplasmosis hotspot.

“The unique geographic pattern of anaplasmosis spread in New York state and elsewhere leads to many further questions about the vector ecology and epidemiology of this emerging tick-borne illness,” Ms. Prusinski added. “Learning all we can about this dynamic disease system will help us better identify at-risk populations and may lead to novel ways to prevent anaplasmosis.”

Dr. Elias and Ms. Prusinski disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Anaplasmosis prevalence in New York state nearly quadrupled statewide from 2010 to 2018, new research suggests, increasing by more than eightfold in the region surrounding Albany, the state capital. The proportion of ticks carrying Anaplasma phagocytophilum, the bacterium that causes the tick-borne disease, also increased during the study period. 

Although not as well-recognized as Lyme disease, anaplasmosis is one of the most common tickborne diseases in the United States. The bacterial disease is primarily transmitted to humans by the bites of blacklegged ticks infected with A. phagocytophilum, and often causes fever, headache, muscle aches, and chills. If treatment is delayed – or if a patient has underlying medical conditions – anaplasmosis can lead to difficulty breathing, bleeding problems, organ failure, and even death.

Since anaplasmosis become a nationally notifiable disease in 1999, cases have increased 16-fold in the United States, from 351 cases in 2000 to a high of 5,762 cases in 2017, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Just eight states – Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and New York – make up 90% of reported cases.

“While Lyme disease remains the most common tick-borne illness reported in New York state, anaplasmosis continues to account for a growing proportion of our tick-borne disease cases each year,” Melissa Prusinski, a research scientist at the New York State Department of Health and author of the study, told this news organization in an email. “It is critically important to investigate the environmental and epidemiological drivers facilitating this increase to better understand why and how risk for this serious illness is increasing.” The results were published in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

For the study, investigators analyzed human anaplasmosis cases reported to the New York State Department of Health from 2010-2018. They also included data from tick collection and pathogen testing in order to determine whether the prevalence of A. phagocytophilum in ticks increased along with cases. All New York State counties were included in the study, apart from the five boroughs of New York City: Manhattan, Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island.

There were 5,146 reported anaplasmosis cases in New York, with annual case numbers peaking at 1,112 in 2017. Researchers reported a dip in cases in 2018, a trend that was also seen nationally. Anaplasmosis incidence surged in the area surrounding Albany, increasing 8.4-fold from 4.3 cases per 100,000 people in 2010 to 36.3 cases per 100,000 persons in 2018.

Ms. Prusinski noted that the rapid increase in and around this inland hot spot is unlike the gradual spread of Lyme disease and other tick-borne illnesses like babesiosis, which spreads from coastal areas both northward and westward across New York. The research team also found that the incidence of ticks infected with A. phagocytophilum nearly doubled statewide and increased fourfold – from 2.9% to 12% – between 2010 and 2018 in the Albany area.

This increase in cases could be the result, at least in part, of more robust testing efforts over time, said Susan Elias, PhD, of the Vector-Borne Disease Laboratory at the Maine Medical Center Research Institute in Scarborough. She was not involved with the recently published study. “The more you look for something, the more you find,” she said. For example, she added, a 602% surge in anaplasmosis cases in Maine from 2013-2017 occurred alongside a 10-fold increase in use of tick-borne disease panels that test for multiple pathogens.

Ms. Prusinski agreed that increased testing at least partially explains the surge of cases in New York, but she did not have data on how many tick-borne disease panels were used to diagnose cases in the state.

Proliferation of A. phagocytophilum in tick populations could also partially explain this dramatic increase in cases. With the suburbanization of America, “we have basically laid out a buffet” for ticks, Dr. Elias said. Patches of forest and yards create edge habitats where ticks, and the small mammals they feed on, thrive. “Then, once you have a large expanding blacklegged tick population, it makes it easier for the pathogens and carriers to amplify,” she added.

While the study did not differentiate between a variant of A. phagocytophilum associated with small mammals that causes illness and another found in white-tailed deer that is nonpathogenic, Ms. Prusinski suspects that the infectious variant is likely more prevalent and is circulating in animals and ticks in and around Albany. Research is ongoing to see if this could help explain the spread of disease in this anaplasmosis hotspot.

“The unique geographic pattern of anaplasmosis spread in New York state and elsewhere leads to many further questions about the vector ecology and epidemiology of this emerging tick-borne illness,” Ms. Prusinski added. “Learning all we can about this dynamic disease system will help us better identify at-risk populations and may lead to novel ways to prevent anaplasmosis.”

Dr. Elias and Ms. Prusinski disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mobile applications (apps) have been a growing part of medicine for the last decade. In 2020, more than 15.5 million apps were available for download,¹ and more than 325,000 apps were health related.² Much of the peer-reviewed literature on health-related apps has focused on apps that target patients. Therefore, we studied apps for health care providers, specifically dermatology residents of different sexes throughout residency. We investigated the role of apps in their training, including how often residents consult apps, which apps they utilize, and why.

Methods

An original online survey regarding mobile apps was emailed to all 1587 dermatology residents in America by the American Academy of Dermatology from summer 2019 to summer 2020. Responses were anonymous, voluntary, unincentivized, and collected over 17 days. To protect respondent privacy, minimal data were collected regarding training programs; geography served as a proxy for how resource rich or resource poor those programs may be. Categorization of urban vs rural was based on the 2010 Census classification, such that Arizona; California; Colorado; Connecticut; Florida; Illinois; Maryland; Massachusetts; New Jersey; New York; Oregon; Puerto Rico; Rhode Island; Texas; Utah; and Washington, DC, were urban, and the remaining states were rural.³

We hypothesized that VisualDx would be 1 of 3 most prevalent apps; “diagnosis and workup” and “self-education” would be top reasons for using apps; “up-to-date and accurate information” would be a top 3 consideration when choosing apps; the most consulted resources for clinical experiences would be providers, followed by websites, apps, and lastly printed text; and the percentage of clinical experiences for which a provider was consulted would be higher for first-year residents than other years and for female residents than male residents.

Fisher exact 2-tailed and Kruskal-Wallis (KW) pairwise tests were used to compare groups. Statistical significance was set at P<.05.

Results

Respondents
The response rate was 16.6% (n=263), which is similar to prior response rates for American Academy of Dermatology surveys. Table 1 contains respondent demographics. The mean age of respondents was 31 years. Sixty percent of respondents were female; 62% of respondents were training in urban states or territories. Regarding the dermatology residency year, 34% of respondents were in their first year, 32% were in their second, and 34% were in their third. Eighty-seven percent of respondents used Apple iOS. Every respondent used at least 1 dermatology-related app (mean, 5; range, 1–11)(Table 2).

Top Dermatology-Related Apps
The 10 most prevalent apps are listed in Table 2. The 3 most prevalent apps were VisualDx (84%, majority of respondents used daily), UpToDate (67%, majority of respondents used daily), and Mohs Surgery Appropriate Use Criteria (63%, majority of respondents used weekly). A higher percentage of third-year residents used GoodRx compared to first- and second-year residents (Fisher exact test: P=.014 and P=.041, respectively). A lower percentage of female respondents used GoodRx compared to male residents (Fisher exact test: P=.003). None of the apps were app versions of printed text, including textbooks or journals.

Reasons for Using Apps
The 10 primary reasons for using apps are listed in Table 2. The top 3 reasons were diagnosis and workup (83%), medication dosage (72%), and self-education (69%). Medication dosage and saving time were both selected by a higher percentage of third-year residents than first-year residents (Fisher exact test: P=.041 and P=.024, respectively). Self-education was selected by a lower percentage of third-year residents than second-year residents (Fisher exact test: P=.025). 

Considerations When Choosing Apps
The 10 primary considerations when choosing apps are listed in Table 2. The top 3 considerations were up-to-date and accurate information (81%), no/low cost (80%), and user-friendly design (74%). Up-to-date and accurate information was selected by a lower percentage of third-year residents than first- and second-year residents (Fisher exact test: P=.02 and P=.03, respectively).

Consulted Resources
Apps were the second most consulted resource (26%) during clinical work, behind human guidance (73%). Female respondents consulted both resources more than male respondents (KW: P≤.005 and P≤.003, respectively). First-year residents consulted humans more than second-year and third-year residents (KW: P<.0001).

There were no significant differences by geography or mobile operating system.

Comment

The response rate and demographic results suggest that our study sample is representative of the target population of dermatology residents in America. Overall, the survey results support our hypotheses.

A survey conducted in 2008 before apps were readily available found that dermatology residents felt they learned more successfully when engaging in hands-on, direct experience; talking with experts/consultants; and studying printed materials than when using multimedia programs.⁴ Our study suggests that the usage of and preference for multimedia programs, including apps, in dermatology resident training has risen substantially, despite the continued availability of guidance from attendings and senior residents.

As residents progress through training, they increasingly turn to virtual resources. According to our survey, junior residents are more likely than third-year residents to use apps for self-education, and up-to-date and accurate information was a more important consideration when choosing apps. Third-year residents are more likely than junior residents to use apps for medication dosage and saving time. Perhaps related, GoodRx, an app that provides prescription discounts, was more prevalent among third-year residents. It is notable that most of the reported apps, including those used for diagnosis and treatment, did not need premarket government approval to ensure patient safety, are not required to contain up-to-date information, and do not reference primary sources. Additionally, only UpToDate has been shown in peer-reviewed literature to improve clinical outcomes.⁵

Our survey also revealed a few differences by sex. Female respondents consulted resources during clinical work more often than male residents. This finding is similar to the limited existing research on dermatologists’ utilization of information showing higher dermoscopy use among female attendings.⁶ Use of GoodRx was less prevalent among female vs male respondents. Perhaps related, a 2011 study found that female primary care physicians are less likely to prescribe medications than their male counterparts.⁷

Our study had several limitations. There may have been selection bias such that the residents who chose to participate were relatively more interested in mobile health. Certain demographic data, such as race, were not captured because prior studies do not suggest disparity by those demographics for mobile health utilization among residents, but those data could be incorporated into future studies. Our survey was intentionally limited in scope. For example, it did not capture the amount of time spent on each consult resource or the motivations for consulting an app instead of a provider.

Conclusion

A main objective of residency is to train new physicians to provide excellent patient care. Our survey highlights the increasing role of apps in dermatology residency, different priorities among years of residency, and different information utilization between sexes. This knowledge should encourage and help guide standardization and quality assurance of virtual residency education and integration of virtual resources into formal curricula. Residency administrators and residents should be aware of the apps used to learn and deliver care, consider the evidence for and regulation of those apps, and evaluate the accessibility and approachability of attendings to residents. Future research should examine the educational and clinical outcomes of app utilization among residents and the impact of residency programs’ unspoken cultures and expectations on relationships among residents of different demographics and their attendings.

Mobile applications (apps) have been a growing part of medicine for the last decade. In 2020, more than 15.5 million apps were available for download,¹ and more than 325,000 apps were health related.² Much of the peer-reviewed literature on health-related apps has focused on apps that target patients. Therefore, we studied apps for health care providers, specifically dermatology residents of different sexes throughout residency. We investigated the role of apps in their training, including how often residents consult apps, which apps they utilize, and why.

Methods

An original online survey regarding mobile apps was emailed to all 1587 dermatology residents in America by the American Academy of Dermatology from summer 2019 to summer 2020. Responses were anonymous, voluntary, unincentivized, and collected over 17 days. To protect respondent privacy, minimal data were collected regarding training programs; geography served as a proxy for how resource rich or resource poor those programs may be. Categorization of urban vs rural was based on the 2010 Census classification, such that Arizona; California; Colorado; Connecticut; Florida; Illinois; Maryland; Massachusetts; New Jersey; New York; Oregon; Puerto Rico; Rhode Island; Texas; Utah; and Washington, DC, were urban, and the remaining states were rural.³

We hypothesized that VisualDx would be 1 of 3 most prevalent apps; “diagnosis and workup” and “self-education” would be top reasons for using apps; “up-to-date and accurate information” would be a top 3 consideration when choosing apps; the most consulted resources for clinical experiences would be providers, followed by websites, apps, and lastly printed text; and the percentage of clinical experiences for which a provider was consulted would be higher for first-year residents than other years and for female residents than male residents.

Fisher exact 2-tailed and Kruskal-Wallis (KW) pairwise tests were used to compare groups. Statistical significance was set at P<.05.

Results

Respondents
The response rate was 16.6% (n=263), which is similar to prior response rates for American Academy of Dermatology surveys. Table 1 contains respondent demographics. The mean age of respondents was 31 years. Sixty percent of respondents were female; 62% of respondents were training in urban states or territories. Regarding the dermatology residency year, 34% of respondents were in their first year, 32% were in their second, and 34% were in their third. Eighty-seven percent of respondents used Apple iOS. Every respondent used at least 1 dermatology-related app (mean, 5; range, 1–11)(Table 2).

Top Dermatology-Related Apps
The 10 most prevalent apps are listed in Table 2. The 3 most prevalent apps were VisualDx (84%, majority of respondents used daily), UpToDate (67%, majority of respondents used daily), and Mohs Surgery Appropriate Use Criteria (63%, majority of respondents used weekly). A higher percentage of third-year residents used GoodRx compared to first- and second-year residents (Fisher exact test: P=.014 and P=.041, respectively). A lower percentage of female respondents used GoodRx compared to male residents (Fisher exact test: P=.003). None of the apps were app versions of printed text, including textbooks or journals.

Reasons for Using Apps
The 10 primary reasons for using apps are listed in Table 2. The top 3 reasons were diagnosis and workup (83%), medication dosage (72%), and self-education (69%). Medication dosage and saving time were both selected by a higher percentage of third-year residents than first-year residents (Fisher exact test: P=.041 and P=.024, respectively). Self-education was selected by a lower percentage of third-year residents than second-year residents (Fisher exact test: P=.025). 

Considerations When Choosing Apps
The 10 primary considerations when choosing apps are listed in Table 2. The top 3 considerations were up-to-date and accurate information (81%), no/low cost (80%), and user-friendly design (74%). Up-to-date and accurate information was selected by a lower percentage of third-year residents than first- and second-year residents (Fisher exact test: P=.02 and P=.03, respectively).

Consulted Resources
Apps were the second most consulted resource (26%) during clinical work, behind human guidance (73%). Female respondents consulted both resources more than male respondents (KW: P≤.005 and P≤.003, respectively). First-year residents consulted humans more than second-year and third-year residents (KW: P<.0001).

There were no significant differences by geography or mobile operating system.

Comment

The response rate and demographic results suggest that our study sample is representative of the target population of dermatology residents in America. Overall, the survey results support our hypotheses.

A survey conducted in 2008 before apps were readily available found that dermatology residents felt they learned more successfully when engaging in hands-on, direct experience; talking with experts/consultants; and studying printed materials than when using multimedia programs.⁴ Our study suggests that the usage of and preference for multimedia programs, including apps, in dermatology resident training has risen substantially, despite the continued availability of guidance from attendings and senior residents.

As residents progress through training, they increasingly turn to virtual resources. According to our survey, junior residents are more likely than third-year residents to use apps for self-education, and up-to-date and accurate information was a more important consideration when choosing apps. Third-year residents are more likely than junior residents to use apps for medication dosage and saving time. Perhaps related, GoodRx, an app that provides prescription discounts, was more prevalent among third-year residents. It is notable that most of the reported apps, including those used for diagnosis and treatment, did not need premarket government approval to ensure patient safety, are not required to contain up-to-date information, and do not reference primary sources. Additionally, only UpToDate has been shown in peer-reviewed literature to improve clinical outcomes.⁵

Our survey also revealed a few differences by sex. Female respondents consulted resources during clinical work more often than male residents. This finding is similar to the limited existing research on dermatologists’ utilization of information showing higher dermoscopy use among female attendings.⁶ Use of GoodRx was less prevalent among female vs male respondents. Perhaps related, a 2011 study found that female primary care physicians are less likely to prescribe medications than their male counterparts.⁷

Our study had several limitations. There may have been selection bias such that the residents who chose to participate were relatively more interested in mobile health. Certain demographic data, such as race, were not captured because prior studies do not suggest disparity by those demographics for mobile health utilization among residents, but those data could be incorporated into future studies. Our survey was intentionally limited in scope. For example, it did not capture the amount of time spent on each consult resource or the motivations for consulting an app instead of a provider.

Conclusion

A main objective of residency is to train new physicians to provide excellent patient care. Our survey highlights the increasing role of apps in dermatology residency, different priorities among years of residency, and different information utilization between sexes. This knowledge should encourage and help guide standardization and quality assurance of virtual residency education and integration of virtual resources into formal curricula. Residency administrators and residents should be aware of the apps used to learn and deliver care, consider the evidence for and regulation of those apps, and evaluate the accessibility and approachability of attendings to residents. Future research should examine the educational and clinical outcomes of app utilization among residents and the impact of residency programs’ unspoken cultures and expectations on relationships among residents of different demographics and their attendings.

Mobile applications (apps) have been a growing part of medicine for the last decade. In 2020, more than 15.5 million apps were available for download,¹ and more than 325,000 apps were health related.² Much of the peer-reviewed literature on health-related apps has focused on apps that target patients. Therefore, we studied apps for health care providers, specifically dermatology residents of different sexes throughout residency. We investigated the role of apps in their training, including how often residents consult apps, which apps they utilize, and why.

Methods

An original online survey regarding mobile apps was emailed to all 1587 dermatology residents in America by the American Academy of Dermatology from summer 2019 to summer 2020. Responses were anonymous, voluntary, unincentivized, and collected over 17 days. To protect respondent privacy, minimal data were collected regarding training programs; geography served as a proxy for how resource rich or resource poor those programs may be. Categorization of urban vs rural was based on the 2010 Census classification, such that Arizona; California; Colorado; Connecticut; Florida; Illinois; Maryland; Massachusetts; New Jersey; New York; Oregon; Puerto Rico; Rhode Island; Texas; Utah; and Washington, DC, were urban, and the remaining states were rural.³

We hypothesized that VisualDx would be 1 of 3 most prevalent apps; “diagnosis and workup” and “self-education” would be top reasons for using apps; “up-to-date and accurate information” would be a top 3 consideration when choosing apps; the most consulted resources for clinical experiences would be providers, followed by websites, apps, and lastly printed text; and the percentage of clinical experiences for which a provider was consulted would be higher for first-year residents than other years and for female residents than male residents.

Fisher exact 2-tailed and Kruskal-Wallis (KW) pairwise tests were used to compare groups. Statistical significance was set at P<.05.

Results

Respondents
The response rate was 16.6% (n=263), which is similar to prior response rates for American Academy of Dermatology surveys. Table 1 contains respondent demographics. The mean age of respondents was 31 years. Sixty percent of respondents were female; 62% of respondents were training in urban states or territories. Regarding the dermatology residency year, 34% of respondents were in their first year, 32% were in their second, and 34% were in their third. Eighty-seven percent of respondents used Apple iOS. Every respondent used at least 1 dermatology-related app (mean, 5; range, 1–11)(Table 2).

Top Dermatology-Related Apps
The 10 most prevalent apps are listed in Table 2. The 3 most prevalent apps were VisualDx (84%, majority of respondents used daily), UpToDate (67%, majority of respondents used daily), and Mohs Surgery Appropriate Use Criteria (63%, majority of respondents used weekly). A higher percentage of third-year residents used GoodRx compared to first- and second-year residents (Fisher exact test: P=.014 and P=.041, respectively). A lower percentage of female respondents used GoodRx compared to male residents (Fisher exact test: P=.003). None of the apps were app versions of printed text, including textbooks or journals.

Reasons for Using Apps
The 10 primary reasons for using apps are listed in Table 2. The top 3 reasons were diagnosis and workup (83%), medication dosage (72%), and self-education (69%). Medication dosage and saving time were both selected by a higher percentage of third-year residents than first-year residents (Fisher exact test: P=.041 and P=.024, respectively). Self-education was selected by a lower percentage of third-year residents than second-year residents (Fisher exact test: P=.025). 

Considerations When Choosing Apps
The 10 primary considerations when choosing apps are listed in Table 2. The top 3 considerations were up-to-date and accurate information (81%), no/low cost (80%), and user-friendly design (74%). Up-to-date and accurate information was selected by a lower percentage of third-year residents than first- and second-year residents (Fisher exact test: P=.02 and P=.03, respectively).

Consulted Resources
Apps were the second most consulted resource (26%) during clinical work, behind human guidance (73%). Female respondents consulted both resources more than male respondents (KW: P≤.005 and P≤.003, respectively). First-year residents consulted humans more than second-year and third-year residents (KW: P<.0001).

There were no significant differences by geography or mobile operating system.

Comment

The response rate and demographic results suggest that our study sample is representative of the target population of dermatology residents in America. Overall, the survey results support our hypotheses.

A survey conducted in 2008 before apps were readily available found that dermatology residents felt they learned more successfully when engaging in hands-on, direct experience; talking with experts/consultants; and studying printed materials than when using multimedia programs.⁴ Our study suggests that the usage of and preference for multimedia programs, including apps, in dermatology resident training has risen substantially, despite the continued availability of guidance from attendings and senior residents.

As residents progress through training, they increasingly turn to virtual resources. According to our survey, junior residents are more likely than third-year residents to use apps for self-education, and up-to-date and accurate information was a more important consideration when choosing apps. Third-year residents are more likely than junior residents to use apps for medication dosage and saving time. Perhaps related, GoodRx, an app that provides prescription discounts, was more prevalent among third-year residents. It is notable that most of the reported apps, including those used for diagnosis and treatment, did not need premarket government approval to ensure patient safety, are not required to contain up-to-date information, and do not reference primary sources. Additionally, only UpToDate has been shown in peer-reviewed literature to improve clinical outcomes.⁵

Our survey also revealed a few differences by sex. Female respondents consulted resources during clinical work more often than male residents. This finding is similar to the limited existing research on dermatologists’ utilization of information showing higher dermoscopy use among female attendings.⁶ Use of GoodRx was less prevalent among female vs male respondents. Perhaps related, a 2011 study found that female primary care physicians are less likely to prescribe medications than their male counterparts.⁷

Our study had several limitations. There may have been selection bias such that the residents who chose to participate were relatively more interested in mobile health. Certain demographic data, such as race, were not captured because prior studies do not suggest disparity by those demographics for mobile health utilization among residents, but those data could be incorporated into future studies. Our survey was intentionally limited in scope. For example, it did not capture the amount of time spent on each consult resource or the motivations for consulting an app instead of a provider.

Conclusion

A main objective of residency is to train new physicians to provide excellent patient care. Our survey highlights the increasing role of apps in dermatology residency, different priorities among years of residency, and different information utilization between sexes. This knowledge should encourage and help guide standardization and quality assurance of virtual residency education and integration of virtual resources into formal curricula. Residency administrators and residents should be aware of the apps used to learn and deliver care, consider the evidence for and regulation of those apps, and evaluate the accessibility and approachability of attendings to residents. Future research should examine the educational and clinical outcomes of app utilization among residents and the impact of residency programs’ unspoken cultures and expectations on relationships among residents of different demographics and their attendings.

A vital aspect of expanding access and care for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the United States is broadening responsibility for this care across the health care system and other community resources, according to an article published online July 6 in Clinical Infectious Diseases. This expansion and decentralization of care are central to adopting the “new sexual health paradigm” recommended by a National Academies report that was published in March.

“STIs represent a sizable, longstanding, and growing public health challenge,” write Vincent Guilamo-Ramos, PhD, MPH, dean and professor at the Duke University School of Nursing and director of the Center for Latino Adolescent and Family Health (CLAFH) at Duke University, both in Durham, N.C., and his colleagues. Yet the limitations on the current STI workforce and limited federal funding and support for STI prevention and care mean it will take clinicians of all types from across the health care spectrum to meet the challenge, they explain.

“For too long, STI prevention and treatment has been perceived as the sole responsibility of a narrow workforce of specialized STI and HIV service providers,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and his coauthor, Marco Thimm-Kaiser, MPH, associate in research at Duke University and epidemiologist at CLAFH, wrote in an email.

“However, the resources allocated to this STI specialty workforce have diminished over time, along with decreasing investments in the broader U.S. public health infrastructure,” they continued. “At the same time – and in part due to this underinvestment – STI rates have soared, reaching a record high for the sixth year in a row in 2019.”

Those factors led to the National Academies report, which recommends moving “away from the traditional, disease-focused perspective on STIs in favor of a holistic perspective of sexual health as an integral component of overall health and well-being,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser wrote to this news organization.

In their article, the authors review the limitations in the STI workforce, the implications of those limitations for the broader health care industry, and what it will take for STI and HIV specialists as well as regulators to ensure it’s possible to achieve the paradigm shift recommended by the National Academies.

Currently, the biggest limitation is access to care, said Laura Mercer, MD, MBA, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and the ob.gyn. clerkship director at the University of Arizona, Phoenix. Dr. Mercer, who was not involved with the National Academies report or the analysis of it, said in an interview that it’s essential to emphasize “sexual health as a core element of routine primary and preventative care” to ensure it becomes more accessible to patients without the need to seek out specialty care.

Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and his colleagues drive home the importance of such a shift by noting that more than 200 million Americans live in counties with no practicing infectious disease physicians. The disparities are greatest in Southern states, which account for 40% of all reported STIs. The workforce shortage has continued to worsen alongside the deterioration of the clinical infrastructure supporting STI specialty services, the authors write.

Hence the need to expand accountability for care not only to primary-care physicians but also to nurses, pharmacists, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and behavioral health practitioners. Doing so also requires normalizing sexual health services across health care professions.

“Prevention is a crucial first step” to this, Dr. Mercer said. “This is particularly important as we recall that almost half of new sexually transmitted infections occur in teenagers. Destigmatizing sexual health and sexual health education will also help encourage patients of all ages to request and accept testing.”

Further, with primary care practitioners managing most STI testing and treatment, subspecialists can focus primarily on complex or refractory cases, she added. Ways to help broaden care include developing point-of-care testing for STIs and improving the accuracy of existing testing, she said.

“The goal is to make routine sexual health services accessible in a wide range of settings, such as in primary care, at pharmacies, and in community-based settings, and to draw on a broader workforce for delivery of sexual health services,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser said in an interview.

Kevin Ault, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology and director of clinical and translational research at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, said that many medical organizations, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have long advocated incorporating sexual health into routine preventive care. He also noted that pharmacists have already become proactive in preventing STIs and could continue to do so.

“Vaccines for hepatitis and human papillomavirus are commonly available at pharmacies,” Dr. Ault said. He was not involved in the article by Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and colleagues or the original report. “Pharmacists could also fill a gap by administering injectable medications such as penicillin. States would have to approve changes in policy, but many states have already done this for expedited partner therapy.”

Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser noted similar barriers that must be removed to broaden delivery of STI services.

“Unfortunately, too many highly trained health care providers who are well-positioned for the delivery of sexual health services face regulatory or administrative barriers to practice to the full scope of their training,” they wrote. “These barriers can have a particularly negative impact in medically underserved communities, where physician shortages are common and where novel, decentralized health care service delivery models that draw on nonphysician providers may hold the greatest promise.”

As more diverse health care practitioners take on these roles, ID and HIV specialists can provide their expertise in developing training and technical assistance to support generalists, Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser wrote. They can also aid in aligning “clinical training curricula, licensing criteria, and practice guidelines with routine delivery of sexual health services.”

Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and his coauthors offer specific recommendations for professional training, licensing, and practice guidelines to help overcome the “insufficient knowledge, inadequate training, and absence of explicit protocols” that currently impede delivery of STI services in general practice settings.

Although the paradigm shift recommended by the National Academies is ambitious, it’s also necessary, and “none of the recommendations are out of reach,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser said in an interview. They pointed out how the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted how underresourced the health care workforce and infrastructure are and how great health care disparities are.

“There is momentum toward rebuilding the nation’s health and public health system in a more effective and efficient way,” they said, and many of the STI report’s recommendations “overlap with priorities for the broader health and public health system moving forward.”

Dr. Mercer also believes the recommendations are realistic, “but only the beginning,” she told this news organization. “Comprehensive sexual education to expand knowledge about STI prevention and public health campaigns to help destigmatize sexual health care in general will remain crucial,” she said.

Sexual education, expanded access, and destigmatizing sexual care are particularly important for reaching the populations most in need of care, such as adolescents and young adults, as well as ethnic, racial, sexual, and gender-minority youth.

“It cannot be overstated how important of a priority population adolescents and young adults are,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser wrote. They noted that those aged 15-24 account for half of all STIs each year but represent only a quarter of the sexually active population. “Targeted efforts for STI prevention and treatment among adolescents and young adults are therefore essential for an overall successful strategy to address STIs and sexual health in the United States.”

The National Academies report was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Association of County and City Health Officials. Dr. Mercer, Dr. Ault, and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Guilamo-Ramos has received grants and personal fees from ViiV Health care.

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

A vital aspect of expanding access and care for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the United States is broadening responsibility for this care across the health care system and other community resources, according to an article published online July 6 in Clinical Infectious Diseases. This expansion and decentralization of care are central to adopting the “new sexual health paradigm” recommended by a National Academies report that was published in March.

“STIs represent a sizable, longstanding, and growing public health challenge,” write Vincent Guilamo-Ramos, PhD, MPH, dean and professor at the Duke University School of Nursing and director of the Center for Latino Adolescent and Family Health (CLAFH) at Duke University, both in Durham, N.C., and his colleagues. Yet the limitations on the current STI workforce and limited federal funding and support for STI prevention and care mean it will take clinicians of all types from across the health care spectrum to meet the challenge, they explain.

“For too long, STI prevention and treatment has been perceived as the sole responsibility of a narrow workforce of specialized STI and HIV service providers,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and his coauthor, Marco Thimm-Kaiser, MPH, associate in research at Duke University and epidemiologist at CLAFH, wrote in an email.

“However, the resources allocated to this STI specialty workforce have diminished over time, along with decreasing investments in the broader U.S. public health infrastructure,” they continued. “At the same time – and in part due to this underinvestment – STI rates have soared, reaching a record high for the sixth year in a row in 2019.”

Those factors led to the National Academies report, which recommends moving “away from the traditional, disease-focused perspective on STIs in favor of a holistic perspective of sexual health as an integral component of overall health and well-being,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser wrote to this news organization.

In their article, the authors review the limitations in the STI workforce, the implications of those limitations for the broader health care industry, and what it will take for STI and HIV specialists as well as regulators to ensure it’s possible to achieve the paradigm shift recommended by the National Academies.

Currently, the biggest limitation is access to care, said Laura Mercer, MD, MBA, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and the ob.gyn. clerkship director at the University of Arizona, Phoenix. Dr. Mercer, who was not involved with the National Academies report or the analysis of it, said in an interview that it’s essential to emphasize “sexual health as a core element of routine primary and preventative care” to ensure it becomes more accessible to patients without the need to seek out specialty care.

Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and his colleagues drive home the importance of such a shift by noting that more than 200 million Americans live in counties with no practicing infectious disease physicians. The disparities are greatest in Southern states, which account for 40% of all reported STIs. The workforce shortage has continued to worsen alongside the deterioration of the clinical infrastructure supporting STI specialty services, the authors write.

Hence the need to expand accountability for care not only to primary-care physicians but also to nurses, pharmacists, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and behavioral health practitioners. Doing so also requires normalizing sexual health services across health care professions.

“Prevention is a crucial first step” to this, Dr. Mercer said. “This is particularly important as we recall that almost half of new sexually transmitted infections occur in teenagers. Destigmatizing sexual health and sexual health education will also help encourage patients of all ages to request and accept testing.”

Further, with primary care practitioners managing most STI testing and treatment, subspecialists can focus primarily on complex or refractory cases, she added. Ways to help broaden care include developing point-of-care testing for STIs and improving the accuracy of existing testing, she said.

“The goal is to make routine sexual health services accessible in a wide range of settings, such as in primary care, at pharmacies, and in community-based settings, and to draw on a broader workforce for delivery of sexual health services,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser said in an interview.

Kevin Ault, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology and director of clinical and translational research at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, said that many medical organizations, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have long advocated incorporating sexual health into routine preventive care. He also noted that pharmacists have already become proactive in preventing STIs and could continue to do so.

“Vaccines for hepatitis and human papillomavirus are commonly available at pharmacies,” Dr. Ault said. He was not involved in the article by Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and colleagues or the original report. “Pharmacists could also fill a gap by administering injectable medications such as penicillin. States would have to approve changes in policy, but many states have already done this for expedited partner therapy.”

Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser noted similar barriers that must be removed to broaden delivery of STI services.

“Unfortunately, too many highly trained health care providers who are well-positioned for the delivery of sexual health services face regulatory or administrative barriers to practice to the full scope of their training,” they wrote. “These barriers can have a particularly negative impact in medically underserved communities, where physician shortages are common and where novel, decentralized health care service delivery models that draw on nonphysician providers may hold the greatest promise.”

As more diverse health care practitioners take on these roles, ID and HIV specialists can provide their expertise in developing training and technical assistance to support generalists, Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser wrote. They can also aid in aligning “clinical training curricula, licensing criteria, and practice guidelines with routine delivery of sexual health services.”

Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and his coauthors offer specific recommendations for professional training, licensing, and practice guidelines to help overcome the “insufficient knowledge, inadequate training, and absence of explicit protocols” that currently impede delivery of STI services in general practice settings.

Although the paradigm shift recommended by the National Academies is ambitious, it’s also necessary, and “none of the recommendations are out of reach,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser said in an interview. They pointed out how the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted how underresourced the health care workforce and infrastructure are and how great health care disparities are.

“There is momentum toward rebuilding the nation’s health and public health system in a more effective and efficient way,” they said, and many of the STI report’s recommendations “overlap with priorities for the broader health and public health system moving forward.”

Dr. Mercer also believes the recommendations are realistic, “but only the beginning,” she told this news organization. “Comprehensive sexual education to expand knowledge about STI prevention and public health campaigns to help destigmatize sexual health care in general will remain crucial,” she said.

Sexual education, expanded access, and destigmatizing sexual care are particularly important for reaching the populations most in need of care, such as adolescents and young adults, as well as ethnic, racial, sexual, and gender-minority youth.

“It cannot be overstated how important of a priority population adolescents and young adults are,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser wrote. They noted that those aged 15-24 account for half of all STIs each year but represent only a quarter of the sexually active population. “Targeted efforts for STI prevention and treatment among adolescents and young adults are therefore essential for an overall successful strategy to address STIs and sexual health in the United States.”

The National Academies report was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Association of County and City Health Officials. Dr. Mercer, Dr. Ault, and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Guilamo-Ramos has received grants and personal fees from ViiV Health care.

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

A vital aspect of expanding access and care for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the United States is broadening responsibility for this care across the health care system and other community resources, according to an article published online July 6 in Clinical Infectious Diseases. This expansion and decentralization of care are central to adopting the “new sexual health paradigm” recommended by a National Academies report that was published in March.

“STIs represent a sizable, longstanding, and growing public health challenge,” write Vincent Guilamo-Ramos, PhD, MPH, dean and professor at the Duke University School of Nursing and director of the Center for Latino Adolescent and Family Health (CLAFH) at Duke University, both in Durham, N.C., and his colleagues. Yet the limitations on the current STI workforce and limited federal funding and support for STI prevention and care mean it will take clinicians of all types from across the health care spectrum to meet the challenge, they explain.

“For too long, STI prevention and treatment has been perceived as the sole responsibility of a narrow workforce of specialized STI and HIV service providers,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and his coauthor, Marco Thimm-Kaiser, MPH, associate in research at Duke University and epidemiologist at CLAFH, wrote in an email.

“However, the resources allocated to this STI specialty workforce have diminished over time, along with decreasing investments in the broader U.S. public health infrastructure,” they continued. “At the same time – and in part due to this underinvestment – STI rates have soared, reaching a record high for the sixth year in a row in 2019.”

Those factors led to the National Academies report, which recommends moving “away from the traditional, disease-focused perspective on STIs in favor of a holistic perspective of sexual health as an integral component of overall health and well-being,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser wrote to this news organization.

In their article, the authors review the limitations in the STI workforce, the implications of those limitations for the broader health care industry, and what it will take for STI and HIV specialists as well as regulators to ensure it’s possible to achieve the paradigm shift recommended by the National Academies.

Currently, the biggest limitation is access to care, said Laura Mercer, MD, MBA, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and the ob.gyn. clerkship director at the University of Arizona, Phoenix. Dr. Mercer, who was not involved with the National Academies report or the analysis of it, said in an interview that it’s essential to emphasize “sexual health as a core element of routine primary and preventative care” to ensure it becomes more accessible to patients without the need to seek out specialty care.

Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and his colleagues drive home the importance of such a shift by noting that more than 200 million Americans live in counties with no practicing infectious disease physicians. The disparities are greatest in Southern states, which account for 40% of all reported STIs. The workforce shortage has continued to worsen alongside the deterioration of the clinical infrastructure supporting STI specialty services, the authors write.

Hence the need to expand accountability for care not only to primary-care physicians but also to nurses, pharmacists, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and behavioral health practitioners. Doing so also requires normalizing sexual health services across health care professions.

“Prevention is a crucial first step” to this, Dr. Mercer said. “This is particularly important as we recall that almost half of new sexually transmitted infections occur in teenagers. Destigmatizing sexual health and sexual health education will also help encourage patients of all ages to request and accept testing.”

Further, with primary care practitioners managing most STI testing and treatment, subspecialists can focus primarily on complex or refractory cases, she added. Ways to help broaden care include developing point-of-care testing for STIs and improving the accuracy of existing testing, she said.

“The goal is to make routine sexual health services accessible in a wide range of settings, such as in primary care, at pharmacies, and in community-based settings, and to draw on a broader workforce for delivery of sexual health services,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser said in an interview.

Kevin Ault, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology and director of clinical and translational research at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, said that many medical organizations, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have long advocated incorporating sexual health into routine preventive care. He also noted that pharmacists have already become proactive in preventing STIs and could continue to do so.

“Vaccines for hepatitis and human papillomavirus are commonly available at pharmacies,” Dr. Ault said. He was not involved in the article by Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and colleagues or the original report. “Pharmacists could also fill a gap by administering injectable medications such as penicillin. States would have to approve changes in policy, but many states have already done this for expedited partner therapy.”

Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser noted similar barriers that must be removed to broaden delivery of STI services.

“Unfortunately, too many highly trained health care providers who are well-positioned for the delivery of sexual health services face regulatory or administrative barriers to practice to the full scope of their training,” they wrote. “These barriers can have a particularly negative impact in medically underserved communities, where physician shortages are common and where novel, decentralized health care service delivery models that draw on nonphysician providers may hold the greatest promise.”

As more diverse health care practitioners take on these roles, ID and HIV specialists can provide their expertise in developing training and technical assistance to support generalists, Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser wrote. They can also aid in aligning “clinical training curricula, licensing criteria, and practice guidelines with routine delivery of sexual health services.”

Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and his coauthors offer specific recommendations for professional training, licensing, and practice guidelines to help overcome the “insufficient knowledge, inadequate training, and absence of explicit protocols” that currently impede delivery of STI services in general practice settings.

Although the paradigm shift recommended by the National Academies is ambitious, it’s also necessary, and “none of the recommendations are out of reach,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser said in an interview. They pointed out how the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted how underresourced the health care workforce and infrastructure are and how great health care disparities are.

“There is momentum toward rebuilding the nation’s health and public health system in a more effective and efficient way,” they said, and many of the STI report’s recommendations “overlap with priorities for the broader health and public health system moving forward.”

Dr. Mercer also believes the recommendations are realistic, “but only the beginning,” she told this news organization. “Comprehensive sexual education to expand knowledge about STI prevention and public health campaigns to help destigmatize sexual health care in general will remain crucial,” she said.

Sexual education, expanded access, and destigmatizing sexual care are particularly important for reaching the populations most in need of care, such as adolescents and young adults, as well as ethnic, racial, sexual, and gender-minority youth.

“It cannot be overstated how important of a priority population adolescents and young adults are,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser wrote. They noted that those aged 15-24 account for half of all STIs each year but represent only a quarter of the sexually active population. “Targeted efforts for STI prevention and treatment among adolescents and young adults are therefore essential for an overall successful strategy to address STIs and sexual health in the United States.”

The National Academies report was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Association of County and City Health Officials. Dr. Mercer, Dr. Ault, and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Guilamo-Ramos has received grants and personal fees from ViiV Health care.

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

People with diabetes are at increased risk of hospitalization for infection, as well as infection-related mortality, shows a large U.S. study that suggests the risk is even higher in younger and Black individuals.

Michael Fang, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues studied more than 12,000 participants in a community cohort study who were followed for an average of 24 years, between 1987-1989 and 2019.

Participants with diabetes faced a 67% increase risk of infection-related hospitalization, compared with those without diabetes.

Of particular note, the risk of hospitalization with foot infection was almost sixfold higher for people with diabetes than those without.

The research, published in Diabetologia on August 4, also suggests that diabetes may be associated with a 72% increased risk of infection-related mortality, although the absolute numbers were small.

Dr. Fang explained to this news organization that they focused on infection-related hospitalization and mortality “because these are comprehensively tracked in administrative data and ... are the most severe types of outcomes.”

However, this is probably just the tip of the iceberg, as people with diabetes are “likely at increased risk for milder infection too,” which can have a “significant adverse impact on people’s well-being and quality of life.”

As a result of their findings, the authors call for “broader guidance on infection prevention and management” in people with diabetes. To achieve this, Dr. Fang said, “we need to better understand why diabetes is associated with an increased risk of infection-related complications.”

“One likely factor is glycemic control: Emerging research suggests patients with diabetes with better glycemic control may be at significantly lower risk of infection-related complications.”

He continued that, in younger patients, a factor for worse outcomes could be that “diabetes tends to be more aggressive when it emerges early in life,” while in Black patients “there is research highlighting Black-White differences in glycemic control, access to care, and beliefs around vaccines.”

Overall, their findings – coupled with recent data showing that diabetes is an important risk factor for adverse outcomes with COVID-19 infection – paint “a common picture,” Dr. Fang said.

“People with diabetes are much more susceptible to infection-related complications, including COVID-related hospitalization and mortality,” which suggests people with diabetes “may need to be especially cautious.”
 

Adds to existing literature; amputations begin with infections

Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer for the American Diabetes Association (ADA), said the study “does add to the existing literature by having followed a larger number of people over time and linking them to serious complications from infections.”

“Sadly, we have seen this play out in real-time during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

“One of the sobering bits of data is the significant health disparities that exist in Black Americans and the fact that foot infections remain a significant problem,” he said in an interview.

“Given that amputation rates for [Black Americans] are three times higher than White Americans, amputations begin with infections,” Dr. Gabbay added, noting the ADA “has been taking a strong stand to prevent amputations and address the inequities in health that exist.”

Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, PhD, from the University of Oxford, U.K., who was not involved in the study, commented that diabetes is a “well-known risk factor for worse outcomes from all kinds of infection,” which is why they “are prioritized for flu vaccination every year.”

She told this news organization that the current study “further confirms that people with diabetes are more likely to be hospitalized for infection of any type and most markedly for foot infection.”

“These new data further highlight the need for public health interventions to prevent type 2 diabetes, and for preventive health care in people with diabetes, including access to diabetes medications and support and to vaccinations to prevent infection,” added Dr. Hartmann-Boyce, who is a senior research fellow in health behaviors.

Diabetes is thought to be associated with susceptibility to infection via mechanisms such as impaired neutrophil functioning and humoral immune responses, and studies have shown a link with both common and rare infections.

However, the authors point out that “most” of those included “small clinical populations and were cross-sectional or had short follow-up.”

Guidelines for diabetes management, they note, also “pay less attention” to infectious diseases than they do to the prevention of micro- and macrovascular complications.
 

ARIC data mined for infections in those with diabetes

The team analyzed data from the ongoing U.S. community-based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–sponsored cohort was comprised of adults aged 45-64 years from four U.S. communities, recruited between 1987 and 1989 for clinical examinations, medical interviews, and laboratory tests, repeated over five more visits up to 2018-2019.

For the current analysis, the team included 12,739 individuals with a mean age of 54.5 years, of whom 54.3% were female and 24.7% were Black.

Patients were defined as having diabetes if their baseline fasting blood glucose was greater than or equal to 7 mmol/L, or nonfasting glucose was greater than or equal to 11.1 mmol/l, they self-reported a diagnosis of diabetes by a physician, or they were taking glucose-lowering medication at the first study visit. The researchers weren’t able to distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

In total, 1,485 individuals had diabetes at baseline. They were more likely to be older, Black, have a low socioeconomic status, and have worse cardiometabolic health than participants without diabetes.

Over an average follow-up of 23.8 years, there were 4,229 incident hospitalizations for infection, at an overall rate of 15.9 per 1,000 person-years.

Individuals with diabetes at baseline had a higher rate of hospitalizations than those without, at 25.4 per 1,000 person-years versus 15.2 per 1,000 person-years.

After taking into account sociodemographic characteristics, socioeconomic status, and cardiometabolic risk factors, this equated to a hazard ratio for hospitalization with any infection of 1.67 (P < .001).

The risk of hospitalization for any infection was significantly higher for younger patients with diabetes, defined as aged less than 55 years (P = .005), and for Black patients (P < .001).

While the increased risk was generally consistent across infection types, it was markedly increased for foot infection, at a hazard ratio of 5.99 (P < .001).

Overall, there were few deaths due to infection in the study, at just 362. The risk of infection mortality was nevertheless significantly increased in people with diabetes, at an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.72 (P < .001).

Dr. Fang has reported being supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Selvin has reported being supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Selvin is an associate editor for Diabetologia and had no role in the peer review of the manuscript.

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

People with diabetes are at increased risk of hospitalization for infection, as well as infection-related mortality, shows a large U.S. study that suggests the risk is even higher in younger and Black individuals.

Michael Fang, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues studied more than 12,000 participants in a community cohort study who were followed for an average of 24 years, between 1987-1989 and 2019.

Participants with diabetes faced a 67% increase risk of infection-related hospitalization, compared with those without diabetes.

Of particular note, the risk of hospitalization with foot infection was almost sixfold higher for people with diabetes than those without.

The research, published in Diabetologia on August 4, also suggests that diabetes may be associated with a 72% increased risk of infection-related mortality, although the absolute numbers were small.

Dr. Fang explained to this news organization that they focused on infection-related hospitalization and mortality “because these are comprehensively tracked in administrative data and ... are the most severe types of outcomes.”

However, this is probably just the tip of the iceberg, as people with diabetes are “likely at increased risk for milder infection too,” which can have a “significant adverse impact on people’s well-being and quality of life.”

As a result of their findings, the authors call for “broader guidance on infection prevention and management” in people with diabetes. To achieve this, Dr. Fang said, “we need to better understand why diabetes is associated with an increased risk of infection-related complications.”

“One likely factor is glycemic control: Emerging research suggests patients with diabetes with better glycemic control may be at significantly lower risk of infection-related complications.”

He continued that, in younger patients, a factor for worse outcomes could be that “diabetes tends to be more aggressive when it emerges early in life,” while in Black patients “there is research highlighting Black-White differences in glycemic control, access to care, and beliefs around vaccines.”

Overall, their findings – coupled with recent data showing that diabetes is an important risk factor for adverse outcomes with COVID-19 infection – paint “a common picture,” Dr. Fang said.

“People with diabetes are much more susceptible to infection-related complications, including COVID-related hospitalization and mortality,” which suggests people with diabetes “may need to be especially cautious.”
 

Adds to existing literature; amputations begin with infections

Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer for the American Diabetes Association (ADA), said the study “does add to the existing literature by having followed a larger number of people over time and linking them to serious complications from infections.”

“Sadly, we have seen this play out in real-time during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

“One of the sobering bits of data is the significant health disparities that exist in Black Americans and the fact that foot infections remain a significant problem,” he said in an interview.

“Given that amputation rates for [Black Americans] are three times higher than White Americans, amputations begin with infections,” Dr. Gabbay added, noting the ADA “has been taking a strong stand to prevent amputations and address the inequities in health that exist.”

Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, PhD, from the University of Oxford, U.K., who was not involved in the study, commented that diabetes is a “well-known risk factor for worse outcomes from all kinds of infection,” which is why they “are prioritized for flu vaccination every year.”

She told this news organization that the current study “further confirms that people with diabetes are more likely to be hospitalized for infection of any type and most markedly for foot infection.”

“These new data further highlight the need for public health interventions to prevent type 2 diabetes, and for preventive health care in people with diabetes, including access to diabetes medications and support and to vaccinations to prevent infection,” added Dr. Hartmann-Boyce, who is a senior research fellow in health behaviors.

Diabetes is thought to be associated with susceptibility to infection via mechanisms such as impaired neutrophil functioning and humoral immune responses, and studies have shown a link with both common and rare infections.

However, the authors point out that “most” of those included “small clinical populations and were cross-sectional or had short follow-up.”

Guidelines for diabetes management, they note, also “pay less attention” to infectious diseases than they do to the prevention of micro- and macrovascular complications.
 

ARIC data mined for infections in those with diabetes

The team analyzed data from the ongoing U.S. community-based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–sponsored cohort was comprised of adults aged 45-64 years from four U.S. communities, recruited between 1987 and 1989 for clinical examinations, medical interviews, and laboratory tests, repeated over five more visits up to 2018-2019.

For the current analysis, the team included 12,739 individuals with a mean age of 54.5 years, of whom 54.3% were female and 24.7% were Black.

Patients were defined as having diabetes if their baseline fasting blood glucose was greater than or equal to 7 mmol/L, or nonfasting glucose was greater than or equal to 11.1 mmol/l, they self-reported a diagnosis of diabetes by a physician, or they were taking glucose-lowering medication at the first study visit. The researchers weren’t able to distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

In total, 1,485 individuals had diabetes at baseline. They were more likely to be older, Black, have a low socioeconomic status, and have worse cardiometabolic health than participants without diabetes.

Over an average follow-up of 23.8 years, there were 4,229 incident hospitalizations for infection, at an overall rate of 15.9 per 1,000 person-years.

Individuals with diabetes at baseline had a higher rate of hospitalizations than those without, at 25.4 per 1,000 person-years versus 15.2 per 1,000 person-years.

After taking into account sociodemographic characteristics, socioeconomic status, and cardiometabolic risk factors, this equated to a hazard ratio for hospitalization with any infection of 1.67 (P < .001).

The risk of hospitalization for any infection was significantly higher for younger patients with diabetes, defined as aged less than 55 years (P = .005), and for Black patients (P < .001).

While the increased risk was generally consistent across infection types, it was markedly increased for foot infection, at a hazard ratio of 5.99 (P < .001).

Overall, there were few deaths due to infection in the study, at just 362. The risk of infection mortality was nevertheless significantly increased in people with diabetes, at an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.72 (P < .001).

Dr. Fang has reported being supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Selvin has reported being supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Selvin is an associate editor for Diabetologia and had no role in the peer review of the manuscript.

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

People with diabetes are at increased risk of hospitalization for infection, as well as infection-related mortality, shows a large U.S. study that suggests the risk is even higher in younger and Black individuals.

Michael Fang, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues studied more than 12,000 participants in a community cohort study who were followed for an average of 24 years, between 1987-1989 and 2019.

Participants with diabetes faced a 67% increase risk of infection-related hospitalization, compared with those without diabetes.

Of particular note, the risk of hospitalization with foot infection was almost sixfold higher for people with diabetes than those without.

The research, published in Diabetologia on August 4, also suggests that diabetes may be associated with a 72% increased risk of infection-related mortality, although the absolute numbers were small.

Dr. Fang explained to this news organization that they focused on infection-related hospitalization and mortality “because these are comprehensively tracked in administrative data and ... are the most severe types of outcomes.”

However, this is probably just the tip of the iceberg, as people with diabetes are “likely at increased risk for milder infection too,” which can have a “significant adverse impact on people’s well-being and quality of life.”

As a result of their findings, the authors call for “broader guidance on infection prevention and management” in people with diabetes. To achieve this, Dr. Fang said, “we need to better understand why diabetes is associated with an increased risk of infection-related complications.”

“One likely factor is glycemic control: Emerging research suggests patients with diabetes with better glycemic control may be at significantly lower risk of infection-related complications.”

He continued that, in younger patients, a factor for worse outcomes could be that “diabetes tends to be more aggressive when it emerges early in life,” while in Black patients “there is research highlighting Black-White differences in glycemic control, access to care, and beliefs around vaccines.”

Overall, their findings – coupled with recent data showing that diabetes is an important risk factor for adverse outcomes with COVID-19 infection – paint “a common picture,” Dr. Fang said.

“People with diabetes are much more susceptible to infection-related complications, including COVID-related hospitalization and mortality,” which suggests people with diabetes “may need to be especially cautious.”
 

Adds to existing literature; amputations begin with infections

Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer for the American Diabetes Association (ADA), said the study “does add to the existing literature by having followed a larger number of people over time and linking them to serious complications from infections.”

“Sadly, we have seen this play out in real-time during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

“One of the sobering bits of data is the significant health disparities that exist in Black Americans and the fact that foot infections remain a significant problem,” he said in an interview.

“Given that amputation rates for [Black Americans] are three times higher than White Americans, amputations begin with infections,” Dr. Gabbay added, noting the ADA “has been taking a strong stand to prevent amputations and address the inequities in health that exist.”

Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, PhD, from the University of Oxford, U.K., who was not involved in the study, commented that diabetes is a “well-known risk factor for worse outcomes from all kinds of infection,” which is why they “are prioritized for flu vaccination every year.”

She told this news organization that the current study “further confirms that people with diabetes are more likely to be hospitalized for infection of any type and most markedly for foot infection.”

“These new data further highlight the need for public health interventions to prevent type 2 diabetes, and for preventive health care in people with diabetes, including access to diabetes medications and support and to vaccinations to prevent infection,” added Dr. Hartmann-Boyce, who is a senior research fellow in health behaviors.

Diabetes is thought to be associated with susceptibility to infection via mechanisms such as impaired neutrophil functioning and humoral immune responses, and studies have shown a link with both common and rare infections.

However, the authors point out that “most” of those included “small clinical populations and were cross-sectional or had short follow-up.”

Guidelines for diabetes management, they note, also “pay less attention” to infectious diseases than they do to the prevention of micro- and macrovascular complications.
 

ARIC data mined for infections in those with diabetes

The team analyzed data from the ongoing U.S. community-based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–sponsored cohort was comprised of adults aged 45-64 years from four U.S. communities, recruited between 1987 and 1989 for clinical examinations, medical interviews, and laboratory tests, repeated over five more visits up to 2018-2019.

For the current analysis, the team included 12,739 individuals with a mean age of 54.5 years, of whom 54.3% were female and 24.7% were Black.

Patients were defined as having diabetes if their baseline fasting blood glucose was greater than or equal to 7 mmol/L, or nonfasting glucose was greater than or equal to 11.1 mmol/l, they self-reported a diagnosis of diabetes by a physician, or they were taking glucose-lowering medication at the first study visit. The researchers weren’t able to distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

In total, 1,485 individuals had diabetes at baseline. They were more likely to be older, Black, have a low socioeconomic status, and have worse cardiometabolic health than participants without diabetes.

Over an average follow-up of 23.8 years, there were 4,229 incident hospitalizations for infection, at an overall rate of 15.9 per 1,000 person-years.

Individuals with diabetes at baseline had a higher rate of hospitalizations than those without, at 25.4 per 1,000 person-years versus 15.2 per 1,000 person-years.

After taking into account sociodemographic characteristics, socioeconomic status, and cardiometabolic risk factors, this equated to a hazard ratio for hospitalization with any infection of 1.67 (P < .001).

The risk of hospitalization for any infection was significantly higher for younger patients with diabetes, defined as aged less than 55 years (P = .005), and for Black patients (P < .001).

While the increased risk was generally consistent across infection types, it was markedly increased for foot infection, at a hazard ratio of 5.99 (P < .001).

Overall, there were few deaths due to infection in the study, at just 362. The risk of infection mortality was nevertheless significantly increased in people with diabetes, at an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.72 (P < .001).

Dr. Fang has reported being supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Selvin has reported being supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Selvin is an associate editor for Diabetologia and had no role in the peer review of the manuscript.

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

On May 25, 2020, George Floyd was murdered by a White police officer who held his knee on Floyd’s neck for nine and a half minutes. Nine and a half minutes. George Floyd was not the first Black person killed by law enforcement. He has not been the last. Much has been written about why Floyd’s murder sparked unprecedented worldwide outrage despite being far from unprecedented itself. We cannot be so naive as to think what happened was new, and we should not ignore the tireless work that so many have been doing to fight racism up to this point. But for many who have been stirred to do something for the first time, especially White people, the question has been,

“What do I do?” The answer is, do the work.

This article is centered on anti-Black racism with a focus on medicine. We recognize that there is racism against other minoritized groups. Each group deserves attention and to have their stories told. We recognize intersectionality and that an individual has multiple identities and that these may compound the marginalization they experience. This too deserves attention.

However, we cannot satisfactorily explore any of these concepts within the confines of a single article. Our intention is to use this forum to promote further conversation, specifically about anti-Black racism in medicine. We hope it compels you to begin learning to recognize and dismantle racism in yourself and your surroundings, both at home and at work.

Being a health care provider requires lifelong learning. If we practiced only what we learned in training, our patients could suffer. So we continually seek out updated research and guidelines to best treat our patients. Understanding how racism impacts your patients, colleagues, family, and friends is your responsibility as much as understanding guidelines for standards of care. We must resist the urge to feel this is someone else’s duty. It is the job of each and every one of us. We must do the work.

Race is real but it’s not biologic

It is imperative to understand that race is not a biologic category. Phenotypic differences between humans do not reliably map to racial categories. Racial categories themselves have morphed over the centuries, and interpretation of race has been litigated in this country since its founding.¹ People who identify as a given race do not have inherent biology that is different from those who identify as another race. It may then be tempting to try to erase race from our thinking, and, indeed, the idea of being “color blind” was long worn as a badge of honor signifying a commitment to equality. So this is the tension: if race exists, it must be a biologic trait and with it must go other inherent traits. But if race is not a biologic entity, perhaps it is not real and, therefore, should be ignored. In fact, neither is true. Race is not based on genetic or biologic inheritance, but it is a social and political categorization that is real and has very real ramifications. As we will discuss further, race does have a biologic impact on individuals. The mechanism by which that happens is racism.

Continue to: What is racism, and who is racist?...

What is racism, and who is racist?

Various definitions of racism have been offered:

• prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is minoritized or marginalized²
• a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race³
• the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another; a political or social system founded on racism and designed to execute its principles.³

The common themes in these definitions are power, hierarchy, and oppression. Racism is a fabricated system to justify and reinforce power for some and disenfranchisement for others based on race. The system is pervasive and beneficial to the group that it serves.

Ibram X. Kendi posits that all racism is structural racism: “‘Institutional racism’ and ‘structural racism’ and ‘systemic racism’ are redundant. Racism itself is institutional, structural, and systemic.”⁴ This is not saying that individuals don’t enact racism, but it emphasizes that racism is not the action of a “few bad apples.” Furthermore, it underscores that race was created to bolster power structures ensuring White dominance. The racism that has followed, in all of its forms, is both because these ideas were created in the first place and to perpetuate that ongoing power structure.⁴

Dorothy Roberts, JD, writes in her book Fatal Invention that, while grouping people and creating hierarchy has always happened amongst humans, there is a specific history in our country of using race to create and perpetuate the dominance of White people and the subjugation of Black people.

Kendi also asserts that there is no neutrality with regard to racism—there is racist and antiracist: “A racist: one who is supporting a racist policy through their actions or inaction or expressing a racist idea. An antiracist: one who is supporting an antiracist policy through their actions or expressing an antiracist idea.”⁴ He describes all people as moving in and out of being racist and antiracist, and states “being an antiracist requires persistent self-awareness, constant self-criticism, and regular self-examination.”⁴ In thinking about race and racism in this way, we all must grapple with our own racism, but in so doing are taking a step toward antiracism.

History is important

Among the most important things one can do in a journey to dismantle racism is learn the history of racism.

The infrastructure and institutions of our nation were created on a foundation of slavery, including the origins of American medicine and gynecology. Physicians in the antebellum South performed inspections of enslaved people’s bodies to certify them for sale.⁵ The ability to assign market value to a Black person’s body was published as an essential physician competency.⁵

Gynecology has a particularly painful history with regard to slavery. By 1808, transatlantic slave trade was banned in the United States and, as Dr. Cooper Owens describes in her book Medical Bondage: Race, Gender, and the Origins of American Gynecology, this made reproduction of enslaved people within the United States a priority for slave owners and those invested in an economy that depended on slavery.⁶ Gynecologists were permitted unrestricted access to enslaved women for experiments to optimize reproduction. Many of these physicians became prominent voices adding to the canon of racialized medicine. Medical journals themselves gained reverence because of heightened interest in keeping enslaved people alive and just well enough to work and reproduce.⁶ Today, we hold sacred the relationship between a patient and their physician. We must understand that there was no such relationship between a doctor and an enslaved person. The relationship was between the doctor and slave owner.^6,7 Slavery does not allow for the autonomy of the enslaved. This is the context in which we must understand the discoveries of gynecologists during that time.

Despite the abolition of slavery with the passage of the 13th amendment, racist policies remained ubiquitous in the United States. Segregation of Black people was codified not only in the Jim Crow South but also in the North. Interracial marriage was outlawed by all but 9 states.

While there are numerous federal policies that led to cumulative and egregious disadvantage for Black Americans, one powerful example is redlining. In 1934 the Federal Housing Administration was created, and by insuring private mortgages, the FHA made it easier for eligible home buyers to obtain financing. The FHA used a system of maps that graded neighborhoods. Racial composition of neighborhoods was overtly used as a component of grading, and the presence of Black people led a neighborhood to be downgraded or redlined.^8,9 This meant Black people were largely ineligible for FHA-backed loans. In The Color of Law, Richard Rothstein writes, “Today’s residential segregation in the North, South, Midwest, and West is not the unintended consequence of individual choices and of otherwise well-meaning law or regulation but of unhidden public policy that explicitly segregated every metropolitan area in the United States.The policy was so systematic and forceful that its effects endure to the present time.”⁹

Though these specific policies are no longer in place, many correlations have been found between historically redlined neighborhoods and higher rates of diseases today, including diabetes, hypertension, asthma, and preterm deliveries.¹⁰ These policies also have played a role in creating the wealth gap—directly by limiting the opportunity for home ownership, which translates to intergenerational wealth, and indirectly by the disinvestment in neighborhoods where Black people live, leading to reduced access to quality education, decreased employment opportunities, and increased environmental hazards.^8,11

Continue to: Health disparities...

Health disparities

The numerous health disparities, more accurately termed health inequities, suffered by racial minority groups is well documented.¹²

COVID-19 death and vaccination-rate inequities. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, data emerged that racial minorities were being disparately affected.¹³ In December 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that Hispanic or Latino, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native people had all died at higher rates than White Americans.¹⁴ These racial groups had higher hospitalization rates across age groups and, after adjusting for age, rates of hospitalization were 2.8 to 3.4 times higher.¹⁵ We are continuing to learn what factors contribute to these inequities, but it has highlighted how racist policies have led to disparate access to health care, or even clean air, clean water, and nutritious food, and left communities of color more vulnerable to severe illness and death from COVID-19. With the advent of vaccines for COVID-19, we continue to see racial disparities as Black Americans have the lowest rates of vaccination.¹⁶ All of these inequities have to be understood in the context of the racist structures that exist in our society. As medical providers, we must understand and help to dismantle these structures.

Pregnancy-related mortality (PRM) inequities. A powerful example of a persistent health inequity in our field is the well-known disparity in pregnancy-related mortality when examining this outcome by race. Per CDC analysis of data on PRM from 2007–2016, Black women died at a rate 3.2 times higher than White women. This disparity was even greater in patients older than 30 years of age. When they compared rates while controlling for the highest level of education, the disparity is even more pronounced: PRM rate for those with a college degree or higher was 5.2 times greater for Black people compared with White people.¹⁶The CDC also reported that, in 2018, the infant mortality for non-Hispanic Black infants was 10.8 per 1,000 live births, compared with 4.6 per 1,000 live births for White infants. This is a rate 2.4-times higher for Black infants.¹⁷ Dr. Cooper Owens and Dr. Fett note in their article, “Black maternal and infant health: Historical legacies of slavery,” that in 1850 this rate was 1.6-times higher for Black infants, which means the inequity was worse in 2018 America than in the antebellum South.⁵

The role of patient experience

As discussed, governmental policies have created persistent inequities in wealth, access to health care, and exposure to environmental toxins, among many other disparities. However, the data finding that highly educated Black pregnant patients suffer markedly increased risk of maternal death, indicate that inequities cannot be attributed only to education or lack of access to health care. This is where some will once again lean on the idea that there is something inherently different about Black people. But if we know that race was created and is not an empiric category, we must consider the social variables impacting Black patients’ experience.

As Linda Blount, President and CEO of the Black Women’s Health Imperative, put it, “Race is not a risk factor. It is the lived experience of being a Black woman in this society that is the risk factor.”¹⁸ So how much of these inequities can be accounted for by differential treatment of Black patients? There is, for example, data on the disproportionately lower rates of Black renal transplant recipients and inordinately higher rates of amputations among Black patients.^19,20 None of us wants to think we are treating our Black patients differently, but the data demand that we ask ourselves if we are. Some of this is built into the system. For example, in their article “Hidden in plain sight—Reconsidering the use of race correction in clinical algorithms,” Vyas and colleagues outline a list of calculators and algorithms that include race.²¹ This means we may be using these calculators and changing outcomes for our patients based on their race. This is only one example of racism hidden within guidelines and standards of care.

The existence of racism on an interpersonal level also cannot be denied. This could lead to differential care specifically, but also can manifest by way of the toll it takes on a patient generally. This is the concept of allostatic load or weathering: the chronic stress of experiencing racism creates detrimental physiologic change. There is ongoing research into epigenetic modifications from stress that could be impacting health outcomes in Black populations.

Continue to: What is the work we need to do?...

What is the work we need to do?

Become educated. We have discussed taking the initiative to learn about the history of racism, including the legacies of slavery and the ongoing impact of racism on health. This knowledge is foundational and sometimes transformative. It allows us to see opportunities for antiracism and gives us the knowledge to begin meaningful conversations.

Take action. We must take inventory within our lives. What are our spheres of influence? What are our resources? Where can we make an impact? Right now, you can take out a pen and paper and write down all the roles you play. Look for opportunities in personal interactions and daily routines. Unfortunately, there will be many opportunities to speak up against racism—although this is rarely easy. Find articles, podcasts, and workshops on upstander training. One framework to respond to microaggressions has been proposed by faculty at Boston University Medical Center using the acronym LIFT (Lights on, Impact vs Intent, Full stop, Teach).²² It advises highlighting, clarifying, and directly addressing problematic comments with such statements as “I heard you say…” or “What did you mean by that comment?”, or a more direct “Statements like that are not OK with me,” or a teaching statement of “I read an article that made me think differently about comments like the one you made...”²² How and when to employ these strategies takes deliberate practice and will be uncomfortable. But we must do the work.

Practice empathetic listening. In a podcast discussion with Brené Brown on creating transformative cultures, Aiko Bethea, a leader in diversity and equity innovation, implores listeners to believe people of color.^23,24 Draw on the history you’ve learned and understand the context in which Black people live in our society. Don’t brush off your Black friend who is upset about being stopped by security. That wasn’t the first time she was in that situation. Take seriously your patient’s concern that they are not being treated appropriately because of being Black. At the same time, do not think of Black people as a monolith or a stereotype. Respect people’s individuality.

Teach our kids all of this. We must also find ways to make change on a larger scale—within our practices, hospitals, medical schools, places of worship, town councils, school boards, state legislatures, and so on. If you are in a faculty position, you can reach out to leadership to scrutinize the curriculum while also ensuring that what and how you are teaching aligns with your antiracist principles. Question the theories, calculators, and algorithms being used and taught. Inquire about policies around recruitment of trainees and faculty as well as promotion, and implement strategies to make this inclusive and equitable. If you run a practice, you can ensure hiring and compensation policies are equitable. Examine patient access and barriers that your minoritized patients are facing, and address those barriers. Share resources and tools that you find helpful and develop a community of colleagues to develop with and hold one another accountable.

In her June 2020 article, An Open Letter to Corporate America, Philanthropy, Academia, etc: What now?, Bethea lays out an extensive framework for approaching antiracism at a high level.²⁵ Among the principles she emphasizes is that the work of diversity, equity, and inclusion should not be siloed and cannot continue to be undervalued. It must be viewed as leadership and engaged in by leadership. The work of diversity, equity, and inclusion for any given institution must be explicit, intentional, measured, and transparent. Within that work, antiracism deserves individual attention. This work must center the people of color for whom you are pursuing equity. White people must resist the urge to make this about them.²⁵

Drs. Esther Choo and J. Nwando Olayiwola present their proposals for combating racism in two 2020 Lancet articles.^26,27 They discuss anticipating failure and backlash and learning from them but not being derailed by them. They emphasize the need for ongoing, serious financial investment and transformation in leadership. They also point out the need for data, discouraging more research on well-established inequities while recommending investigating interventions.^26,27 If you are in leadership positions, read these articles and many more. Enact these principles. Make the investment. If you are not in such a position, find ways to hold your organization’s leadership accountable. Find ways to get a seat at the table and steer the conversation. In medicine, we have to make change at every level of our organizations. That will include the very difficult work of changing climate and culture. In addition, we have to look not only within our organizations but also to the communities we serve. Those voices must be valued in this conversation.

Will this take time? Yes. Will this be hard? Yes. Can you do everything? No. Can you do your part? Yes! Do the work. 

On May 25, 2020, George Floyd was murdered by a White police officer who held his knee on Floyd’s neck for nine and a half minutes. Nine and a half minutes. George Floyd was not the first Black person killed by law enforcement. He has not been the last. Much has been written about why Floyd’s murder sparked unprecedented worldwide outrage despite being far from unprecedented itself. We cannot be so naive as to think what happened was new, and we should not ignore the tireless work that so many have been doing to fight racism up to this point. But for many who have been stirred to do something for the first time, especially White people, the question has been,

“What do I do?” The answer is, do the work.

This article is centered on anti-Black racism with a focus on medicine. We recognize that there is racism against other minoritized groups. Each group deserves attention and to have their stories told. We recognize intersectionality and that an individual has multiple identities and that these may compound the marginalization they experience. This too deserves attention.

However, we cannot satisfactorily explore any of these concepts within the confines of a single article. Our intention is to use this forum to promote further conversation, specifically about anti-Black racism in medicine. We hope it compels you to begin learning to recognize and dismantle racism in yourself and your surroundings, both at home and at work.

Being a health care provider requires lifelong learning. If we practiced only what we learned in training, our patients could suffer. So we continually seek out updated research and guidelines to best treat our patients. Understanding how racism impacts your patients, colleagues, family, and friends is your responsibility as much as understanding guidelines for standards of care. We must resist the urge to feel this is someone else’s duty. It is the job of each and every one of us. We must do the work.

Race is real but it’s not biologic

It is imperative to understand that race is not a biologic category. Phenotypic differences between humans do not reliably map to racial categories. Racial categories themselves have morphed over the centuries, and interpretation of race has been litigated in this country since its founding.¹ People who identify as a given race do not have inherent biology that is different from those who identify as another race. It may then be tempting to try to erase race from our thinking, and, indeed, the idea of being “color blind” was long worn as a badge of honor signifying a commitment to equality. So this is the tension: if race exists, it must be a biologic trait and with it must go other inherent traits. But if race is not a biologic entity, perhaps it is not real and, therefore, should be ignored. In fact, neither is true. Race is not based on genetic or biologic inheritance, but it is a social and political categorization that is real and has very real ramifications. As we will discuss further, race does have a biologic impact on individuals. The mechanism by which that happens is racism.

Continue to: What is racism, and who is racist?...

What is racism, and who is racist?

Various definitions of racism have been offered:

• prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is minoritized or marginalized²
• a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race³
• the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another; a political or social system founded on racism and designed to execute its principles.³

The common themes in these definitions are power, hierarchy, and oppression. Racism is a fabricated system to justify and reinforce power for some and disenfranchisement for others based on race. The system is pervasive and beneficial to the group that it serves.

Ibram X. Kendi posits that all racism is structural racism: “‘Institutional racism’ and ‘structural racism’ and ‘systemic racism’ are redundant. Racism itself is institutional, structural, and systemic.”⁴ This is not saying that individuals don’t enact racism, but it emphasizes that racism is not the action of a “few bad apples.” Furthermore, it underscores that race was created to bolster power structures ensuring White dominance. The racism that has followed, in all of its forms, is both because these ideas were created in the first place and to perpetuate that ongoing power structure.⁴

Dorothy Roberts, JD, writes in her book Fatal Invention that, while grouping people and creating hierarchy has always happened amongst humans, there is a specific history in our country of using race to create and perpetuate the dominance of White people and the subjugation of Black people.

Kendi also asserts that there is no neutrality with regard to racism—there is racist and antiracist: “A racist: one who is supporting a racist policy through their actions or inaction or expressing a racist idea. An antiracist: one who is supporting an antiracist policy through their actions or expressing an antiracist idea.”⁴ He describes all people as moving in and out of being racist and antiracist, and states “being an antiracist requires persistent self-awareness, constant self-criticism, and regular self-examination.”⁴ In thinking about race and racism in this way, we all must grapple with our own racism, but in so doing are taking a step toward antiracism.

History is important

Among the most important things one can do in a journey to dismantle racism is learn the history of racism.

The infrastructure and institutions of our nation were created on a foundation of slavery, including the origins of American medicine and gynecology. Physicians in the antebellum South performed inspections of enslaved people’s bodies to certify them for sale.⁵ The ability to assign market value to a Black person’s body was published as an essential physician competency.⁵

Gynecology has a particularly painful history with regard to slavery. By 1808, transatlantic slave trade was banned in the United States and, as Dr. Cooper Owens describes in her book Medical Bondage: Race, Gender, and the Origins of American Gynecology, this made reproduction of enslaved people within the United States a priority for slave owners and those invested in an economy that depended on slavery.⁶ Gynecologists were permitted unrestricted access to enslaved women for experiments to optimize reproduction. Many of these physicians became prominent voices adding to the canon of racialized medicine. Medical journals themselves gained reverence because of heightened interest in keeping enslaved people alive and just well enough to work and reproduce.⁶ Today, we hold sacred the relationship between a patient and their physician. We must understand that there was no such relationship between a doctor and an enslaved person. The relationship was between the doctor and slave owner.^6,7 Slavery does not allow for the autonomy of the enslaved. This is the context in which we must understand the discoveries of gynecologists during that time.

Despite the abolition of slavery with the passage of the 13th amendment, racist policies remained ubiquitous in the United States. Segregation of Black people was codified not only in the Jim Crow South but also in the North. Interracial marriage was outlawed by all but 9 states.

While there are numerous federal policies that led to cumulative and egregious disadvantage for Black Americans, one powerful example is redlining. In 1934 the Federal Housing Administration was created, and by insuring private mortgages, the FHA made it easier for eligible home buyers to obtain financing. The FHA used a system of maps that graded neighborhoods. Racial composition of neighborhoods was overtly used as a component of grading, and the presence of Black people led a neighborhood to be downgraded or redlined.^8,9 This meant Black people were largely ineligible for FHA-backed loans. In The Color of Law, Richard Rothstein writes, “Today’s residential segregation in the North, South, Midwest, and West is not the unintended consequence of individual choices and of otherwise well-meaning law or regulation but of unhidden public policy that explicitly segregated every metropolitan area in the United States.The policy was so systematic and forceful that its effects endure to the present time.”⁹

Though these specific policies are no longer in place, many correlations have been found between historically redlined neighborhoods and higher rates of diseases today, including diabetes, hypertension, asthma, and preterm deliveries.¹⁰ These policies also have played a role in creating the wealth gap—directly by limiting the opportunity for home ownership, which translates to intergenerational wealth, and indirectly by the disinvestment in neighborhoods where Black people live, leading to reduced access to quality education, decreased employment opportunities, and increased environmental hazards.^8,11

Continue to: Health disparities...

Health disparities

The numerous health disparities, more accurately termed health inequities, suffered by racial minority groups is well documented.¹²

COVID-19 death and vaccination-rate inequities. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, data emerged that racial minorities were being disparately affected.¹³ In December 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that Hispanic or Latino, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native people had all died at higher rates than White Americans.¹⁴ These racial groups had higher hospitalization rates across age groups and, after adjusting for age, rates of hospitalization were 2.8 to 3.4 times higher.¹⁵ We are continuing to learn what factors contribute to these inequities, but it has highlighted how racist policies have led to disparate access to health care, or even clean air, clean water, and nutritious food, and left communities of color more vulnerable to severe illness and death from COVID-19. With the advent of vaccines for COVID-19, we continue to see racial disparities as Black Americans have the lowest rates of vaccination.¹⁶ All of these inequities have to be understood in the context of the racist structures that exist in our society. As medical providers, we must understand and help to dismantle these structures.

Pregnancy-related mortality (PRM) inequities. A powerful example of a persistent health inequity in our field is the well-known disparity in pregnancy-related mortality when examining this outcome by race. Per CDC analysis of data on PRM from 2007–2016, Black women died at a rate 3.2 times higher than White women. This disparity was even greater in patients older than 30 years of age. When they compared rates while controlling for the highest level of education, the disparity is even more pronounced: PRM rate for those with a college degree or higher was 5.2 times greater for Black people compared with White people.¹⁶The CDC also reported that, in 2018, the infant mortality for non-Hispanic Black infants was 10.8 per 1,000 live births, compared with 4.6 per 1,000 live births for White infants. This is a rate 2.4-times higher for Black infants.¹⁷ Dr. Cooper Owens and Dr. Fett note in their article, “Black maternal and infant health: Historical legacies of slavery,” that in 1850 this rate was 1.6-times higher for Black infants, which means the inequity was worse in 2018 America than in the antebellum South.⁵

The role of patient experience

As discussed, governmental policies have created persistent inequities in wealth, access to health care, and exposure to environmental toxins, among many other disparities. However, the data finding that highly educated Black pregnant patients suffer markedly increased risk of maternal death, indicate that inequities cannot be attributed only to education or lack of access to health care. This is where some will once again lean on the idea that there is something inherently different about Black people. But if we know that race was created and is not an empiric category, we must consider the social variables impacting Black patients’ experience.

As Linda Blount, President and CEO of the Black Women’s Health Imperative, put it, “Race is not a risk factor. It is the lived experience of being a Black woman in this society that is the risk factor.”¹⁸ So how much of these inequities can be accounted for by differential treatment of Black patients? There is, for example, data on the disproportionately lower rates of Black renal transplant recipients and inordinately higher rates of amputations among Black patients.^19,20 None of us wants to think we are treating our Black patients differently, but the data demand that we ask ourselves if we are. Some of this is built into the system. For example, in their article “Hidden in plain sight—Reconsidering the use of race correction in clinical algorithms,” Vyas and colleagues outline a list of calculators and algorithms that include race.²¹ This means we may be using these calculators and changing outcomes for our patients based on their race. This is only one example of racism hidden within guidelines and standards of care.

The existence of racism on an interpersonal level also cannot be denied. This could lead to differential care specifically, but also can manifest by way of the toll it takes on a patient generally. This is the concept of allostatic load or weathering: the chronic stress of experiencing racism creates detrimental physiologic change. There is ongoing research into epigenetic modifications from stress that could be impacting health outcomes in Black populations.

Continue to: What is the work we need to do?...

What is the work we need to do?

Become educated. We have discussed taking the initiative to learn about the history of racism, including the legacies of slavery and the ongoing impact of racism on health. This knowledge is foundational and sometimes transformative. It allows us to see opportunities for antiracism and gives us the knowledge to begin meaningful conversations.

Take action. We must take inventory within our lives. What are our spheres of influence? What are our resources? Where can we make an impact? Right now, you can take out a pen and paper and write down all the roles you play. Look for opportunities in personal interactions and daily routines. Unfortunately, there will be many opportunities to speak up against racism—although this is rarely easy. Find articles, podcasts, and workshops on upstander training. One framework to respond to microaggressions has been proposed by faculty at Boston University Medical Center using the acronym LIFT (Lights on, Impact vs Intent, Full stop, Teach).²² It advises highlighting, clarifying, and directly addressing problematic comments with such statements as “I heard you say…” or “What did you mean by that comment?”, or a more direct “Statements like that are not OK with me,” or a teaching statement of “I read an article that made me think differently about comments like the one you made...”²² How and when to employ these strategies takes deliberate practice and will be uncomfortable. But we must do the work.

Practice empathetic listening. In a podcast discussion with Brené Brown on creating transformative cultures, Aiko Bethea, a leader in diversity and equity innovation, implores listeners to believe people of color.^23,24 Draw on the history you’ve learned and understand the context in which Black people live in our society. Don’t brush off your Black friend who is upset about being stopped by security. That wasn’t the first time she was in that situation. Take seriously your patient’s concern that they are not being treated appropriately because of being Black. At the same time, do not think of Black people as a monolith or a stereotype. Respect people’s individuality.

Teach our kids all of this. We must also find ways to make change on a larger scale—within our practices, hospitals, medical schools, places of worship, town councils, school boards, state legislatures, and so on. If you are in a faculty position, you can reach out to leadership to scrutinize the curriculum while also ensuring that what and how you are teaching aligns with your antiracist principles. Question the theories, calculators, and algorithms being used and taught. Inquire about policies around recruitment of trainees and faculty as well as promotion, and implement strategies to make this inclusive and equitable. If you run a practice, you can ensure hiring and compensation policies are equitable. Examine patient access and barriers that your minoritized patients are facing, and address those barriers. Share resources and tools that you find helpful and develop a community of colleagues to develop with and hold one another accountable.

In her June 2020 article, An Open Letter to Corporate America, Philanthropy, Academia, etc: What now?, Bethea lays out an extensive framework for approaching antiracism at a high level.²⁵ Among the principles she emphasizes is that the work of diversity, equity, and inclusion should not be siloed and cannot continue to be undervalued. It must be viewed as leadership and engaged in by leadership. The work of diversity, equity, and inclusion for any given institution must be explicit, intentional, measured, and transparent. Within that work, antiracism deserves individual attention. This work must center the people of color for whom you are pursuing equity. White people must resist the urge to make this about them.²⁵

Drs. Esther Choo and J. Nwando Olayiwola present their proposals for combating racism in two 2020 Lancet articles.^26,27 They discuss anticipating failure and backlash and learning from them but not being derailed by them. They emphasize the need for ongoing, serious financial investment and transformation in leadership. They also point out the need for data, discouraging more research on well-established inequities while recommending investigating interventions.^26,27 If you are in leadership positions, read these articles and many more. Enact these principles. Make the investment. If you are not in such a position, find ways to hold your organization’s leadership accountable. Find ways to get a seat at the table and steer the conversation. In medicine, we have to make change at every level of our organizations. That will include the very difficult work of changing climate and culture. In addition, we have to look not only within our organizations but also to the communities we serve. Those voices must be valued in this conversation.

Will this take time? Yes. Will this be hard? Yes. Can you do everything? No. Can you do your part? Yes! Do the work. 

On May 25, 2020, George Floyd was murdered by a White police officer who held his knee on Floyd’s neck for nine and a half minutes. Nine and a half minutes. George Floyd was not the first Black person killed by law enforcement. He has not been the last. Much has been written about why Floyd’s murder sparked unprecedented worldwide outrage despite being far from unprecedented itself. We cannot be so naive as to think what happened was new, and we should not ignore the tireless work that so many have been doing to fight racism up to this point. But for many who have been stirred to do something for the first time, especially White people, the question has been,

“What do I do?” The answer is, do the work.

This article is centered on anti-Black racism with a focus on medicine. We recognize that there is racism against other minoritized groups. Each group deserves attention and to have their stories told. We recognize intersectionality and that an individual has multiple identities and that these may compound the marginalization they experience. This too deserves attention.

However, we cannot satisfactorily explore any of these concepts within the confines of a single article. Our intention is to use this forum to promote further conversation, specifically about anti-Black racism in medicine. We hope it compels you to begin learning to recognize and dismantle racism in yourself and your surroundings, both at home and at work.

Being a health care provider requires lifelong learning. If we practiced only what we learned in training, our patients could suffer. So we continually seek out updated research and guidelines to best treat our patients. Understanding how racism impacts your patients, colleagues, family, and friends is your responsibility as much as understanding guidelines for standards of care. We must resist the urge to feel this is someone else’s duty. It is the job of each and every one of us. We must do the work.

Race is real but it’s not biologic

It is imperative to understand that race is not a biologic category. Phenotypic differences between humans do not reliably map to racial categories. Racial categories themselves have morphed over the centuries, and interpretation of race has been litigated in this country since its founding.¹ People who identify as a given race do not have inherent biology that is different from those who identify as another race. It may then be tempting to try to erase race from our thinking, and, indeed, the idea of being “color blind” was long worn as a badge of honor signifying a commitment to equality. So this is the tension: if race exists, it must be a biologic trait and with it must go other inherent traits. But if race is not a biologic entity, perhaps it is not real and, therefore, should be ignored. In fact, neither is true. Race is not based on genetic or biologic inheritance, but it is a social and political categorization that is real and has very real ramifications. As we will discuss further, race does have a biologic impact on individuals. The mechanism by which that happens is racism.

Continue to: What is racism, and who is racist?...

What is racism, and who is racist?

Various definitions of racism have been offered:

• prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is minoritized or marginalized²
• a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race³
• the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another; a political or social system founded on racism and designed to execute its principles.³

The common themes in these definitions are power, hierarchy, and oppression. Racism is a fabricated system to justify and reinforce power for some and disenfranchisement for others based on race. The system is pervasive and beneficial to the group that it serves.

Ibram X. Kendi posits that all racism is structural racism: “‘Institutional racism’ and ‘structural racism’ and ‘systemic racism’ are redundant. Racism itself is institutional, structural, and systemic.”⁴ This is not saying that individuals don’t enact racism, but it emphasizes that racism is not the action of a “few bad apples.” Furthermore, it underscores that race was created to bolster power structures ensuring White dominance. The racism that has followed, in all of its forms, is both because these ideas were created in the first place and to perpetuate that ongoing power structure.⁴

Dorothy Roberts, JD, writes in her book Fatal Invention that, while grouping people and creating hierarchy has always happened amongst humans, there is a specific history in our country of using race to create and perpetuate the dominance of White people and the subjugation of Black people.

Kendi also asserts that there is no neutrality with regard to racism—there is racist and antiracist: “A racist: one who is supporting a racist policy through their actions or inaction or expressing a racist idea. An antiracist: one who is supporting an antiracist policy through their actions or expressing an antiracist idea.”⁴ He describes all people as moving in and out of being racist and antiracist, and states “being an antiracist requires persistent self-awareness, constant self-criticism, and regular self-examination.”⁴ In thinking about race and racism in this way, we all must grapple with our own racism, but in so doing are taking a step toward antiracism.

History is important

Among the most important things one can do in a journey to dismantle racism is learn the history of racism.

The infrastructure and institutions of our nation were created on a foundation of slavery, including the origins of American medicine and gynecology. Physicians in the antebellum South performed inspections of enslaved people’s bodies to certify them for sale.⁵ The ability to assign market value to a Black person’s body was published as an essential physician competency.⁵

Gynecology has a particularly painful history with regard to slavery. By 1808, transatlantic slave trade was banned in the United States and, as Dr. Cooper Owens describes in her book Medical Bondage: Race, Gender, and the Origins of American Gynecology, this made reproduction of enslaved people within the United States a priority for slave owners and those invested in an economy that depended on slavery.⁶ Gynecologists were permitted unrestricted access to enslaved women for experiments to optimize reproduction. Many of these physicians became prominent voices adding to the canon of racialized medicine. Medical journals themselves gained reverence because of heightened interest in keeping enslaved people alive and just well enough to work and reproduce.⁶ Today, we hold sacred the relationship between a patient and their physician. We must understand that there was no such relationship between a doctor and an enslaved person. The relationship was between the doctor and slave owner.^6,7 Slavery does not allow for the autonomy of the enslaved. This is the context in which we must understand the discoveries of gynecologists during that time.

Despite the abolition of slavery with the passage of the 13th amendment, racist policies remained ubiquitous in the United States. Segregation of Black people was codified not only in the Jim Crow South but also in the North. Interracial marriage was outlawed by all but 9 states.

While there are numerous federal policies that led to cumulative and egregious disadvantage for Black Americans, one powerful example is redlining. In 1934 the Federal Housing Administration was created, and by insuring private mortgages, the FHA made it easier for eligible home buyers to obtain financing. The FHA used a system of maps that graded neighborhoods. Racial composition of neighborhoods was overtly used as a component of grading, and the presence of Black people led a neighborhood to be downgraded or redlined.^8,9 This meant Black people were largely ineligible for FHA-backed loans. In The Color of Law, Richard Rothstein writes, “Today’s residential segregation in the North, South, Midwest, and West is not the unintended consequence of individual choices and of otherwise well-meaning law or regulation but of unhidden public policy that explicitly segregated every metropolitan area in the United States.The policy was so systematic and forceful that its effects endure to the present time.”⁹

Though these specific policies are no longer in place, many correlations have been found between historically redlined neighborhoods and higher rates of diseases today, including diabetes, hypertension, asthma, and preterm deliveries.¹⁰ These policies also have played a role in creating the wealth gap—directly by limiting the opportunity for home ownership, which translates to intergenerational wealth, and indirectly by the disinvestment in neighborhoods where Black people live, leading to reduced access to quality education, decreased employment opportunities, and increased environmental hazards.^8,11

Continue to: Health disparities...

Health disparities

The numerous health disparities, more accurately termed health inequities, suffered by racial minority groups is well documented.¹²

COVID-19 death and vaccination-rate inequities. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, data emerged that racial minorities were being disparately affected.¹³ In December 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that Hispanic or Latino, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native people had all died at higher rates than White Americans.¹⁴ These racial groups had higher hospitalization rates across age groups and, after adjusting for age, rates of hospitalization were 2.8 to 3.4 times higher.¹⁵ We are continuing to learn what factors contribute to these inequities, but it has highlighted how racist policies have led to disparate access to health care, or even clean air, clean water, and nutritious food, and left communities of color more vulnerable to severe illness and death from COVID-19. With the advent of vaccines for COVID-19, we continue to see racial disparities as Black Americans have the lowest rates of vaccination.¹⁶ All of these inequities have to be understood in the context of the racist structures that exist in our society. As medical providers, we must understand and help to dismantle these structures.

Pregnancy-related mortality (PRM) inequities. A powerful example of a persistent health inequity in our field is the well-known disparity in pregnancy-related mortality when examining this outcome by race. Per CDC analysis of data on PRM from 2007–2016, Black women died at a rate 3.2 times higher than White women. This disparity was even greater in patients older than 30 years of age. When they compared rates while controlling for the highest level of education, the disparity is even more pronounced: PRM rate for those with a college degree or higher was 5.2 times greater for Black people compared with White people.¹⁶The CDC also reported that, in 2018, the infant mortality for non-Hispanic Black infants was 10.8 per 1,000 live births, compared with 4.6 per 1,000 live births for White infants. This is a rate 2.4-times higher for Black infants.¹⁷ Dr. Cooper Owens and Dr. Fett note in their article, “Black maternal and infant health: Historical legacies of slavery,” that in 1850 this rate was 1.6-times higher for Black infants, which means the inequity was worse in 2018 America than in the antebellum South.⁵

The role of patient experience

As discussed, governmental policies have created persistent inequities in wealth, access to health care, and exposure to environmental toxins, among many other disparities. However, the data finding that highly educated Black pregnant patients suffer markedly increased risk of maternal death, indicate that inequities cannot be attributed only to education or lack of access to health care. This is where some will once again lean on the idea that there is something inherently different about Black people. But if we know that race was created and is not an empiric category, we must consider the social variables impacting Black patients’ experience.

As Linda Blount, President and CEO of the Black Women’s Health Imperative, put it, “Race is not a risk factor. It is the lived experience of being a Black woman in this society that is the risk factor.”¹⁸ So how much of these inequities can be accounted for by differential treatment of Black patients? There is, for example, data on the disproportionately lower rates of Black renal transplant recipients and inordinately higher rates of amputations among Black patients.^19,20 None of us wants to think we are treating our Black patients differently, but the data demand that we ask ourselves if we are. Some of this is built into the system. For example, in their article “Hidden in plain sight—Reconsidering the use of race correction in clinical algorithms,” Vyas and colleagues outline a list of calculators and algorithms that include race.²¹ This means we may be using these calculators and changing outcomes for our patients based on their race. This is only one example of racism hidden within guidelines and standards of care.

The existence of racism on an interpersonal level also cannot be denied. This could lead to differential care specifically, but also can manifest by way of the toll it takes on a patient generally. This is the concept of allostatic load or weathering: the chronic stress of experiencing racism creates detrimental physiologic change. There is ongoing research into epigenetic modifications from stress that could be impacting health outcomes in Black populations.

Continue to: What is the work we need to do?...

What is the work we need to do?

Become educated. We have discussed taking the initiative to learn about the history of racism, including the legacies of slavery and the ongoing impact of racism on health. This knowledge is foundational and sometimes transformative. It allows us to see opportunities for antiracism and gives us the knowledge to begin meaningful conversations.

Take action. We must take inventory within our lives. What are our spheres of influence? What are our resources? Where can we make an impact? Right now, you can take out a pen and paper and write down all the roles you play. Look for opportunities in personal interactions and daily routines. Unfortunately, there will be many opportunities to speak up against racism—although this is rarely easy. Find articles, podcasts, and workshops on upstander training. One framework to respond to microaggressions has been proposed by faculty at Boston University Medical Center using the acronym LIFT (Lights on, Impact vs Intent, Full stop, Teach).²² It advises highlighting, clarifying, and directly addressing problematic comments with such statements as “I heard you say…” or “What did you mean by that comment?”, or a more direct “Statements like that are not OK with me,” or a teaching statement of “I read an article that made me think differently about comments like the one you made...”²² How and when to employ these strategies takes deliberate practice and will be uncomfortable. But we must do the work.

Practice empathetic listening. In a podcast discussion with Brené Brown on creating transformative cultures, Aiko Bethea, a leader in diversity and equity innovation, implores listeners to believe people of color.^23,24 Draw on the history you’ve learned and understand the context in which Black people live in our society. Don’t brush off your Black friend who is upset about being stopped by security. That wasn’t the first time she was in that situation. Take seriously your patient’s concern that they are not being treated appropriately because of being Black. At the same time, do not think of Black people as a monolith or a stereotype. Respect people’s individuality.

Teach our kids all of this. We must also find ways to make change on a larger scale—within our practices, hospitals, medical schools, places of worship, town councils, school boards, state legislatures, and so on. If you are in a faculty position, you can reach out to leadership to scrutinize the curriculum while also ensuring that what and how you are teaching aligns with your antiracist principles. Question the theories, calculators, and algorithms being used and taught. Inquire about policies around recruitment of trainees and faculty as well as promotion, and implement strategies to make this inclusive and equitable. If you run a practice, you can ensure hiring and compensation policies are equitable. Examine patient access and barriers that your minoritized patients are facing, and address those barriers. Share resources and tools that you find helpful and develop a community of colleagues to develop with and hold one another accountable.

In her June 2020 article, An Open Letter to Corporate America, Philanthropy, Academia, etc: What now?, Bethea lays out an extensive framework for approaching antiracism at a high level.²⁵ Among the principles she emphasizes is that the work of diversity, equity, and inclusion should not be siloed and cannot continue to be undervalued. It must be viewed as leadership and engaged in by leadership. The work of diversity, equity, and inclusion for any given institution must be explicit, intentional, measured, and transparent. Within that work, antiracism deserves individual attention. This work must center the people of color for whom you are pursuing equity. White people must resist the urge to make this about them.²⁵

Drs. Esther Choo and J. Nwando Olayiwola present their proposals for combating racism in two 2020 Lancet articles.^26,27 They discuss anticipating failure and backlash and learning from them but not being derailed by them. They emphasize the need for ongoing, serious financial investment and transformation in leadership. They also point out the need for data, discouraging more research on well-established inequities while recommending investigating interventions.^26,27 If you are in leadership positions, read these articles and many more. Enact these principles. Make the investment. If you are not in such a position, find ways to hold your organization’s leadership accountable. Find ways to get a seat at the table and steer the conversation. In medicine, we have to make change at every level of our organizations. That will include the very difficult work of changing climate and culture. In addition, we have to look not only within our organizations but also to the communities we serve. Those voices must be valued in this conversation.

Will this take time? Yes. Will this be hard? Yes. Can you do everything? No. Can you do your part? Yes! Do the work. 

The vast amounts of information generated this past year related to the COVID-19 pandemic was a feat of wonder – recommendations and guidelines on the hospital level and on the national level came in a flurry, more often overwhelming and confusing than clarifying for the frontline provider. In addition, “routine” hospital care for non-infected patients and improvement processes had to continue as we all dealt with the whirlwind of increasing COVID cases, torrents of new guidelines, and educating our trainees.

Thus, the individual-level question: how does a clinician stay engaged and distill the relentless stream of new information?

In Spring 2020, when the first patients with COVID were admitted, our hospital medicine section was tasked to create a surge plan. This included organizing, orienting, and educating off-service providers on how to become hospitalists. Undoubtedly, the call to arms for our center was heard, and many responded. However, backgrounds were diverse in specialty – clinicians and trainees from psychiatry, general surgery, and various fellowships all answered. It was an exhausting and inefficient effort to produce the material, hold webinars, and schedule training, especially for those who were more removed from a hospital medicine experience. We knew we had to come up with an alternative plan moving forward.

Thus, the systems-level question: how does a health care system educate its clinicians, or any other health care providers, when reallocation of their talents and skills is both necessary, time-sensitive, and occuring during a period where new information is constantly being produced and changing?

To reach the most clinicians as possible, with the most succinct and distilled information, we had to come up with a method to do so. Ultimately, in considering the situation at hand, we had to understand who we were as the provider of the information, and who the recipient would be. We would like to share the initiatives and processes by which we constructed our solution to the two questions – microlearning through hospital podcasting.
 

Learning from our health care colleagues

With the initial webinars and training sessions for our staff, we assessed our learners’ motivations and background in managing in a hospital medicine capacity. Overall, we discovered that our trainees and clinicians have an innate drive to learn; all of them recognized the importance of keeping up with evidence-based information. However, the difficulty highlighted was the individual time available to dedicate to acquiring new information and awareness of new information being available to the health care sector during the chaotic times of the pandemic.

From our section’s perspective, we had a difficulty with coordinating among multiple professional development groups within our hospital, cost, and resources to execute training. These difficulties between providing knowledge and receiving knowledge have already been expertly analyzed.¹

Parallel to this, the pedagogic paradigm shifts as we progress through our careers – the methods and skills we used in school contrast in many ways with those we use on a daily basis when it comes to learning. Instead of dedicating hours at a time to new challenges in our workflow or our interests, we watch videos, search retailers for product solutions, check our email correspondence, and peruse social media accounts several times a day. Information comes at us very quickly, but in small pieces.

One such innovation in pedagogy is the practice of microlearning. This refers to the use of small lesson modules and short-term activities intended to teach and reinforce concepts.² It is the opposite of “macrolearning,” which is the principle of dedicating reading material, structured coursework, and traditional knowledge evaluation in the form of exams to reinforce learning. Certainly, microlearning has other names as well – “just-in-time,” “just-enough,” and “micro-courses” are a few synonyms seen in the current literature. Though a highly relevant concept for our situation, translating it to an endproduct for our trainees and clinicians required more thought.
 

From theory to application

Microlearning allows for faster delivery of information – fewer things to write means shorter course distribution times, allowing the learner to respond faster to changing educational goals and training demands. Microlearning is flexible – “micro-courses” can give a broad overview of a subject or cover complex topics broken down into simple parts. In addition, micro-learning promotes retention of key concepts – given the length of each lesson, repetition of the topic by the learner is possible at any point in time. The whole experience is similar to checking your favorite social media application on your smartphone.

Certainly, many examples of the application of microlearning are available in the health care sector – pharmaceutical and nursing training both have utilized the theory extensively.^3-4 However, in many instances, individuals were still required to sit at a workstation to complete modules and lessons. We envisioned our application of microlearning to be “on-the-go,” without necessarily requiring a computer workstation or laptop to complete.

In thinking about how social media attracts and influences clinicians, many content creators on social media come to mind. In addition, most, if not all, have branched into various social media platforms – podcasting, blogging, YouTube, for example. In thinking about our colleagues and trainees, we wanted a platform that they could take on the go, without the need to focus their visual attention (such as while driving or running). Ultimately, we believe the podcast would be the best platform to disseminate our information.

Podcasting is not foreign to medicine. A variety of medical podcasts exist, whether produced by major medical journals or by various independent health care practitioners. Both, however, have their drawbacks – the podcasts created by major medical journals are typically a summary of the publication’s content and are less engaging. Alternatively, podcasts produced by independent creators are certainly engaging and entertaining, and have a wealth of information, but the line is often blurred between just that: education and entertainment. In both instances, there is no follow-up or feedback offered to the learner in the form of surveys, or other types of feedback, which is arguably an important piece in any form of pedagogy. Thus, we sought to strike a balance between the two forms for our purposes.
 

Process of two podcasts

Our section was aware of the two aims during the pandemic – (1) disseminate new information regarding COVID-19 to the rest of our staff members and trainees as quickly as possible, and (2) maintain and improve the current quality of care of our patients. Thus, we sought to apply the reach and efficiency of the podcasting medium to provide ongoing education and feedback with respect to these two aims.

“The Cure” podcast. We recognized the constant flow of new COVID-19 information and updates and we wanted to find a readily accessible platform to reach staff with timely updates. Our marketing & communications team later helped us realize that the content we wanted to share was relevant to our patients and the community, so we formatted the material to be practical and easily digestible- something that may help an individual make decisions at the bedside as well as have conversations at the dinner table. Most recently, we engaged with our human resources department to use our platform in orienting new hires with the goal of helping staff familiarize with the institutions policies, procedures, and job aids that keep staff and patients safe.

“Antibiotry” podcast. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, our antibiotic stewardship group noticed an increase in antibiotic use on our medical floors. This is monitored not only through internal metrics by our pharmacy department, but also via the SAAR (standardized antibiotic administration ratio). Both sources demonstrated an increase in antibiotic use, greater than expected. An initiative was formed between our hospital medicine and infectious disease sections, and our pharmacy department to raise awareness of this increase in use, provide education to our trainees, and to create systems solutions for clinicians.

Initially, we sought to hold in-person sessions once a month for our trainees. This was led by a senior resident at the time. Topics of discussion were geared towards clinical decision making regarding empiric antibiotic use on the hospital medicine service. At the same time, our team published empiric antibiotic use guidelines, accessible through our electronic medical record. In addition, the resident leader gave a voluntary survey at the end of the session to assess not only confidence of antibiotic use, but also baseline knowledge regarding antibiotics in various clinical scenarios. This survey was repeated at the end of the resident group’s month-long rotation. Altogether, each in-person session was no longer than 10 minutes.

Unfortunately, the initiative was just gaining momentum when the COVID-19 pandemic was declared. However, we sought to take this challenge and translate it into an opportunity.

We directed our focus towards stewardship during pandemic times. Initially, our resident leader sent out email primers, approximately 3-5 minute reads, as a substitute for the in-person sessions. Our primers’ uniqueness was in its incorporation of prescription pattern data that was developed by our resident leader and our initiative’s data analyst. In doing so, we provided professional feedback regarding our antibiotic use based on the clinical indication. This was a powerful tool to not only engage our learners and staff clinicians, but also as a benchmarking tool for continued quality improvement.

But email primers are not engaging, and despite the ubiquity of teleconferencing, it was difficult to ask our housestaff to break from their morning rounds for a 10 minute tele-meeting. Thus, we devised a podcast method of education – 5-10 minute audio clips with conversation regarding a topic of discussion. This way, our trainees and learners can access episodes of education on their own time throughout the pandemic without disrupting their workflow. Given the brevity of, but high-yield content in, each episode, it would not only be convenient for listeners to access and repeat, but also for the podcaster (our resident leader) to create, as recording of the audio portion takes anywhere between 10-20 minutes for each episode, with postprocessing similarly fast.

The interdisciplinary nature of continued medical education cannot be stressed enough. With the help of our professional development team and their educators, we were able to centralize our podcast and attach surveys and additional graphics for each episode, if appropriate. This additional detail allowed for feedback, engagement with our learners, and the chance to provide additional educational points, if the learner was interested. Given the integrated nature of this platform, quality metrics could easily be recorded in the form of “click” data and various other more conventional metrics, such as listener counts and the duration of each podcast played.
 

Future applications and initiatives

Thus far, we have had great success in the reception and use of both podcasts within our institution as an application of microlearning. “The Cure” has been widely listened to by all hospital staff from various services; it has caught the attention of state-wide radio programs, and plans to expand it into the community are being discussed.

As for “Antibiotry” podcast, the concept has been lauded by our medical educators. Given its centralization within our institution, we are able to publish institution-based data as a form of professional and educational feedback to our trainees and staff physicians. This is currently coupled with the development of a provider dashboard, visualizing antibiotic prescriptions and narrowing patterns of practice within our medicine department. We plan to expand “Antibiotry” to other services at the hospital.

For both podcasts, the steps it took to achieve the final product from the microlearning concept were possible through a combination of institutional need and a motivated team. We are fortunate to have highly energetic individuals, making the coordination and planning with our hospitalists, various sub-specialists, and professional development teams straightforward. As the team grows with more individuals interested in the initiatives, keen insight into interests, individual clinical expertise, presentation skills, and technical skills ought to be carefully weighed to sustain our podcasts most efficiently, and perhaps expand them through different social media platforms.

Our objective for sustainability is through the continued outreach to and recruitment of residents and medical students, who can play key roles in the development of future projects related to these educational innovations. Both microlearning podcasts were developed through the initial planning, trial and error, and execution by two resident leaders. Their initiative and motivation to educate our institution through these platforms were highly unique; their pathfinding set the foundation for sustainability and expansion to other services.

Of course, one of the key measures we would like to investigate is whether our microlearning platform translates to improved patient outcomes. Regarding “Antibiotry,” we hope to see a decrease in unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotic use by drawing attention to clinician practice patterns. Quality and outcome metrics will continue to be developed and measured. In addition to patient care metrics, further investigation of pedagogical metrics will be conducted, especially in the evolving realm of graduate and continuing medical education.

Measuring educational quality is neither a new ethical nor philosophical debate – neither does it carry a definitive answer. Further help from education experts may be needed to assess the quality of the information provided and its impact on our learners.
 

Conclusion

Medicine is ever-changing – the guidelines and criteria for patient care and pathology that we learned in medical school have likely changed. There is no single “best” method of learning new information in medicine, simply due to the breadth and volume of such information generated on a daily basis. This poses both a challenge for present-day clinicians and trainees, and a stimulus for change in the methods of acquiring, absorbing, and applying new information to clinical decision making and practice.

We have found that podcasting is a well-received medium of information transfer that is convenient for both the learner and the content creator. Through the podcast format, we were able to distill non-engaging pieces of education and information and transform them into short-duration lessons that the learner can listen to at their own convenience. This proved to be especially handy during the chaos of the pandemic, not only for dissemination of information regarding the management of COVID-19, but also for sustaining quality improvement goals within our institution.

Further investigation on patient outcomes and information quality are the planned next steps. In addition, expansion of other microlearning media, such as group SMS texting, YouTube videos, and Twitter, ought to be considered. Though many publications discuss the theory, potential benefits, and predicted pitfalls of microlearning, few assess the real-world application of microlearning to the clinical setting for medical education.

So what did we learn? We should think of microlearning as moments when you turn to your smartphone or tablet in order to discover something, answer a question, or complete a task. These are moments when decisions are made and knowledge is reinforced. The goal is to capture these moments and fill them with essential pieces of information.

We offer these suggestions as a place to start. The microlearning platform allows for the collection of data on the interaction between user and course content. The data collected can be used for continuous quality improvement of the curriculum. Microlearning is a dynamic platform where creative ideas are encouraged and a multi-disciplinary approach is valuable to keeping an audience engaged. In the future, we hope to be able to correlate microlearning courses to provider performance and measurable patient outcomes.
 

Dr. Mercado is medical director at Alice Peck Day Memorial Hospital, and associate hospital epidemiologist, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, both in Lebanon, N.H., and assistant professor at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. Dr. Feng is a Fellow in the Leadership/Preventive Medicine Program in the Department of Internal Medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center.

References

1. Duggan F and Banwell L. Constructing a model of effective information dissemination in a crisis. Information Research. 2004;9(3). Paper 178 [Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/9-3/paper178.html].

2. Filipe HP, et al. Microlearning to improve CPD learning objectives. Clin Teach. 2020 Dec;17(6):695-699. doi: 10.1111/tct.13208.

3. Hegerius A, et al. E-Learning in Pharmacovigilance: An Evaluation of Microlearning-Based Modules Developed by Uppsala Monitoring Centre. Drug Saf. 2020 Nov;43(11):1171-1180. doi: 10.1007/s40264-020-00981-w.

4. Orwoll B, et al. Gamification and Microlearning for Engagement With Quality Improvement (GAMEQI): A Bundled Digital Intervention for the Prevention of Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection. Am J Med Qual. Jan/Feb 2018;33(1):21-29. doi: 10.1177/1062860617706542.

The vast amounts of information generated this past year related to the COVID-19 pandemic was a feat of wonder – recommendations and guidelines on the hospital level and on the national level came in a flurry, more often overwhelming and confusing than clarifying for the frontline provider. In addition, “routine” hospital care for non-infected patients and improvement processes had to continue as we all dealt with the whirlwind of increasing COVID cases, torrents of new guidelines, and educating our trainees.

Thus, the individual-level question: how does a clinician stay engaged and distill the relentless stream of new information?

In Spring 2020, when the first patients with COVID were admitted, our hospital medicine section was tasked to create a surge plan. This included organizing, orienting, and educating off-service providers on how to become hospitalists. Undoubtedly, the call to arms for our center was heard, and many responded. However, backgrounds were diverse in specialty – clinicians and trainees from psychiatry, general surgery, and various fellowships all answered. It was an exhausting and inefficient effort to produce the material, hold webinars, and schedule training, especially for those who were more removed from a hospital medicine experience. We knew we had to come up with an alternative plan moving forward.

Thus, the systems-level question: how does a health care system educate its clinicians, or any other health care providers, when reallocation of their talents and skills is both necessary, time-sensitive, and occuring during a period where new information is constantly being produced and changing?

To reach the most clinicians as possible, with the most succinct and distilled information, we had to come up with a method to do so. Ultimately, in considering the situation at hand, we had to understand who we were as the provider of the information, and who the recipient would be. We would like to share the initiatives and processes by which we constructed our solution to the two questions – microlearning through hospital podcasting.
 

Learning from our health care colleagues

With the initial webinars and training sessions for our staff, we assessed our learners’ motivations and background in managing in a hospital medicine capacity. Overall, we discovered that our trainees and clinicians have an innate drive to learn; all of them recognized the importance of keeping up with evidence-based information. However, the difficulty highlighted was the individual time available to dedicate to acquiring new information and awareness of new information being available to the health care sector during the chaotic times of the pandemic.

From our section’s perspective, we had a difficulty with coordinating among multiple professional development groups within our hospital, cost, and resources to execute training. These difficulties between providing knowledge and receiving knowledge have already been expertly analyzed.¹

Parallel to this, the pedagogic paradigm shifts as we progress through our careers – the methods and skills we used in school contrast in many ways with those we use on a daily basis when it comes to learning. Instead of dedicating hours at a time to new challenges in our workflow or our interests, we watch videos, search retailers for product solutions, check our email correspondence, and peruse social media accounts several times a day. Information comes at us very quickly, but in small pieces.

One such innovation in pedagogy is the practice of microlearning. This refers to the use of small lesson modules and short-term activities intended to teach and reinforce concepts.² It is the opposite of “macrolearning,” which is the principle of dedicating reading material, structured coursework, and traditional knowledge evaluation in the form of exams to reinforce learning. Certainly, microlearning has other names as well – “just-in-time,” “just-enough,” and “micro-courses” are a few synonyms seen in the current literature. Though a highly relevant concept for our situation, translating it to an endproduct for our trainees and clinicians required more thought.
 

From theory to application

Microlearning allows for faster delivery of information – fewer things to write means shorter course distribution times, allowing the learner to respond faster to changing educational goals and training demands. Microlearning is flexible – “micro-courses” can give a broad overview of a subject or cover complex topics broken down into simple parts. In addition, micro-learning promotes retention of key concepts – given the length of each lesson, repetition of the topic by the learner is possible at any point in time. The whole experience is similar to checking your favorite social media application on your smartphone.

Certainly, many examples of the application of microlearning are available in the health care sector – pharmaceutical and nursing training both have utilized the theory extensively.^3-4 However, in many instances, individuals were still required to sit at a workstation to complete modules and lessons. We envisioned our application of microlearning to be “on-the-go,” without necessarily requiring a computer workstation or laptop to complete.

In thinking about how social media attracts and influences clinicians, many content creators on social media come to mind. In addition, most, if not all, have branched into various social media platforms – podcasting, blogging, YouTube, for example. In thinking about our colleagues and trainees, we wanted a platform that they could take on the go, without the need to focus their visual attention (such as while driving or running). Ultimately, we believe the podcast would be the best platform to disseminate our information.

Podcasting is not foreign to medicine. A variety of medical podcasts exist, whether produced by major medical journals or by various independent health care practitioners. Both, however, have their drawbacks – the podcasts created by major medical journals are typically a summary of the publication’s content and are less engaging. Alternatively, podcasts produced by independent creators are certainly engaging and entertaining, and have a wealth of information, but the line is often blurred between just that: education and entertainment. In both instances, there is no follow-up or feedback offered to the learner in the form of surveys, or other types of feedback, which is arguably an important piece in any form of pedagogy. Thus, we sought to strike a balance between the two forms for our purposes.
 

Process of two podcasts

Our section was aware of the two aims during the pandemic – (1) disseminate new information regarding COVID-19 to the rest of our staff members and trainees as quickly as possible, and (2) maintain and improve the current quality of care of our patients. Thus, we sought to apply the reach and efficiency of the podcasting medium to provide ongoing education and feedback with respect to these two aims.

“The Cure” podcast. We recognized the constant flow of new COVID-19 information and updates and we wanted to find a readily accessible platform to reach staff with timely updates. Our marketing & communications team later helped us realize that the content we wanted to share was relevant to our patients and the community, so we formatted the material to be practical and easily digestible- something that may help an individual make decisions at the bedside as well as have conversations at the dinner table. Most recently, we engaged with our human resources department to use our platform in orienting new hires with the goal of helping staff familiarize with the institutions policies, procedures, and job aids that keep staff and patients safe.

“Antibiotry” podcast. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, our antibiotic stewardship group noticed an increase in antibiotic use on our medical floors. This is monitored not only through internal metrics by our pharmacy department, but also via the SAAR (standardized antibiotic administration ratio). Both sources demonstrated an increase in antibiotic use, greater than expected. An initiative was formed between our hospital medicine and infectious disease sections, and our pharmacy department to raise awareness of this increase in use, provide education to our trainees, and to create systems solutions for clinicians.

Initially, we sought to hold in-person sessions once a month for our trainees. This was led by a senior resident at the time. Topics of discussion were geared towards clinical decision making regarding empiric antibiotic use on the hospital medicine service. At the same time, our team published empiric antibiotic use guidelines, accessible through our electronic medical record. In addition, the resident leader gave a voluntary survey at the end of the session to assess not only confidence of antibiotic use, but also baseline knowledge regarding antibiotics in various clinical scenarios. This survey was repeated at the end of the resident group’s month-long rotation. Altogether, each in-person session was no longer than 10 minutes.

Unfortunately, the initiative was just gaining momentum when the COVID-19 pandemic was declared. However, we sought to take this challenge and translate it into an opportunity.

We directed our focus towards stewardship during pandemic times. Initially, our resident leader sent out email primers, approximately 3-5 minute reads, as a substitute for the in-person sessions. Our primers’ uniqueness was in its incorporation of prescription pattern data that was developed by our resident leader and our initiative’s data analyst. In doing so, we provided professional feedback regarding our antibiotic use based on the clinical indication. This was a powerful tool to not only engage our learners and staff clinicians, but also as a benchmarking tool for continued quality improvement.

But email primers are not engaging, and despite the ubiquity of teleconferencing, it was difficult to ask our housestaff to break from their morning rounds for a 10 minute tele-meeting. Thus, we devised a podcast method of education – 5-10 minute audio clips with conversation regarding a topic of discussion. This way, our trainees and learners can access episodes of education on their own time throughout the pandemic without disrupting their workflow. Given the brevity of, but high-yield content in, each episode, it would not only be convenient for listeners to access and repeat, but also for the podcaster (our resident leader) to create, as recording of the audio portion takes anywhere between 10-20 minutes for each episode, with postprocessing similarly fast.

The interdisciplinary nature of continued medical education cannot be stressed enough. With the help of our professional development team and their educators, we were able to centralize our podcast and attach surveys and additional graphics for each episode, if appropriate. This additional detail allowed for feedback, engagement with our learners, and the chance to provide additional educational points, if the learner was interested. Given the integrated nature of this platform, quality metrics could easily be recorded in the form of “click” data and various other more conventional metrics, such as listener counts and the duration of each podcast played.
 

Future applications and initiatives

Thus far, we have had great success in the reception and use of both podcasts within our institution as an application of microlearning. “The Cure” has been widely listened to by all hospital staff from various services; it has caught the attention of state-wide radio programs, and plans to expand it into the community are being discussed.

As for “Antibiotry” podcast, the concept has been lauded by our medical educators. Given its centralization within our institution, we are able to publish institution-based data as a form of professional and educational feedback to our trainees and staff physicians. This is currently coupled with the development of a provider dashboard, visualizing antibiotic prescriptions and narrowing patterns of practice within our medicine department. We plan to expand “Antibiotry” to other services at the hospital.

For both podcasts, the steps it took to achieve the final product from the microlearning concept were possible through a combination of institutional need and a motivated team. We are fortunate to have highly energetic individuals, making the coordination and planning with our hospitalists, various sub-specialists, and professional development teams straightforward. As the team grows with more individuals interested in the initiatives, keen insight into interests, individual clinical expertise, presentation skills, and technical skills ought to be carefully weighed to sustain our podcasts most efficiently, and perhaps expand them through different social media platforms.

Our objective for sustainability is through the continued outreach to and recruitment of residents and medical students, who can play key roles in the development of future projects related to these educational innovations. Both microlearning podcasts were developed through the initial planning, trial and error, and execution by two resident leaders. Their initiative and motivation to educate our institution through these platforms were highly unique; their pathfinding set the foundation for sustainability and expansion to other services.

Of course, one of the key measures we would like to investigate is whether our microlearning platform translates to improved patient outcomes. Regarding “Antibiotry,” we hope to see a decrease in unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotic use by drawing attention to clinician practice patterns. Quality and outcome metrics will continue to be developed and measured. In addition to patient care metrics, further investigation of pedagogical metrics will be conducted, especially in the evolving realm of graduate and continuing medical education.

Measuring educational quality is neither a new ethical nor philosophical debate – neither does it carry a definitive answer. Further help from education experts may be needed to assess the quality of the information provided and its impact on our learners.
 

Conclusion

Medicine is ever-changing – the guidelines and criteria for patient care and pathology that we learned in medical school have likely changed. There is no single “best” method of learning new information in medicine, simply due to the breadth and volume of such information generated on a daily basis. This poses both a challenge for present-day clinicians and trainees, and a stimulus for change in the methods of acquiring, absorbing, and applying new information to clinical decision making and practice.

We have found that podcasting is a well-received medium of information transfer that is convenient for both the learner and the content creator. Through the podcast format, we were able to distill non-engaging pieces of education and information and transform them into short-duration lessons that the learner can listen to at their own convenience. This proved to be especially handy during the chaos of the pandemic, not only for dissemination of information regarding the management of COVID-19, but also for sustaining quality improvement goals within our institution.

Further investigation on patient outcomes and information quality are the planned next steps. In addition, expansion of other microlearning media, such as group SMS texting, YouTube videos, and Twitter, ought to be considered. Though many publications discuss the theory, potential benefits, and predicted pitfalls of microlearning, few assess the real-world application of microlearning to the clinical setting for medical education.

So what did we learn? We should think of microlearning as moments when you turn to your smartphone or tablet in order to discover something, answer a question, or complete a task. These are moments when decisions are made and knowledge is reinforced. The goal is to capture these moments and fill them with essential pieces of information.

We offer these suggestions as a place to start. The microlearning platform allows for the collection of data on the interaction between user and course content. The data collected can be used for continuous quality improvement of the curriculum. Microlearning is a dynamic platform where creative ideas are encouraged and a multi-disciplinary approach is valuable to keeping an audience engaged. In the future, we hope to be able to correlate microlearning courses to provider performance and measurable patient outcomes.
 

Dr. Mercado is medical director at Alice Peck Day Memorial Hospital, and associate hospital epidemiologist, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, both in Lebanon, N.H., and assistant professor at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. Dr. Feng is a Fellow in the Leadership/Preventive Medicine Program in the Department of Internal Medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center.

References

1. Duggan F and Banwell L. Constructing a model of effective information dissemination in a crisis. Information Research. 2004;9(3). Paper 178 [Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/9-3/paper178.html].

2. Filipe HP, et al. Microlearning to improve CPD learning objectives. Clin Teach. 2020 Dec;17(6):695-699. doi: 10.1111/tct.13208.

3. Hegerius A, et al. E-Learning in Pharmacovigilance: An Evaluation of Microlearning-Based Modules Developed by Uppsala Monitoring Centre. Drug Saf. 2020 Nov;43(11):1171-1180. doi: 10.1007/s40264-020-00981-w.

4. Orwoll B, et al. Gamification and Microlearning for Engagement With Quality Improvement (GAMEQI): A Bundled Digital Intervention for the Prevention of Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection. Am J Med Qual. Jan/Feb 2018;33(1):21-29. doi: 10.1177/1062860617706542.

The vast amounts of information generated this past year related to the COVID-19 pandemic was a feat of wonder – recommendations and guidelines on the hospital level and on the national level came in a flurry, more often overwhelming and confusing than clarifying for the frontline provider. In addition, “routine” hospital care for non-infected patients and improvement processes had to continue as we all dealt with the whirlwind of increasing COVID cases, torrents of new guidelines, and educating our trainees.

Thus, the individual-level question: how does a clinician stay engaged and distill the relentless stream of new information?

In Spring 2020, when the first patients with COVID were admitted, our hospital medicine section was tasked to create a surge plan. This included organizing, orienting, and educating off-service providers on how to become hospitalists. Undoubtedly, the call to arms for our center was heard, and many responded. However, backgrounds were diverse in specialty – clinicians and trainees from psychiatry, general surgery, and various fellowships all answered. It was an exhausting and inefficient effort to produce the material, hold webinars, and schedule training, especially for those who were more removed from a hospital medicine experience. We knew we had to come up with an alternative plan moving forward.

Thus, the systems-level question: how does a health care system educate its clinicians, or any other health care providers, when reallocation of their talents and skills is both necessary, time-sensitive, and occuring during a period where new information is constantly being produced and changing?

To reach the most clinicians as possible, with the most succinct and distilled information, we had to come up with a method to do so. Ultimately, in considering the situation at hand, we had to understand who we were as the provider of the information, and who the recipient would be. We would like to share the initiatives and processes by which we constructed our solution to the two questions – microlearning through hospital podcasting.
 

Learning from our health care colleagues

With the initial webinars and training sessions for our staff, we assessed our learners’ motivations and background in managing in a hospital medicine capacity. Overall, we discovered that our trainees and clinicians have an innate drive to learn; all of them recognized the importance of keeping up with evidence-based information. However, the difficulty highlighted was the individual time available to dedicate to acquiring new information and awareness of new information being available to the health care sector during the chaotic times of the pandemic.

From our section’s perspective, we had a difficulty with coordinating among multiple professional development groups within our hospital, cost, and resources to execute training. These difficulties between providing knowledge and receiving knowledge have already been expertly analyzed.¹

Parallel to this, the pedagogic paradigm shifts as we progress through our careers – the methods and skills we used in school contrast in many ways with those we use on a daily basis when it comes to learning. Instead of dedicating hours at a time to new challenges in our workflow or our interests, we watch videos, search retailers for product solutions, check our email correspondence, and peruse social media accounts several times a day. Information comes at us very quickly, but in small pieces.

One such innovation in pedagogy is the practice of microlearning. This refers to the use of small lesson modules and short-term activities intended to teach and reinforce concepts.² It is the opposite of “macrolearning,” which is the principle of dedicating reading material, structured coursework, and traditional knowledge evaluation in the form of exams to reinforce learning. Certainly, microlearning has other names as well – “just-in-time,” “just-enough,” and “micro-courses” are a few synonyms seen in the current literature. Though a highly relevant concept for our situation, translating it to an endproduct for our trainees and clinicians required more thought.
 

From theory to application

Microlearning allows for faster delivery of information – fewer things to write means shorter course distribution times, allowing the learner to respond faster to changing educational goals and training demands. Microlearning is flexible – “micro-courses” can give a broad overview of a subject or cover complex topics broken down into simple parts. In addition, micro-learning promotes retention of key concepts – given the length of each lesson, repetition of the topic by the learner is possible at any point in time. The whole experience is similar to checking your favorite social media application on your smartphone.

Certainly, many examples of the application of microlearning are available in the health care sector – pharmaceutical and nursing training both have utilized the theory extensively.^3-4 However, in many instances, individuals were still required to sit at a workstation to complete modules and lessons. We envisioned our application of microlearning to be “on-the-go,” without necessarily requiring a computer workstation or laptop to complete.

In thinking about how social media attracts and influences clinicians, many content creators on social media come to mind. In addition, most, if not all, have branched into various social media platforms – podcasting, blogging, YouTube, for example. In thinking about our colleagues and trainees, we wanted a platform that they could take on the go, without the need to focus their visual attention (such as while driving or running). Ultimately, we believe the podcast would be the best platform to disseminate our information.

Podcasting is not foreign to medicine. A variety of medical podcasts exist, whether produced by major medical journals or by various independent health care practitioners. Both, however, have their drawbacks – the podcasts created by major medical journals are typically a summary of the publication’s content and are less engaging. Alternatively, podcasts produced by independent creators are certainly engaging and entertaining, and have a wealth of information, but the line is often blurred between just that: education and entertainment. In both instances, there is no follow-up or feedback offered to the learner in the form of surveys, or other types of feedback, which is arguably an important piece in any form of pedagogy. Thus, we sought to strike a balance between the two forms for our purposes.
 

Process of two podcasts

Our section was aware of the two aims during the pandemic – (1) disseminate new information regarding COVID-19 to the rest of our staff members and trainees as quickly as possible, and (2) maintain and improve the current quality of care of our patients. Thus, we sought to apply the reach and efficiency of the podcasting medium to provide ongoing education and feedback with respect to these two aims.

“The Cure” podcast. We recognized the constant flow of new COVID-19 information and updates and we wanted to find a readily accessible platform to reach staff with timely updates. Our marketing & communications team later helped us realize that the content we wanted to share was relevant to our patients and the community, so we formatted the material to be practical and easily digestible- something that may help an individual make decisions at the bedside as well as have conversations at the dinner table. Most recently, we engaged with our human resources department to use our platform in orienting new hires with the goal of helping staff familiarize with the institutions policies, procedures, and job aids that keep staff and patients safe.

“Antibiotry” podcast. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, our antibiotic stewardship group noticed an increase in antibiotic use on our medical floors. This is monitored not only through internal metrics by our pharmacy department, but also via the SAAR (standardized antibiotic administration ratio). Both sources demonstrated an increase in antibiotic use, greater than expected. An initiative was formed between our hospital medicine and infectious disease sections, and our pharmacy department to raise awareness of this increase in use, provide education to our trainees, and to create systems solutions for clinicians.

Initially, we sought to hold in-person sessions once a month for our trainees. This was led by a senior resident at the time. Topics of discussion were geared towards clinical decision making regarding empiric antibiotic use on the hospital medicine service. At the same time, our team published empiric antibiotic use guidelines, accessible through our electronic medical record. In addition, the resident leader gave a voluntary survey at the end of the session to assess not only confidence of antibiotic use, but also baseline knowledge regarding antibiotics in various clinical scenarios. This survey was repeated at the end of the resident group’s month-long rotation. Altogether, each in-person session was no longer than 10 minutes.

Unfortunately, the initiative was just gaining momentum when the COVID-19 pandemic was declared. However, we sought to take this challenge and translate it into an opportunity.

We directed our focus towards stewardship during pandemic times. Initially, our resident leader sent out email primers, approximately 3-5 minute reads, as a substitute for the in-person sessions. Our primers’ uniqueness was in its incorporation of prescription pattern data that was developed by our resident leader and our initiative’s data analyst. In doing so, we provided professional feedback regarding our antibiotic use based on the clinical indication. This was a powerful tool to not only engage our learners and staff clinicians, but also as a benchmarking tool for continued quality improvement.

But email primers are not engaging, and despite the ubiquity of teleconferencing, it was difficult to ask our housestaff to break from their morning rounds for a 10 minute tele-meeting. Thus, we devised a podcast method of education – 5-10 minute audio clips with conversation regarding a topic of discussion. This way, our trainees and learners can access episodes of education on their own time throughout the pandemic without disrupting their workflow. Given the brevity of, but high-yield content in, each episode, it would not only be convenient for listeners to access and repeat, but also for the podcaster (our resident leader) to create, as recording of the audio portion takes anywhere between 10-20 minutes for each episode, with postprocessing similarly fast.

The interdisciplinary nature of continued medical education cannot be stressed enough. With the help of our professional development team and their educators, we were able to centralize our podcast and attach surveys and additional graphics for each episode, if appropriate. This additional detail allowed for feedback, engagement with our learners, and the chance to provide additional educational points, if the learner was interested. Given the integrated nature of this platform, quality metrics could easily be recorded in the form of “click” data and various other more conventional metrics, such as listener counts and the duration of each podcast played.
 

Future applications and initiatives

Thus far, we have had great success in the reception and use of both podcasts within our institution as an application of microlearning. “The Cure” has been widely listened to by all hospital staff from various services; it has caught the attention of state-wide radio programs, and plans to expand it into the community are being discussed.

As for “Antibiotry” podcast, the concept has been lauded by our medical educators. Given its centralization within our institution, we are able to publish institution-based data as a form of professional and educational feedback to our trainees and staff physicians. This is currently coupled with the development of a provider dashboard, visualizing antibiotic prescriptions and narrowing patterns of practice within our medicine department. We plan to expand “Antibiotry” to other services at the hospital.

For both podcasts, the steps it took to achieve the final product from the microlearning concept were possible through a combination of institutional need and a motivated team. We are fortunate to have highly energetic individuals, making the coordination and planning with our hospitalists, various sub-specialists, and professional development teams straightforward. As the team grows with more individuals interested in the initiatives, keen insight into interests, individual clinical expertise, presentation skills, and technical skills ought to be carefully weighed to sustain our podcasts most efficiently, and perhaps expand them through different social media platforms.

Our objective for sustainability is through the continued outreach to and recruitment of residents and medical students, who can play key roles in the development of future projects related to these educational innovations. Both microlearning podcasts were developed through the initial planning, trial and error, and execution by two resident leaders. Their initiative and motivation to educate our institution through these platforms were highly unique; their pathfinding set the foundation for sustainability and expansion to other services.

Of course, one of the key measures we would like to investigate is whether our microlearning platform translates to improved patient outcomes. Regarding “Antibiotry,” we hope to see a decrease in unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotic use by drawing attention to clinician practice patterns. Quality and outcome metrics will continue to be developed and measured. In addition to patient care metrics, further investigation of pedagogical metrics will be conducted, especially in the evolving realm of graduate and continuing medical education.

Measuring educational quality is neither a new ethical nor philosophical debate – neither does it carry a definitive answer. Further help from education experts may be needed to assess the quality of the information provided and its impact on our learners.
 

Conclusion

Medicine is ever-changing – the guidelines and criteria for patient care and pathology that we learned in medical school have likely changed. There is no single “best” method of learning new information in medicine, simply due to the breadth and volume of such information generated on a daily basis. This poses both a challenge for present-day clinicians and trainees, and a stimulus for change in the methods of acquiring, absorbing, and applying new information to clinical decision making and practice.

We have found that podcasting is a well-received medium of information transfer that is convenient for both the learner and the content creator. Through the podcast format, we were able to distill non-engaging pieces of education and information and transform them into short-duration lessons that the learner can listen to at their own convenience. This proved to be especially handy during the chaos of the pandemic, not only for dissemination of information regarding the management of COVID-19, but also for sustaining quality improvement goals within our institution.

Further investigation on patient outcomes and information quality are the planned next steps. In addition, expansion of other microlearning media, such as group SMS texting, YouTube videos, and Twitter, ought to be considered. Though many publications discuss the theory, potential benefits, and predicted pitfalls of microlearning, few assess the real-world application of microlearning to the clinical setting for medical education.

So what did we learn? We should think of microlearning as moments when you turn to your smartphone or tablet in order to discover something, answer a question, or complete a task. These are moments when decisions are made and knowledge is reinforced. The goal is to capture these moments and fill them with essential pieces of information.

We offer these suggestions as a place to start. The microlearning platform allows for the collection of data on the interaction between user and course content. The data collected can be used for continuous quality improvement of the curriculum. Microlearning is a dynamic platform where creative ideas are encouraged and a multi-disciplinary approach is valuable to keeping an audience engaged. In the future, we hope to be able to correlate microlearning courses to provider performance and measurable patient outcomes.
 

Dr. Mercado is medical director at Alice Peck Day Memorial Hospital, and associate hospital epidemiologist, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, both in Lebanon, N.H., and assistant professor at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. Dr. Feng is a Fellow in the Leadership/Preventive Medicine Program in the Department of Internal Medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center.

References

1. Duggan F and Banwell L. Constructing a model of effective information dissemination in a crisis. Information Research. 2004;9(3). Paper 178 [Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/9-3/paper178.html].

2. Filipe HP, et al. Microlearning to improve CPD learning objectives. Clin Teach. 2020 Dec;17(6):695-699. doi: 10.1111/tct.13208.

3. Hegerius A, et al. E-Learning in Pharmacovigilance: An Evaluation of Microlearning-Based Modules Developed by Uppsala Monitoring Centre. Drug Saf. 2020 Nov;43(11):1171-1180. doi: 10.1007/s40264-020-00981-w.

4. Orwoll B, et al. Gamification and Microlearning for Engagement With Quality Improvement (GAMEQI): A Bundled Digital Intervention for the Prevention of Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection. Am J Med Qual. Jan/Feb 2018;33(1):21-29. doi: 10.1177/1062860617706542.

The gut-brain axis (GBA) refers to the link between the human brain with its various cognitive and affective functions and the gastrointestinal (GI) system, which includes the enteric nervous system and the diverse microbiome inhabiting the gut lumen. The neurochemical aspects of the GBA have been studied in germ-free mice; these studies demonstrate how absence or derangement of this microbiome can cause significant alterations in levels of serotonin, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, tryptophan, and other neurocompounds.^1,2 These neurotransmitter alterations have demonstrable effects on anxiety, cognition, socialization, and neuronal development in mice.^1,2

Current evidence suggests that the GBA works through a combination of both fast-acting neural and delayed immune-mediated mechanisms in a bidirectional manner with feedback on and from both systems.³ In addition to their direct effects on neural pathways and immune modulation, intestinal microbiota are essential in the production of a vast array of vitamins, cofactors, and nutrients required for optimal health and metabolism.⁴ Existing research on the GBA demonstrates the direct functional impact of the intestinal microbiome on neurologic and psychiatric health.

We will review current knowledge regarding this intriguing relationship. In doing so, we take a closer look at several specific genera and families of intestinal microbiota, review the microbiome’s effects on immune function, and examine the relationship between this microbiome and mental disease, using specific examples such as generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and major depressive disorder (MDD). We seek to consolidate existing knowledge on the intricacies of the GBA in the hope that it may promote individual health and become a standard component in the treatment of mental illness.

Direct Activation of Neuronal Pathways

Vagal and spinal afferent nerve pathways convey information regarding hormonal, chemical, and mechanical stimuli from the intestines to the brain.³ These afferent neurons have been shown to be responsive to microbial signals and cytokines as well as to gut hormones. This provides the basis for research that presumes that neurobehavioral change may ensue from manipulating the gut microbes emitting these chemical signals to which these afferent neurons respond.³ Using these same pathways, efferent neurons of the parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous systems can modulate the intestinal environment by altering acid and bile secretion, mucous production, and motility. This modulation can directly impact the relative diversity of intestinal flora, and in more extreme states, may result in bacterial overgrowth.⁵ Of particular relevance to mental health (MH) is that the frequency of migrating motor complexes that promote peristalsis can be directly influenced by readily modifiable behaviors such as sleep and food intake, which can cause one bacterial species to dominate in a higher percentage.⁵ This imbalance of gut microbes has been implicated in contributing to somatic conditions, such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), which the literature has shown is related to psychiatric conditions such as anxiety. ⁵

The Microbiome and Host Immunity

The GI tract is colonized with commensal microorganisms from dozens of bacterial, archaeal, fungal, and protozoal groups.⁶ This relationship has its most classical immunologic interaction in the toll-like receptors. These receptors are on the lymphoid Peyer patches of the GI tract, which sample microorganisms and develop immunoglobulin (IgA) antibodies to them. Evidence exists that commensal microflora play a critical role in the regulation of host inflammatory response.⁷

The relationship between the microbiome and the immune system remains poorly understood, yet evidence has shown that the use of probiotics may reduce inflammation and its sequelae. Probiotics have been shown to have a beneficial effect on autoimmune diseases, such as Crohn disease and ulcerative colitis, specifically with certain strains of Escherichia coli (E coli) and a proprietary probiotic from VSL pharmaceuticals.^8,9 However, these interventions are not without risk. Fecal microbiota transplants have a risk of transferring unwanted organisms, potentially including COVID-19.¹⁰ Additionally, the use of probiotics is generally discouraged in immunocompromised, chronically ill, and/or hospitalized patients, as these patients may be at greater risk of developing probiotic bacteremia and sepsis.¹¹

Studies have also demonstrated that ingesting probiotics may decrease the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines.¹¹ In a study comparing patients with ulcerative colitis who were prescribed both sulfasalazine and probiotic supplements vs sulfasalazine alone, patients who took the probiotic supplements were shown to have less colonic inflammation and decreased expression of cytokines such as IL-6, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), and nuclear factor-κβ.¹²

Gut-Specific Bacterial Phyla

Over the past decade, much attention has been paid toward 2 bacterial phyla that compromise a large proportion of the human gut microbiome: Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes. Intestinal Firmicutes species are predominantly Gram positive and are found as both cocci and bacilli. Well-known classes within the phylum Firmicutes include Bacilli (orders Bacillales and Lactobacillales) and Clostridia. The phylum Bacteroidetes is composed of Gram-negative rods and includes the genus Bacteroides—a substantial component of mammalian gut biomes. The ratio of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes, also known as the F/B ratio, have shown fascinating patterns in certain psychiatric conditions. This knowledge may be applied to better identify, treat, and manage such patients.

Regarding bacterial phyla and their relationship to mood disorders, interesting patterns have been observed. In one population of patients with anorexia nervosa (AN) lower diversity within classes of Firmicutes bacteria was observed compared with age- and sex-matched controls without AN.¹³ As patients were re-fed and treated in this study, there was a significant corresponding increase in microbiome diversity; however, the level of bacterial diversity in re-fed patients with AN was still far less than that of patients in the control group. In patients with AN with comorbid depression, diversity was noted to be exceptionally reduced. Similarly, patients with AN with a more severe eating disorder psychopathology demonstrated decreased microbial diversity.¹³

The impact of intestinal microbiome diversity and relative bacterial population density in MH conditions such as anxiety, depression, and eating disorders remains an intriguing avenue worth further exploring. Modulating these phenomena may reduce overall dysfunction and serve as a possible treatment modality.

Anxiety and the Microbiome

GAD is characterized by decreased social and occupational functioning. Anxiolytic pharmacotherapy combined with psychotherapy are the current mainstays of GAD treatment. Given the interplay of the gut microbiome and MH, probiotics may prove to be a promising alternative or adjunct treatment option.

The human stress response is enacted largely through the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. Anxiety and situational fear trigger a stress response that results in increased cortisol being released from the adrenal glands, thereby disrupting typical GI function by modifying the frequency of migrating motor complexes, the electromechanical impulses within the smooth muscle of the stomach and small bowel that allow for propagation of chyme. This, in turn, has downstream consequences on the composition of the intestinal microbiome.¹⁴ Patients with GAD have a lower prevalence of Faecalibacterium, Eubacterium rectale, Lachnospira, Butyricioccus, and Sutterella, all important producers of short-chain fatty acids (SCFA).^15,16 Diminished SCFA production has been linked to intestinal barrier dysfunction, contributing to increases in gut endothelial permeability and facilitating a proinflammatory response with resultant neural feedback loops.^17,18 Indeed, proinflammatory cytokines, namely C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin 6 (IL-6), and TNF-α were found to be elevated in patients with diagnosed GAD.¹⁹ These proinflammatory cytokines are critical in neurochemical modulation as they inhibit the essential enzyme tetrahydrobiopterin, a cofactor of monoamine synthesis, thereby decreasing the monoamine neurotransmitters serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine.²⁰ Decrease in the monoamine neurotransmitters serves as the lynchpin for the monoamine hypothesis of both anxiety and depression and currently guides our choice in pharmacotherapy.²¹

Anxiolytic pharmacotherapy targets the neurochemical consequences of GAD to ameliorate social, functional, and emotional impairment. However, the physiology of the gut-brain feedback loop in GAD is an attractive target for the creation and trialing of probiotics, which can rebalance intestinal flora, reduce inflammation, and allow for increased synthesis of monoamine neurotransmitters. Indeed, Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium have been shown to possess anxiolytic properties by increasing serotonin and SCFAs while reducing the HPA adrenergic response.²²

Depression and the Microbiome

MDD significantly diminishes quality of life and is the leading cause of disability worldwide, affecting nearly 350 million individuals.²³ Psychotherapy in conjunction with pharmacotherapy aimed at increasing cerebral serotonin availability are the current mainstays of MDD treatment. Yet the brain does not exist in isolation: It has 3 known methods of bidirectional communication with the GI tract via the vagus nerve, immune mediators, and bacterial metabolites.^24,25

The vagus nerve (vagus means wandering in Latin), is the longest nerve of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) and historically has been called the pneumogastric nerve for its parasympathetic innervation of the heart, lungs, and digestive tract. Current research supports that up to 80% of the fibers within the vagus nerve are afferent, relaying signals from the GI tract to the brain.²⁶ Therefore, modulation of vagus nerve signaling may theoretically impact mental health. Indeed, studies have demonstrated clinically significant improvement in patients with treatment-resistant depression who underwent vagal nerve stimulation (VNS).²⁷ Although the mechanism by which it exerts its mood-modulating activity is not well understood, recent human and animal studies indicate that VNS may alter central neurotransmitter levels, having demonstrated the ability to increase serotonin levels.²⁵ Also the vagus nerve possesses the ability to differentiate between pathogenic and nonpathogenic gut microorganisms; beneficial gut flora emit signals within the gut lumen, which in turn, are transmitted through afferent vagus nerve fibers to the brain, effecting both anti-inflammatory and mood-modulating responses.^25,28

Immunomediators involving intestinal microbiota also are known to play a critical role in the pathophysiology of MDD. Depression is closely tied to systemic inflammation; both are hypothesized to have played a role in the evolutionary response to fighting infection and healing wounds.²⁹ With regard to the gut, MDD is associated with increased GI permeability, which allows for microorganisms to leak through the intestinal mucosa into the systemic circulation and stimulate an inflammatory response.¹⁸ Levels of IgM and IgA against enterobacteria lipopolysaccharides (LPS) were found to be markedly greater in patients with MDD vs those of nondepressed controls.³⁰ Current research indicates that IgM and IgA against LPS of translocated bacteria serve to amplify immune pathways seen in the pathophysiology of chronic MDD.^30,31 Further research is indicated to deduce whether bacterial translocation with subsequent immune response induces MDD in susceptible individuals, or whether translocation occurs secondary to the systemic inflammation seen in MDD.

The makeup of the GI microbiome is fundamentally altered in patients with MDD, with a marked reduction in both microorganism diversity and density.³⁰ Patients with MDD have been shown to have increased levels of Alistipes, a bacterium that also is elevated in chronic fatigue syndrome and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), diagnoses that are associated with MDD.^32-34 Lower counts of Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus are documented in both MDD and IBS patients as well.³⁵ Decreased Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus might indicate a causal rather than correlative relationship as these bacterium take the precursor monosodium glutamate to create γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA).³⁶

Psychobiotics and Mental Health

The pathophysiology of the bidirectional communication between the gut and the brain offers an attractive approach for treatment modalities. Currently, the research into probiotic supplementation to treat mental disorders, such as anxiety and depression, is still in its infancy, and treatment guidelines do not support their routine administration. There is great promise in the use of probiotics to ameliorate psychiatric symptomatology, referred to by many in the field as psychobiotics.

One pathophysiology of the stress response seen in anxiety can be traced to the HPA axis and increased cortisol levels, with downstream effects on the microbiome through modification of the migrating motor complexes. Healthy volunteers tasked with taking a trademarked galactooligosaccharide prebiotic daily for 3 weeks had a reduced salivary cortisol awakening response compared with that of a placebo (maltodextrin). The same group demonstrated decreased attentional vigilance to negative information in a dot-probe task compared with attentional vigilance with positive information.³⁷ It is possible that this was due to the decreased stress response secondary to probiotic consumption. In mice models, a probiotic consisting of Lactobacillus helveticus and Bifidobacterium longum (B longum) (bacterium that are decreased in GAD and MDD) demonstrated anxiolytic-like behavior. The same formulation also demonstrated beneficial psychological effects in healthy human volunteers.²² In mice models, Lactobacillus feeding was superior to citalopram in anxiolysis and in cognitive functioning.³⁸

Like GAD, the pathophysiology of the GBA in MDD is an attractive target for psychobiotic therapy. Although current research is not yet sufficient to create general guidelines or recommendations for the routine administration of psychobiotics, it holds significant promise as an effective primary and/or adjunct treatment. In patients with IBS, administration of B longum reduced depression and increased quality of life. This same study demonstrated that probiotic administration was associated with reduced limbic activity in the brain.³⁹ In MDD, the hippocampus demonstrates altered expression of various transcription factors and cellular metabolism.⁴⁰ In a double-blind placebo-controlled trial, Lactobaccillus rhamnosus supplementation in postnatal mothers resulted in less severe depressive symptoms reported.⁴¹ Furthermore, probiotic supplementation consisting of Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei, and Bifidobacterium bifidum in patients with MDD for 8 weeks had significant decreases in score on the Beck Depression Inventory scale.⁴² Also, a meta-analysis of probiotic administration on depression scales demonstrated appreciably lower scores after administration in both patients with MDD and healthy patients aged 60 years, although these results were found to be correlative.⁴³ However, while promising, another meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials found probiotic supplementation had no significant effect on mood.⁴⁴

The Role of Diet

Although there has been tremendous focus on new and improved therapeutics to address MH conditions, such as depression and anxiety, there also has been renewed interest in the fundamental importance and benefit of a wholesome diet. Recent literature has shown how diet may play a pivotal role in the development and severity of mental illness and holds promise as another potential target for treatment. A 2010 cross-sectional population study of more than 1000 adult women aged 20 to 93 years demonstrated that women with a largely Western dietary pattern (ie, largely composed of processed meats, pizza, chips, hamburgers, white bread, sugar, flavored milk drinks, and beer) were more likely to have dysthymic disorder or major depression, whereas women in this same cohort with a more traditional dietary pattern (ie, composed mainly of vegetables, fruit, lamb, beef, fish, and whole grains) were found to have significantly reduced odds for depression or dysthymic disorder as well as anxiety disorders.⁴⁵

Several other large-scale population studies such as the SUN cohort study, Hordaland Health study, Whitehall II cohort study, and RHEA mother and baby cohort study have demonstrated similar findings: that a more wholesome diet composed mainly of lean meats, vegetables, fruits, and whole grains was associated with significantly reduced risk of depression compared with a largely processed, high fat, and high sugar diet. This trend also has been observed in children and adolescents and is of particular importance when considering that many psychological and psychiatric problems tend to arise in the formative and often turbulent years prior to adulthood.⁴⁶

The causal relationship between diet and MH may be better understood by taking a closer look at a crucial intermediate factor: the gut microbiome. The interplay between diet and intestinal microbiome was well elucidated in a landmark 2010 study by De Filippo and colleagues.⁴⁷ In this study, the microbiota of 14 healthy children from a small village in Burkina Faso (BF) were compared with those of 15 healthy children from an urban area of Florence, Italy (EU). The BF children were reported to consume a traditional rural African diet that is primarily vegetarian, rich in fiber, and low in animal protein and fat, whereas the EU children were noted as consuming a typical Western diet low in fiber but rich in animal protein, fat, sugar, and starch. Comparison revealed that EU children had a higher F/B ratio than their BF counterparts, a metric that has been associated with obesity.⁴⁷ Furthermore, increased exposure to environmental microbes associated with a fiber-rich diet has been postulated to increase the richness of intestinal flora and serve as a protective factor against noninfectious and inflammatory colonic diseases, which are found to be more prevalent in Western nations whose diets lack fiber. BF children were found to have increased microbial diversity and increased abundance of bacteria capable of producing SCFA relative to their EU counterparts, both of which have a positive influence on the gut, systemic inflammation, and MH.⁴⁷

Conclusions

Diet has a powerful impact on the intestinal microbiome, which in turn directly impacts our physical and MH in myriad ways. The well-known benefits of a wholesome, nutritious, and well-varied diet include reduced cardiovascular risk, improved glycemic control, GI regularity, and decreased depression. Along with a balanced diet, patients may achieve further benefit with the addition of probiotics.

With regard to psychiatry in particular, increased awareness of the intimate relationship between the gut and the brain is expected to have profound implications for the field. Given this mounting data, immunology, microbiology, and GI pathophysiology should be included in future discussions regarding MH. Their application will likely improve both somatic and mental well-being. We anticipate that newly discovered probiotics and other psychobiotic formulations will be routinely included in a psychiatrist’s pharmacopeia in the near future. Unfortunately, as is clear from our review of the current literature, we do not yet have specific interventions targeting the intestinal microbiome to recommend for the management of specific psychiatric conditions. However, this should not deter further exploring diet modification and psychobiotic supplementation as a means of impacting the intestinal microbiome in the pursuit of psychiatric symptom relief.

Dietary modification is already a standard component of sound primary care medicine, designed to mitigate risk for cardiovascular disease. This exploration can occur as part of otherwise standard psychiatric care and be used as a form of behavioral activation for the patient. Furthermore, explaining the interconnectedness of the mind, brain, and body along with the rationale for experimentation could further help destigmatize the experience of mental illness.

The gut-brain axis (GBA) refers to the link between the human brain with its various cognitive and affective functions and the gastrointestinal (GI) system, which includes the enteric nervous system and the diverse microbiome inhabiting the gut lumen. The neurochemical aspects of the GBA have been studied in germ-free mice; these studies demonstrate how absence or derangement of this microbiome can cause significant alterations in levels of serotonin, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, tryptophan, and other neurocompounds.^1,2 These neurotransmitter alterations have demonstrable effects on anxiety, cognition, socialization, and neuronal development in mice.^1,2

Current evidence suggests that the GBA works through a combination of both fast-acting neural and delayed immune-mediated mechanisms in a bidirectional manner with feedback on and from both systems.³ In addition to their direct effects on neural pathways and immune modulation, intestinal microbiota are essential in the production of a vast array of vitamins, cofactors, and nutrients required for optimal health and metabolism.⁴ Existing research on the GBA demonstrates the direct functional impact of the intestinal microbiome on neurologic and psychiatric health.

We will review current knowledge regarding this intriguing relationship. In doing so, we take a closer look at several specific genera and families of intestinal microbiota, review the microbiome’s effects on immune function, and examine the relationship between this microbiome and mental disease, using specific examples such as generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and major depressive disorder (MDD). We seek to consolidate existing knowledge on the intricacies of the GBA in the hope that it may promote individual health and become a standard component in the treatment of mental illness.

Direct Activation of Neuronal Pathways

Vagal and spinal afferent nerve pathways convey information regarding hormonal, chemical, and mechanical stimuli from the intestines to the brain.³ These afferent neurons have been shown to be responsive to microbial signals and cytokines as well as to gut hormones. This provides the basis for research that presumes that neurobehavioral change may ensue from manipulating the gut microbes emitting these chemical signals to which these afferent neurons respond.³ Using these same pathways, efferent neurons of the parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous systems can modulate the intestinal environment by altering acid and bile secretion, mucous production, and motility. This modulation can directly impact the relative diversity of intestinal flora, and in more extreme states, may result in bacterial overgrowth.⁵ Of particular relevance to mental health (MH) is that the frequency of migrating motor complexes that promote peristalsis can be directly influenced by readily modifiable behaviors such as sleep and food intake, which can cause one bacterial species to dominate in a higher percentage.⁵ This imbalance of gut microbes has been implicated in contributing to somatic conditions, such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), which the literature has shown is related to psychiatric conditions such as anxiety. ⁵

The Microbiome and Host Immunity

The GI tract is colonized with commensal microorganisms from dozens of bacterial, archaeal, fungal, and protozoal groups.⁶ This relationship has its most classical immunologic interaction in the toll-like receptors. These receptors are on the lymphoid Peyer patches of the GI tract, which sample microorganisms and develop immunoglobulin (IgA) antibodies to them. Evidence exists that commensal microflora play a critical role in the regulation of host inflammatory response.⁷

The relationship between the microbiome and the immune system remains poorly understood, yet evidence has shown that the use of probiotics may reduce inflammation and its sequelae. Probiotics have been shown to have a beneficial effect on autoimmune diseases, such as Crohn disease and ulcerative colitis, specifically with certain strains of Escherichia coli (E coli) and a proprietary probiotic from VSL pharmaceuticals.^8,9 However, these interventions are not without risk. Fecal microbiota transplants have a risk of transferring unwanted organisms, potentially including COVID-19.¹⁰ Additionally, the use of probiotics is generally discouraged in immunocompromised, chronically ill, and/or hospitalized patients, as these patients may be at greater risk of developing probiotic bacteremia and sepsis.¹¹

Studies have also demonstrated that ingesting probiotics may decrease the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines.¹¹ In a study comparing patients with ulcerative colitis who were prescribed both sulfasalazine and probiotic supplements vs sulfasalazine alone, patients who took the probiotic supplements were shown to have less colonic inflammation and decreased expression of cytokines such as IL-6, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), and nuclear factor-κβ.¹²

Gut-Specific Bacterial Phyla

Over the past decade, much attention has been paid toward 2 bacterial phyla that compromise a large proportion of the human gut microbiome: Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes. Intestinal Firmicutes species are predominantly Gram positive and are found as both cocci and bacilli. Well-known classes within the phylum Firmicutes include Bacilli (orders Bacillales and Lactobacillales) and Clostridia. The phylum Bacteroidetes is composed of Gram-negative rods and includes the genus Bacteroides—a substantial component of mammalian gut biomes. The ratio of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes, also known as the F/B ratio, have shown fascinating patterns in certain psychiatric conditions. This knowledge may be applied to better identify, treat, and manage such patients.

Regarding bacterial phyla and their relationship to mood disorders, interesting patterns have been observed. In one population of patients with anorexia nervosa (AN) lower diversity within classes of Firmicutes bacteria was observed compared with age- and sex-matched controls without AN.¹³ As patients were re-fed and treated in this study, there was a significant corresponding increase in microbiome diversity; however, the level of bacterial diversity in re-fed patients with AN was still far less than that of patients in the control group. In patients with AN with comorbid depression, diversity was noted to be exceptionally reduced. Similarly, patients with AN with a more severe eating disorder psychopathology demonstrated decreased microbial diversity.¹³

The impact of intestinal microbiome diversity and relative bacterial population density in MH conditions such as anxiety, depression, and eating disorders remains an intriguing avenue worth further exploring. Modulating these phenomena may reduce overall dysfunction and serve as a possible treatment modality.

Anxiety and the Microbiome

GAD is characterized by decreased social and occupational functioning. Anxiolytic pharmacotherapy combined with psychotherapy are the current mainstays of GAD treatment. Given the interplay of the gut microbiome and MH, probiotics may prove to be a promising alternative or adjunct treatment option.

The human stress response is enacted largely through the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. Anxiety and situational fear trigger a stress response that results in increased cortisol being released from the adrenal glands, thereby disrupting typical GI function by modifying the frequency of migrating motor complexes, the electromechanical impulses within the smooth muscle of the stomach and small bowel that allow for propagation of chyme. This, in turn, has downstream consequences on the composition of the intestinal microbiome.¹⁴ Patients with GAD have a lower prevalence of Faecalibacterium, Eubacterium rectale, Lachnospira, Butyricioccus, and Sutterella, all important producers of short-chain fatty acids (SCFA).^15,16 Diminished SCFA production has been linked to intestinal barrier dysfunction, contributing to increases in gut endothelial permeability and facilitating a proinflammatory response with resultant neural feedback loops.^17,18 Indeed, proinflammatory cytokines, namely C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin 6 (IL-6), and TNF-α were found to be elevated in patients with diagnosed GAD.¹⁹ These proinflammatory cytokines are critical in neurochemical modulation as they inhibit the essential enzyme tetrahydrobiopterin, a cofactor of monoamine synthesis, thereby decreasing the monoamine neurotransmitters serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine.²⁰ Decrease in the monoamine neurotransmitters serves as the lynchpin for the monoamine hypothesis of both anxiety and depression and currently guides our choice in pharmacotherapy.²¹

Anxiolytic pharmacotherapy targets the neurochemical consequences of GAD to ameliorate social, functional, and emotional impairment. However, the physiology of the gut-brain feedback loop in GAD is an attractive target for the creation and trialing of probiotics, which can rebalance intestinal flora, reduce inflammation, and allow for increased synthesis of monoamine neurotransmitters. Indeed, Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium have been shown to possess anxiolytic properties by increasing serotonin and SCFAs while reducing the HPA adrenergic response.²²

Depression and the Microbiome

MDD significantly diminishes quality of life and is the leading cause of disability worldwide, affecting nearly 350 million individuals.²³ Psychotherapy in conjunction with pharmacotherapy aimed at increasing cerebral serotonin availability are the current mainstays of MDD treatment. Yet the brain does not exist in isolation: It has 3 known methods of bidirectional communication with the GI tract via the vagus nerve, immune mediators, and bacterial metabolites.^24,25

The vagus nerve (vagus means wandering in Latin), is the longest nerve of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) and historically has been called the pneumogastric nerve for its parasympathetic innervation of the heart, lungs, and digestive tract. Current research supports that up to 80% of the fibers within the vagus nerve are afferent, relaying signals from the GI tract to the brain.²⁶ Therefore, modulation of vagus nerve signaling may theoretically impact mental health. Indeed, studies have demonstrated clinically significant improvement in patients with treatment-resistant depression who underwent vagal nerve stimulation (VNS).²⁷ Although the mechanism by which it exerts its mood-modulating activity is not well understood, recent human and animal studies indicate that VNS may alter central neurotransmitter levels, having demonstrated the ability to increase serotonin levels.²⁵ Also the vagus nerve possesses the ability to differentiate between pathogenic and nonpathogenic gut microorganisms; beneficial gut flora emit signals within the gut lumen, which in turn, are transmitted through afferent vagus nerve fibers to the brain, effecting both anti-inflammatory and mood-modulating responses.^25,28

Immunomediators involving intestinal microbiota also are known to play a critical role in the pathophysiology of MDD. Depression is closely tied to systemic inflammation; both are hypothesized to have played a role in the evolutionary response to fighting infection and healing wounds.²⁹ With regard to the gut, MDD is associated with increased GI permeability, which allows for microorganisms to leak through the intestinal mucosa into the systemic circulation and stimulate an inflammatory response.¹⁸ Levels of IgM and IgA against enterobacteria lipopolysaccharides (LPS) were found to be markedly greater in patients with MDD vs those of nondepressed controls.³⁰ Current research indicates that IgM and IgA against LPS of translocated bacteria serve to amplify immune pathways seen in the pathophysiology of chronic MDD.^30,31 Further research is indicated to deduce whether bacterial translocation with subsequent immune response induces MDD in susceptible individuals, or whether translocation occurs secondary to the systemic inflammation seen in MDD.

The makeup of the GI microbiome is fundamentally altered in patients with MDD, with a marked reduction in both microorganism diversity and density.³⁰ Patients with MDD have been shown to have increased levels of Alistipes, a bacterium that also is elevated in chronic fatigue syndrome and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), diagnoses that are associated with MDD.^32-34 Lower counts of Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus are documented in both MDD and IBS patients as well.³⁵ Decreased Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus might indicate a causal rather than correlative relationship as these bacterium take the precursor monosodium glutamate to create γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA).³⁶

Psychobiotics and Mental Health

The pathophysiology of the bidirectional communication between the gut and the brain offers an attractive approach for treatment modalities. Currently, the research into probiotic supplementation to treat mental disorders, such as anxiety and depression, is still in its infancy, and treatment guidelines do not support their routine administration. There is great promise in the use of probiotics to ameliorate psychiatric symptomatology, referred to by many in the field as psychobiotics.

One pathophysiology of the stress response seen in anxiety can be traced to the HPA axis and increased cortisol levels, with downstream effects on the microbiome through modification of the migrating motor complexes. Healthy volunteers tasked with taking a trademarked galactooligosaccharide prebiotic daily for 3 weeks had a reduced salivary cortisol awakening response compared with that of a placebo (maltodextrin). The same group demonstrated decreased attentional vigilance to negative information in a dot-probe task compared with attentional vigilance with positive information.³⁷ It is possible that this was due to the decreased stress response secondary to probiotic consumption. In mice models, a probiotic consisting of Lactobacillus helveticus and Bifidobacterium longum (B longum) (bacterium that are decreased in GAD and MDD) demonstrated anxiolytic-like behavior. The same formulation also demonstrated beneficial psychological effects in healthy human volunteers.²² In mice models, Lactobacillus feeding was superior to citalopram in anxiolysis and in cognitive functioning.³⁸

Like GAD, the pathophysiology of the GBA in MDD is an attractive target for psychobiotic therapy. Although current research is not yet sufficient to create general guidelines or recommendations for the routine administration of psychobiotics, it holds significant promise as an effective primary and/or adjunct treatment. In patients with IBS, administration of B longum reduced depression and increased quality of life. This same study demonstrated that probiotic administration was associated with reduced limbic activity in the brain.³⁹ In MDD, the hippocampus demonstrates altered expression of various transcription factors and cellular metabolism.⁴⁰ In a double-blind placebo-controlled trial, Lactobaccillus rhamnosus supplementation in postnatal mothers resulted in less severe depressive symptoms reported.⁴¹ Furthermore, probiotic supplementation consisting of Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei, and Bifidobacterium bifidum in patients with MDD for 8 weeks had significant decreases in score on the Beck Depression Inventory scale.⁴² Also, a meta-analysis of probiotic administration on depression scales demonstrated appreciably lower scores after administration in both patients with MDD and healthy patients aged 60 years, although these results were found to be correlative.⁴³ However, while promising, another meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials found probiotic supplementation had no significant effect on mood.⁴⁴

The Role of Diet

Although there has been tremendous focus on new and improved therapeutics to address MH conditions, such as depression and anxiety, there also has been renewed interest in the fundamental importance and benefit of a wholesome diet. Recent literature has shown how diet may play a pivotal role in the development and severity of mental illness and holds promise as another potential target for treatment. A 2010 cross-sectional population study of more than 1000 adult women aged 20 to 93 years demonstrated that women with a largely Western dietary pattern (ie, largely composed of processed meats, pizza, chips, hamburgers, white bread, sugar, flavored milk drinks, and beer) were more likely to have dysthymic disorder or major depression, whereas women in this same cohort with a more traditional dietary pattern (ie, composed mainly of vegetables, fruit, lamb, beef, fish, and whole grains) were found to have significantly reduced odds for depression or dysthymic disorder as well as anxiety disorders.⁴⁵

Several other large-scale population studies such as the SUN cohort study, Hordaland Health study, Whitehall II cohort study, and RHEA mother and baby cohort study have demonstrated similar findings: that a more wholesome diet composed mainly of lean meats, vegetables, fruits, and whole grains was associated with significantly reduced risk of depression compared with a largely processed, high fat, and high sugar diet. This trend also has been observed in children and adolescents and is of particular importance when considering that many psychological and psychiatric problems tend to arise in the formative and often turbulent years prior to adulthood.⁴⁶

The causal relationship between diet and MH may be better understood by taking a closer look at a crucial intermediate factor: the gut microbiome. The interplay between diet and intestinal microbiome was well elucidated in a landmark 2010 study by De Filippo and colleagues.⁴⁷ In this study, the microbiota of 14 healthy children from a small village in Burkina Faso (BF) were compared with those of 15 healthy children from an urban area of Florence, Italy (EU). The BF children were reported to consume a traditional rural African diet that is primarily vegetarian, rich in fiber, and low in animal protein and fat, whereas the EU children were noted as consuming a typical Western diet low in fiber but rich in animal protein, fat, sugar, and starch. Comparison revealed that EU children had a higher F/B ratio than their BF counterparts, a metric that has been associated with obesity.⁴⁷ Furthermore, increased exposure to environmental microbes associated with a fiber-rich diet has been postulated to increase the richness of intestinal flora and serve as a protective factor against noninfectious and inflammatory colonic diseases, which are found to be more prevalent in Western nations whose diets lack fiber. BF children were found to have increased microbial diversity and increased abundance of bacteria capable of producing SCFA relative to their EU counterparts, both of which have a positive influence on the gut, systemic inflammation, and MH.⁴⁷

Conclusions

Diet has a powerful impact on the intestinal microbiome, which in turn directly impacts our physical and MH in myriad ways. The well-known benefits of a wholesome, nutritious, and well-varied diet include reduced cardiovascular risk, improved glycemic control, GI regularity, and decreased depression. Along with a balanced diet, patients may achieve further benefit with the addition of probiotics.

With regard to psychiatry in particular, increased awareness of the intimate relationship between the gut and the brain is expected to have profound implications for the field. Given this mounting data, immunology, microbiology, and GI pathophysiology should be included in future discussions regarding MH. Their application will likely improve both somatic and mental well-being. We anticipate that newly discovered probiotics and other psychobiotic formulations will be routinely included in a psychiatrist’s pharmacopeia in the near future. Unfortunately, as is clear from our review of the current literature, we do not yet have specific interventions targeting the intestinal microbiome to recommend for the management of specific psychiatric conditions. However, this should not deter further exploring diet modification and psychobiotic supplementation as a means of impacting the intestinal microbiome in the pursuit of psychiatric symptom relief.

Dietary modification is already a standard component of sound primary care medicine, designed to mitigate risk for cardiovascular disease. This exploration can occur as part of otherwise standard psychiatric care and be used as a form of behavioral activation for the patient. Furthermore, explaining the interconnectedness of the mind, brain, and body along with the rationale for experimentation could further help destigmatize the experience of mental illness.

The gut-brain axis (GBA) refers to the link between the human brain with its various cognitive and affective functions and the gastrointestinal (GI) system, which includes the enteric nervous system and the diverse microbiome inhabiting the gut lumen. The neurochemical aspects of the GBA have been studied in germ-free mice; these studies demonstrate how absence or derangement of this microbiome can cause significant alterations in levels of serotonin, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, tryptophan, and other neurocompounds.^1,2 These neurotransmitter alterations have demonstrable effects on anxiety, cognition, socialization, and neuronal development in mice.^1,2

Current evidence suggests that the GBA works through a combination of both fast-acting neural and delayed immune-mediated mechanisms in a bidirectional manner with feedback on and from both systems.³ In addition to their direct effects on neural pathways and immune modulation, intestinal microbiota are essential in the production of a vast array of vitamins, cofactors, and nutrients required for optimal health and metabolism.⁴ Existing research on the GBA demonstrates the direct functional impact of the intestinal microbiome on neurologic and psychiatric health.

We will review current knowledge regarding this intriguing relationship. In doing so, we take a closer look at several specific genera and families of intestinal microbiota, review the microbiome’s effects on immune function, and examine the relationship between this microbiome and mental disease, using specific examples such as generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and major depressive disorder (MDD). We seek to consolidate existing knowledge on the intricacies of the GBA in the hope that it may promote individual health and become a standard component in the treatment of mental illness.

Direct Activation of Neuronal Pathways

Vagal and spinal afferent nerve pathways convey information regarding hormonal, chemical, and mechanical stimuli from the intestines to the brain.³ These afferent neurons have been shown to be responsive to microbial signals and cytokines as well as to gut hormones. This provides the basis for research that presumes that neurobehavioral change may ensue from manipulating the gut microbes emitting these chemical signals to which these afferent neurons respond.³ Using these same pathways, efferent neurons of the parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous systems can modulate the intestinal environment by altering acid and bile secretion, mucous production, and motility. This modulation can directly impact the relative diversity of intestinal flora, and in more extreme states, may result in bacterial overgrowth.⁵ Of particular relevance to mental health (MH) is that the frequency of migrating motor complexes that promote peristalsis can be directly influenced by readily modifiable behaviors such as sleep and food intake, which can cause one bacterial species to dominate in a higher percentage.⁵ This imbalance of gut microbes has been implicated in contributing to somatic conditions, such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), which the literature has shown is related to psychiatric conditions such as anxiety. ⁵

The Microbiome and Host Immunity

The GI tract is colonized with commensal microorganisms from dozens of bacterial, archaeal, fungal, and protozoal groups.⁶ This relationship has its most classical immunologic interaction in the toll-like receptors. These receptors are on the lymphoid Peyer patches of the GI tract, which sample microorganisms and develop immunoglobulin (IgA) antibodies to them. Evidence exists that commensal microflora play a critical role in the regulation of host inflammatory response.⁷

The relationship between the microbiome and the immune system remains poorly understood, yet evidence has shown that the use of probiotics may reduce inflammation and its sequelae. Probiotics have been shown to have a beneficial effect on autoimmune diseases, such as Crohn disease and ulcerative colitis, specifically with certain strains of Escherichia coli (E coli) and a proprietary probiotic from VSL pharmaceuticals.^8,9 However, these interventions are not without risk. Fecal microbiota transplants have a risk of transferring unwanted organisms, potentially including COVID-19.¹⁰ Additionally, the use of probiotics is generally discouraged in immunocompromised, chronically ill, and/or hospitalized patients, as these patients may be at greater risk of developing probiotic bacteremia and sepsis.¹¹

Studies have also demonstrated that ingesting probiotics may decrease the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines.¹¹ In a study comparing patients with ulcerative colitis who were prescribed both sulfasalazine and probiotic supplements vs sulfasalazine alone, patients who took the probiotic supplements were shown to have less colonic inflammation and decreased expression of cytokines such as IL-6, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), and nuclear factor-κβ.¹²

Gut-Specific Bacterial Phyla

Over the past decade, much attention has been paid toward 2 bacterial phyla that compromise a large proportion of the human gut microbiome: Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes. Intestinal Firmicutes species are predominantly Gram positive and are found as both cocci and bacilli. Well-known classes within the phylum Firmicutes include Bacilli (orders Bacillales and Lactobacillales) and Clostridia. The phylum Bacteroidetes is composed of Gram-negative rods and includes the genus Bacteroides—a substantial component of mammalian gut biomes. The ratio of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes, also known as the F/B ratio, have shown fascinating patterns in certain psychiatric conditions. This knowledge may be applied to better identify, treat, and manage such patients.

Regarding bacterial phyla and their relationship to mood disorders, interesting patterns have been observed. In one population of patients with anorexia nervosa (AN) lower diversity within classes of Firmicutes bacteria was observed compared with age- and sex-matched controls without AN.¹³ As patients were re-fed and treated in this study, there was a significant corresponding increase in microbiome diversity; however, the level of bacterial diversity in re-fed patients with AN was still far less than that of patients in the control group. In patients with AN with comorbid depression, diversity was noted to be exceptionally reduced. Similarly, patients with AN with a more severe eating disorder psychopathology demonstrated decreased microbial diversity.¹³

The impact of intestinal microbiome diversity and relative bacterial population density in MH conditions such as anxiety, depression, and eating disorders remains an intriguing avenue worth further exploring. Modulating these phenomena may reduce overall dysfunction and serve as a possible treatment modality.

Anxiety and the Microbiome

GAD is characterized by decreased social and occupational functioning. Anxiolytic pharmacotherapy combined with psychotherapy are the current mainstays of GAD treatment. Given the interplay of the gut microbiome and MH, probiotics may prove to be a promising alternative or adjunct treatment option.

The human stress response is enacted largely through the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. Anxiety and situational fear trigger a stress response that results in increased cortisol being released from the adrenal glands, thereby disrupting typical GI function by modifying the frequency of migrating motor complexes, the electromechanical impulses within the smooth muscle of the stomach and small bowel that allow for propagation of chyme. This, in turn, has downstream consequences on the composition of the intestinal microbiome.¹⁴ Patients with GAD have a lower prevalence of Faecalibacterium, Eubacterium rectale, Lachnospira, Butyricioccus, and Sutterella, all important producers of short-chain fatty acids (SCFA).^15,16 Diminished SCFA production has been linked to intestinal barrier dysfunction, contributing to increases in gut endothelial permeability and facilitating a proinflammatory response with resultant neural feedback loops.^17,18 Indeed, proinflammatory cytokines, namely C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin 6 (IL-6), and TNF-α were found to be elevated in patients with diagnosed GAD.¹⁹ These proinflammatory cytokines are critical in neurochemical modulation as they inhibit the essential enzyme tetrahydrobiopterin, a cofactor of monoamine synthesis, thereby decreasing the monoamine neurotransmitters serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine.²⁰ Decrease in the monoamine neurotransmitters serves as the lynchpin for the monoamine hypothesis of both anxiety and depression and currently guides our choice in pharmacotherapy.²¹

Anxiolytic pharmacotherapy targets the neurochemical consequences of GAD to ameliorate social, functional, and emotional impairment. However, the physiology of the gut-brain feedback loop in GAD is an attractive target for the creation and trialing of probiotics, which can rebalance intestinal flora, reduce inflammation, and allow for increased synthesis of monoamine neurotransmitters. Indeed, Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium have been shown to possess anxiolytic properties by increasing serotonin and SCFAs while reducing the HPA adrenergic response.²²

Depression and the Microbiome

MDD significantly diminishes quality of life and is the leading cause of disability worldwide, affecting nearly 350 million individuals.²³ Psychotherapy in conjunction with pharmacotherapy aimed at increasing cerebral serotonin availability are the current mainstays of MDD treatment. Yet the brain does not exist in isolation: It has 3 known methods of bidirectional communication with the GI tract via the vagus nerve, immune mediators, and bacterial metabolites.^24,25

The vagus nerve (vagus means wandering in Latin), is the longest nerve of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) and historically has been called the pneumogastric nerve for its parasympathetic innervation of the heart, lungs, and digestive tract. Current research supports that up to 80% of the fibers within the vagus nerve are afferent, relaying signals from the GI tract to the brain.²⁶ Therefore, modulation of vagus nerve signaling may theoretically impact mental health. Indeed, studies have demonstrated clinically significant improvement in patients with treatment-resistant depression who underwent vagal nerve stimulation (VNS).²⁷ Although the mechanism by which it exerts its mood-modulating activity is not well understood, recent human and animal studies indicate that VNS may alter central neurotransmitter levels, having demonstrated the ability to increase serotonin levels.²⁵ Also the vagus nerve possesses the ability to differentiate between pathogenic and nonpathogenic gut microorganisms; beneficial gut flora emit signals within the gut lumen, which in turn, are transmitted through afferent vagus nerve fibers to the brain, effecting both anti-inflammatory and mood-modulating responses.^25,28

Immunomediators involving intestinal microbiota also are known to play a critical role in the pathophysiology of MDD. Depression is closely tied to systemic inflammation; both are hypothesized to have played a role in the evolutionary response to fighting infection and healing wounds.²⁹ With regard to the gut, MDD is associated with increased GI permeability, which allows for microorganisms to leak through the intestinal mucosa into the systemic circulation and stimulate an inflammatory response.¹⁸ Levels of IgM and IgA against enterobacteria lipopolysaccharides (LPS) were found to be markedly greater in patients with MDD vs those of nondepressed controls.³⁰ Current research indicates that IgM and IgA against LPS of translocated bacteria serve to amplify immune pathways seen in the pathophysiology of chronic MDD.^30,31 Further research is indicated to deduce whether bacterial translocation with subsequent immune response induces MDD in susceptible individuals, or whether translocation occurs secondary to the systemic inflammation seen in MDD.

The makeup of the GI microbiome is fundamentally altered in patients with MDD, with a marked reduction in both microorganism diversity and density.³⁰ Patients with MDD have been shown to have increased levels of Alistipes, a bacterium that also is elevated in chronic fatigue syndrome and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), diagnoses that are associated with MDD.^32-34 Lower counts of Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus are documented in both MDD and IBS patients as well.³⁵ Decreased Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus might indicate a causal rather than correlative relationship as these bacterium take the precursor monosodium glutamate to create γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA).³⁶

Psychobiotics and Mental Health

The pathophysiology of the bidirectional communication between the gut and the brain offers an attractive approach for treatment modalities. Currently, the research into probiotic supplementation to treat mental disorders, such as anxiety and depression, is still in its infancy, and treatment guidelines do not support their routine administration. There is great promise in the use of probiotics to ameliorate psychiatric symptomatology, referred to by many in the field as psychobiotics.

One pathophysiology of the stress response seen in anxiety can be traced to the HPA axis and increased cortisol levels, with downstream effects on the microbiome through modification of the migrating motor complexes. Healthy volunteers tasked with taking a trademarked galactooligosaccharide prebiotic daily for 3 weeks had a reduced salivary cortisol awakening response compared with that of a placebo (maltodextrin). The same group demonstrated decreased attentional vigilance to negative information in a dot-probe task compared with attentional vigilance with positive information.³⁷ It is possible that this was due to the decreased stress response secondary to probiotic consumption. In mice models, a probiotic consisting of Lactobacillus helveticus and Bifidobacterium longum (B longum) (bacterium that are decreased in GAD and MDD) demonstrated anxiolytic-like behavior. The same formulation also demonstrated beneficial psychological effects in healthy human volunteers.²² In mice models, Lactobacillus feeding was superior to citalopram in anxiolysis and in cognitive functioning.³⁸

Like GAD, the pathophysiology of the GBA in MDD is an attractive target for psychobiotic therapy. Although current research is not yet sufficient to create general guidelines or recommendations for the routine administration of psychobiotics, it holds significant promise as an effective primary and/or adjunct treatment. In patients with IBS, administration of B longum reduced depression and increased quality of life. This same study demonstrated that probiotic administration was associated with reduced limbic activity in the brain.³⁹ In MDD, the hippocampus demonstrates altered expression of various transcription factors and cellular metabolism.⁴⁰ In a double-blind placebo-controlled trial, Lactobaccillus rhamnosus supplementation in postnatal mothers resulted in less severe depressive symptoms reported.⁴¹ Furthermore, probiotic supplementation consisting of Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei, and Bifidobacterium bifidum in patients with MDD for 8 weeks had significant decreases in score on the Beck Depression Inventory scale.⁴² Also, a meta-analysis of probiotic administration on depression scales demonstrated appreciably lower scores after administration in both patients with MDD and healthy patients aged 60 years, although these results were found to be correlative.⁴³ However, while promising, another meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials found probiotic supplementation had no significant effect on mood.⁴⁴

The Role of Diet

Although there has been tremendous focus on new and improved therapeutics to address MH conditions, such as depression and anxiety, there also has been renewed interest in the fundamental importance and benefit of a wholesome diet. Recent literature has shown how diet may play a pivotal role in the development and severity of mental illness and holds promise as another potential target for treatment. A 2010 cross-sectional population study of more than 1000 adult women aged 20 to 93 years demonstrated that women with a largely Western dietary pattern (ie, largely composed of processed meats, pizza, chips, hamburgers, white bread, sugar, flavored milk drinks, and beer) were more likely to have dysthymic disorder or major depression, whereas women in this same cohort with a more traditional dietary pattern (ie, composed mainly of vegetables, fruit, lamb, beef, fish, and whole grains) were found to have significantly reduced odds for depression or dysthymic disorder as well as anxiety disorders.⁴⁵

Several other large-scale population studies such as the SUN cohort study, Hordaland Health study, Whitehall II cohort study, and RHEA mother and baby cohort study have demonstrated similar findings: that a more wholesome diet composed mainly of lean meats, vegetables, fruits, and whole grains was associated with significantly reduced risk of depression compared with a largely processed, high fat, and high sugar diet. This trend also has been observed in children and adolescents and is of particular importance when considering that many psychological and psychiatric problems tend to arise in the formative and often turbulent years prior to adulthood.⁴⁶

The causal relationship between diet and MH may be better understood by taking a closer look at a crucial intermediate factor: the gut microbiome. The interplay between diet and intestinal microbiome was well elucidated in a landmark 2010 study by De Filippo and colleagues.⁴⁷ In this study, the microbiota of 14 healthy children from a small village in Burkina Faso (BF) were compared with those of 15 healthy children from an urban area of Florence, Italy (EU). The BF children were reported to consume a traditional rural African diet that is primarily vegetarian, rich in fiber, and low in animal protein and fat, whereas the EU children were noted as consuming a typical Western diet low in fiber but rich in animal protein, fat, sugar, and starch. Comparison revealed that EU children had a higher F/B ratio than their BF counterparts, a metric that has been associated with obesity.⁴⁷ Furthermore, increased exposure to environmental microbes associated with a fiber-rich diet has been postulated to increase the richness of intestinal flora and serve as a protective factor against noninfectious and inflammatory colonic diseases, which are found to be more prevalent in Western nations whose diets lack fiber. BF children were found to have increased microbial diversity and increased abundance of bacteria capable of producing SCFA relative to their EU counterparts, both of which have a positive influence on the gut, systemic inflammation, and MH.⁴⁷

Conclusions

Diet has a powerful impact on the intestinal microbiome, which in turn directly impacts our physical and MH in myriad ways. The well-known benefits of a wholesome, nutritious, and well-varied diet include reduced cardiovascular risk, improved glycemic control, GI regularity, and decreased depression. Along with a balanced diet, patients may achieve further benefit with the addition of probiotics.

With regard to psychiatry in particular, increased awareness of the intimate relationship between the gut and the brain is expected to have profound implications for the field. Given this mounting data, immunology, microbiology, and GI pathophysiology should be included in future discussions regarding MH. Their application will likely improve both somatic and mental well-being. We anticipate that newly discovered probiotics and other psychobiotic formulations will be routinely included in a psychiatrist’s pharmacopeia in the near future. Unfortunately, as is clear from our review of the current literature, we do not yet have specific interventions targeting the intestinal microbiome to recommend for the management of specific psychiatric conditions. However, this should not deter further exploring diet modification and psychobiotic supplementation as a means of impacting the intestinal microbiome in the pursuit of psychiatric symptom relief.

Dietary modification is already a standard component of sound primary care medicine, designed to mitigate risk for cardiovascular disease. This exploration can occur as part of otherwise standard psychiatric care and be used as a form of behavioral activation for the patient. Furthermore, explaining the interconnectedness of the mind, brain, and body along with the rationale for experimentation could further help destigmatize the experience of mental illness.

Amid the parades and speeches that commemorate Pride Month across the United States, a remarkable event occurred in Florida at the Orlando Veterans Affairs Healthcare System. At the 11th annual celebration of Pride on June 21, US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Denis R. McDonough made a historic announcement, “We are taking the first necessary steps to expand VA’s care to include gender-confirmation surgery, thus allowing transgender vets to go through the full gender-confirmation process with VA by their side.”²

The proclamation reflected the results of a review of VA transgender policies that McDonough had ordered in February 2021 to coordinate VA policies with those of the US Department of Defense (DoD) and to actualize President Biden’s January 2021 executive order that prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.^3,4 In an interview with NPR shortly after the Orlando commemoration, Secretary McDonough reported that the governing body overseeing VA health care services unanimously endorsed the proposal.⁵ The National Center for Transgender Equity estimates there are 134,000 transgender veterans.⁶ VA authorities believe 4000 transgender veterans may be interested in obtaining the new gender-affirming benefit when it is available, and Secretary McDonough indicated that about 543 veterans a year soon might be eligible.^5,7

Transgender veterans and their supporters along with many of the VA practitioners who care for them had long waited and hoped for this announcement. The Secretary ended a too-long period in which transgender veterans encountered enormous practical, financial, and personal obstacles, causing frustration and despair on their journey to becoming who they knew they are. Although VA previously did not provide gender-affirmation surgery, it did deliver other forms of transgender care to veterans, such as hormone therapy and other transition-related services. Yet it was painful for transgender veterans and their health care professionals (HCPs) to see that under the VA medical benefits package prior to Secretary McDonough’s historic announcement, gender-affirmation surgery was not deemed care “to promote, preserve, or restore the health of the individual.”⁸

Similarly, the decision is the beginning of the end of an ethical dilemma with which many VA clinicians struggled: They had the competence to perform gender-affirming surgery, but VA policy prohibited them from providing it to their patients.^9,10 The 2013 directive issued under the Obama administration made the ethics of gender-confirmation surgery even more complex. A VA surgeon could perform “medically-indicated procedures” or treat “other medical conditions” even if it simultaneously furthered gender transition. What the surgeon could not perform was a procedure solely for the purpose of gender transition. Because transgender veterans seeking gender-affirmation surgery were forced to go outside the VA system and use their resources to pay for the surgery, VA did permit practitioners to perform preoperative and postoperative treatment, including treating surgical complications of an outside gender-affirmation surgery. VA HCPs were placed in a catch-22 situation that pitted their duty to care in accordance with the preferences and interests of the veteran against their obligation to practice and adhere to VA policy and federal regulation.⁸ With his Pride-month speech, Secretary McDonough resolved this conflict for VA HCPs and made a strong public declaration VA should and will provide gender-affirming surgery that can promote, preserve, and restore the health of transgender veterans.

Secretary McDonough called the move to formally change the rule regarding gender-affirming surgery “the right thing to do” and emphasized that it was “life-saving.”⁷ This last remark was in recognition of the strong evidence demonstrating the adverse psychological impact on transgender veterans of the previous position.²

Denial of gender-confirmation surgery was not the only health care inequity identified among transgender veterans. Research inside and outside VA has found significant health disparities between transgender and nontransgender veterans, including higher rates of depression, suicidality, serious mental illness, posttraumatic stress disorder, military sexual trauma, and homelessness.¹¹ The provision of gender-affirming surgery to transgender veterans whether through VA hospitals or through partnerships with academic affiliates and the community is a major step to remedy these disparities. A 2019 systematic review found that gender-affirming surgery is far from cosmetic: It leads to marked improvement in many of the mental health problems transgender persons experience.¹²

Anyone who has experienced the snail’s pace of change in the behemoth VA bureaucracy knows that this initial movement is only the beginning of the laborious federal process of changing the regulation that currently prohibits VA from offering and paying for gender-confirmation surgery under the VA medical benefits package. Once the regulation is changed, then VA will be empowered to establish policy that in Secretary McDonough’s words, “will ensure the equitable treatment and safety of transgender veterans.”² The decision to eventually provide gender-confirmation surgery as part of VA care was an important aspect of the agency’s overall attempt to make VA more welcome to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) veterans. During the Orlando speech, Secretary McDonough also announced that VA was changing the name of its LGBT program to LGBTQ+ to clearly communicate that all veterans are included in VA care.²

The announcement sends a powerful message of hope, which was a central theme of slain San Francisco supervisor, Harvey Milk, an early and influential LGBTQ activist and advocate.¹ But as always in our polarized country, there was immediate opposition to the proposal arguing that the surgery would place transgender veterans at greater risk of depression and suicide, was not compatible with the VA mission and diverts VA funding from meeting more legitimate care needs in a timely manner.¹¹ It is a sad irony that transgender veterans defended the freedom of their opponents to express their opinion and had to fight this long and hard for their liberty to live as they choose.

Amid the parades and speeches that commemorate Pride Month across the United States, a remarkable event occurred in Florida at the Orlando Veterans Affairs Healthcare System. At the 11th annual celebration of Pride on June 21, US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Denis R. McDonough made a historic announcement, “We are taking the first necessary steps to expand VA’s care to include gender-confirmation surgery, thus allowing transgender vets to go through the full gender-confirmation process with VA by their side.”²

The proclamation reflected the results of a review of VA transgender policies that McDonough had ordered in February 2021 to coordinate VA policies with those of the US Department of Defense (DoD) and to actualize President Biden’s January 2021 executive order that prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.^3,4 In an interview with NPR shortly after the Orlando commemoration, Secretary McDonough reported that the governing body overseeing VA health care services unanimously endorsed the proposal.⁵ The National Center for Transgender Equity estimates there are 134,000 transgender veterans.⁶ VA authorities believe 4000 transgender veterans may be interested in obtaining the new gender-affirming benefit when it is available, and Secretary McDonough indicated that about 543 veterans a year soon might be eligible.^5,7

Transgender veterans and their supporters along with many of the VA practitioners who care for them had long waited and hoped for this announcement. The Secretary ended a too-long period in which transgender veterans encountered enormous practical, financial, and personal obstacles, causing frustration and despair on their journey to becoming who they knew they are. Although VA previously did not provide gender-affirmation surgery, it did deliver other forms of transgender care to veterans, such as hormone therapy and other transition-related services. Yet it was painful for transgender veterans and their health care professionals (HCPs) to see that under the VA medical benefits package prior to Secretary McDonough’s historic announcement, gender-affirmation surgery was not deemed care “to promote, preserve, or restore the health of the individual.”⁸

Similarly, the decision is the beginning of the end of an ethical dilemma with which many VA clinicians struggled: They had the competence to perform gender-affirming surgery, but VA policy prohibited them from providing it to their patients.^9,10 The 2013 directive issued under the Obama administration made the ethics of gender-confirmation surgery even more complex. A VA surgeon could perform “medically-indicated procedures” or treat “other medical conditions” even if it simultaneously furthered gender transition. What the surgeon could not perform was a procedure solely for the purpose of gender transition. Because transgender veterans seeking gender-affirmation surgery were forced to go outside the VA system and use their resources to pay for the surgery, VA did permit practitioners to perform preoperative and postoperative treatment, including treating surgical complications of an outside gender-affirmation surgery. VA HCPs were placed in a catch-22 situation that pitted their duty to care in accordance with the preferences and interests of the veteran against their obligation to practice and adhere to VA policy and federal regulation.⁸ With his Pride-month speech, Secretary McDonough resolved this conflict for VA HCPs and made a strong public declaration VA should and will provide gender-affirming surgery that can promote, preserve, and restore the health of transgender veterans.

Secretary McDonough called the move to formally change the rule regarding gender-affirming surgery “the right thing to do” and emphasized that it was “life-saving.”⁷ This last remark was in recognition of the strong evidence demonstrating the adverse psychological impact on transgender veterans of the previous position.²

Denial of gender-confirmation surgery was not the only health care inequity identified among transgender veterans. Research inside and outside VA has found significant health disparities between transgender and nontransgender veterans, including higher rates of depression, suicidality, serious mental illness, posttraumatic stress disorder, military sexual trauma, and homelessness.¹¹ The provision of gender-affirming surgery to transgender veterans whether through VA hospitals or through partnerships with academic affiliates and the community is a major step to remedy these disparities. A 2019 systematic review found that gender-affirming surgery is far from cosmetic: It leads to marked improvement in many of the mental health problems transgender persons experience.¹²

Anyone who has experienced the snail’s pace of change in the behemoth VA bureaucracy knows that this initial movement is only the beginning of the laborious federal process of changing the regulation that currently prohibits VA from offering and paying for gender-confirmation surgery under the VA medical benefits package. Once the regulation is changed, then VA will be empowered to establish policy that in Secretary McDonough’s words, “will ensure the equitable treatment and safety of transgender veterans.”² The decision to eventually provide gender-confirmation surgery as part of VA care was an important aspect of the agency’s overall attempt to make VA more welcome to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) veterans. During the Orlando speech, Secretary McDonough also announced that VA was changing the name of its LGBT program to LGBTQ+ to clearly communicate that all veterans are included in VA care.²

The announcement sends a powerful message of hope, which was a central theme of slain San Francisco supervisor, Harvey Milk, an early and influential LGBTQ activist and advocate.¹ But as always in our polarized country, there was immediate opposition to the proposal arguing that the surgery would place transgender veterans at greater risk of depression and suicide, was not compatible with the VA mission and diverts VA funding from meeting more legitimate care needs in a timely manner.¹¹ It is a sad irony that transgender veterans defended the freedom of their opponents to express their opinion and had to fight this long and hard for their liberty to live as they choose.

Amid the parades and speeches that commemorate Pride Month across the United States, a remarkable event occurred in Florida at the Orlando Veterans Affairs Healthcare System. At the 11th annual celebration of Pride on June 21, US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Denis R. McDonough made a historic announcement, “We are taking the first necessary steps to expand VA’s care to include gender-confirmation surgery, thus allowing transgender vets to go through the full gender-confirmation process with VA by their side.”²

The proclamation reflected the results of a review of VA transgender policies that McDonough had ordered in February 2021 to coordinate VA policies with those of the US Department of Defense (DoD) and to actualize President Biden’s January 2021 executive order that prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.^3,4 In an interview with NPR shortly after the Orlando commemoration, Secretary McDonough reported that the governing body overseeing VA health care services unanimously endorsed the proposal.⁵ The National Center for Transgender Equity estimates there are 134,000 transgender veterans.⁶ VA authorities believe 4000 transgender veterans may be interested in obtaining the new gender-affirming benefit when it is available, and Secretary McDonough indicated that about 543 veterans a year soon might be eligible.^5,7

Transgender veterans and their supporters along with many of the VA practitioners who care for them had long waited and hoped for this announcement. The Secretary ended a too-long period in which transgender veterans encountered enormous practical, financial, and personal obstacles, causing frustration and despair on their journey to becoming who they knew they are. Although VA previously did not provide gender-affirmation surgery, it did deliver other forms of transgender care to veterans, such as hormone therapy and other transition-related services. Yet it was painful for transgender veterans and their health care professionals (HCPs) to see that under the VA medical benefits package prior to Secretary McDonough’s historic announcement, gender-affirmation surgery was not deemed care “to promote, preserve, or restore the health of the individual.”⁸

Similarly, the decision is the beginning of the end of an ethical dilemma with which many VA clinicians struggled: They had the competence to perform gender-affirming surgery, but VA policy prohibited them from providing it to their patients.^9,10 The 2013 directive issued under the Obama administration made the ethics of gender-confirmation surgery even more complex. A VA surgeon could perform “medically-indicated procedures” or treat “other medical conditions” even if it simultaneously furthered gender transition. What the surgeon could not perform was a procedure solely for the purpose of gender transition. Because transgender veterans seeking gender-affirmation surgery were forced to go outside the VA system and use their resources to pay for the surgery, VA did permit practitioners to perform preoperative and postoperative treatment, including treating surgical complications of an outside gender-affirmation surgery. VA HCPs were placed in a catch-22 situation that pitted their duty to care in accordance with the preferences and interests of the veteran against their obligation to practice and adhere to VA policy and federal regulation.⁸ With his Pride-month speech, Secretary McDonough resolved this conflict for VA HCPs and made a strong public declaration VA should and will provide gender-affirming surgery that can promote, preserve, and restore the health of transgender veterans.

Secretary McDonough called the move to formally change the rule regarding gender-affirming surgery “the right thing to do” and emphasized that it was “life-saving.”⁷ This last remark was in recognition of the strong evidence demonstrating the adverse psychological impact on transgender veterans of the previous position.²

Denial of gender-confirmation surgery was not the only health care inequity identified among transgender veterans. Research inside and outside VA has found significant health disparities between transgender and nontransgender veterans, including higher rates of depression, suicidality, serious mental illness, posttraumatic stress disorder, military sexual trauma, and homelessness.¹¹ The provision of gender-affirming surgery to transgender veterans whether through VA hospitals or through partnerships with academic affiliates and the community is a major step to remedy these disparities. A 2019 systematic review found that gender-affirming surgery is far from cosmetic: It leads to marked improvement in many of the mental health problems transgender persons experience.¹²

Anyone who has experienced the snail’s pace of change in the behemoth VA bureaucracy knows that this initial movement is only the beginning of the laborious federal process of changing the regulation that currently prohibits VA from offering and paying for gender-confirmation surgery under the VA medical benefits package. Once the regulation is changed, then VA will be empowered to establish policy that in Secretary McDonough’s words, “will ensure the equitable treatment and safety of transgender veterans.”² The decision to eventually provide gender-confirmation surgery as part of VA care was an important aspect of the agency’s overall attempt to make VA more welcome to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) veterans. During the Orlando speech, Secretary McDonough also announced that VA was changing the name of its LGBT program to LGBTQ+ to clearly communicate that all veterans are included in VA care.²

The announcement sends a powerful message of hope, which was a central theme of slain San Francisco supervisor, Harvey Milk, an early and influential LGBTQ activist and advocate.¹ But as always in our polarized country, there was immediate opposition to the proposal arguing that the surgery would place transgender veterans at greater risk of depression and suicide, was not compatible with the VA mission and diverts VA funding from meeting more legitimate care needs in a timely manner.¹¹ It is a sad irony that transgender veterans defended the freedom of their opponents to express their opinion and had to fight this long and hard for their liberty to live as they choose.

Over the 10 years we’ve been writing this column, we have often found inspiration for topics while traveling – especially while flying. This is not just because of the idle time spent in the air, but instead because of the many ways that air travel and health care experiences are similar. Both industries focus heavily on safety, are tightly regulated, and employ highly trained individuals.

Consumers may recognize the similarities as well – health care and air travel are both well-known for long waits, uncertainty, and implicit risk. Both sectors are also notorious drivers of innovation, constantly leveraging new technologies in pursuit of better outcomes and experiences. Occasionally, however, advancements in technology can present unforeseen challenges and even compromise safety, with the potential to produce unexpected consequences.

A familiar reminder of this potential was provided to us at the commencement of a recent flight, when we were instructed to turn off our personal electronic devices or flip them into “airplane mode.” This same admonishment is often given to patients and visitors in health care settings – everywhere from clinic waiting rooms to intensive care units – though the reason for this is typically left vague. This got us thinking. We wondered, what is the real risk of smart phones in medicine , or aviation, for that matter. More importantly, what other emerging technologies have the potential to create issues we may not have anticipated?

Mayo Clinic findings on radio communication used by mobile phones

Once our flight landed, we did some research to answer our initial question about personal communication technology and its ability to interfere with sensitive electronic devices. Specifically, we wanted to know whether radio communication used by mobile phones could affect the operation of medical equipment, potentially leading to dire consequences for patients. Spoiler alert: There is very little evidence that this can occur. In fact, a well-documented study performed by the Mayo Clinic in 2007 found interference in 0 out of 300 tests performed. To quote the authors, “the incidence of clinically important interference was 0%.”

We could find no other studies since 2007 that strongly contradict Mayo’s findings, except for several anecdotal reports and articles that postulate the theoretical possibility.

This is confirmed by the American Heart Association, who maintains a list of devices that may interfere with ICDs and pacemakers on their website. According to the AHA, “wireless transmissions from the antennae of phones available in the United States are a very small risk to ICDs and even less of a risk for pacemakers.” And in case you’re wondering, the story is quite similar for airplanes as well.

The latest publication from NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) documents incidents related to personal electronic devices during air travel. Most involve smoke production – or even small fires – caused by malfunctioning phone batteries during charging. Only a few entries reference wireless interference, and these were all minor and unconfirmed events. As with health care environments, airplanes don’t appear to face significant risks from radio interference. But that doesn’t mean personal electronics are completely harmless to patients.

Smartphones’ risks to patient with cardiac devices

On May 13 of 2021, the FDA issued a warning to cardiac patients about their smart phones and smart watches. Many current personal electronic devices and accessories are equipped with strong magnets, such as those contained in the “MagSafe” connector on the iPhone 12, that can deactivate pacemakers and implanted cardiac defibrillators. These medical devices are designed to be manipulated by magnets for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes, but strong magnetic fields can disable them unintentionally, leading to catastrophic results.

Apple and other manufacturers have acknowledged this risk and recommend that smartphones and other devices be kept at least 6 inches from cardiac devices. Given the ubiquity of offending products, it is also imperative that we warn our patients about this risk to their physical wellbeing.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

Over the 10 years we’ve been writing this column, we have often found inspiration for topics while traveling – especially while flying. This is not just because of the idle time spent in the air, but instead because of the many ways that air travel and health care experiences are similar. Both industries focus heavily on safety, are tightly regulated, and employ highly trained individuals.

Consumers may recognize the similarities as well – health care and air travel are both well-known for long waits, uncertainty, and implicit risk. Both sectors are also notorious drivers of innovation, constantly leveraging new technologies in pursuit of better outcomes and experiences. Occasionally, however, advancements in technology can present unforeseen challenges and even compromise safety, with the potential to produce unexpected consequences.

A familiar reminder of this potential was provided to us at the commencement of a recent flight, when we were instructed to turn off our personal electronic devices or flip them into “airplane mode.” This same admonishment is often given to patients and visitors in health care settings – everywhere from clinic waiting rooms to intensive care units – though the reason for this is typically left vague. This got us thinking. We wondered, what is the real risk of smart phones in medicine , or aviation, for that matter. More importantly, what other emerging technologies have the potential to create issues we may not have anticipated?

Mayo Clinic findings on radio communication used by mobile phones

Once our flight landed, we did some research to answer our initial question about personal communication technology and its ability to interfere with sensitive electronic devices. Specifically, we wanted to know whether radio communication used by mobile phones could affect the operation of medical equipment, potentially leading to dire consequences for patients. Spoiler alert: There is very little evidence that this can occur. In fact, a well-documented study performed by the Mayo Clinic in 2007 found interference in 0 out of 300 tests performed. To quote the authors, “the incidence of clinically important interference was 0%.”

We could find no other studies since 2007 that strongly contradict Mayo’s findings, except for several anecdotal reports and articles that postulate the theoretical possibility.

This is confirmed by the American Heart Association, who maintains a list of devices that may interfere with ICDs and pacemakers on their website. According to the AHA, “wireless transmissions from the antennae of phones available in the United States are a very small risk to ICDs and even less of a risk for pacemakers.” And in case you’re wondering, the story is quite similar for airplanes as well.

The latest publication from NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) documents incidents related to personal electronic devices during air travel. Most involve smoke production – or even small fires – caused by malfunctioning phone batteries during charging. Only a few entries reference wireless interference, and these were all minor and unconfirmed events. As with health care environments, airplanes don’t appear to face significant risks from radio interference. But that doesn’t mean personal electronics are completely harmless to patients.

Smartphones’ risks to patient with cardiac devices

On May 13 of 2021, the FDA issued a warning to cardiac patients about their smart phones and smart watches. Many current personal electronic devices and accessories are equipped with strong magnets, such as those contained in the “MagSafe” connector on the iPhone 12, that can deactivate pacemakers and implanted cardiac defibrillators. These medical devices are designed to be manipulated by magnets for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes, but strong magnetic fields can disable them unintentionally, leading to catastrophic results.

Apple and other manufacturers have acknowledged this risk and recommend that smartphones and other devices be kept at least 6 inches from cardiac devices. Given the ubiquity of offending products, it is also imperative that we warn our patients about this risk to their physical wellbeing.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

Over the 10 years we’ve been writing this column, we have often found inspiration for topics while traveling – especially while flying. This is not just because of the idle time spent in the air, but instead because of the many ways that air travel and health care experiences are similar. Both industries focus heavily on safety, are tightly regulated, and employ highly trained individuals.

Consumers may recognize the similarities as well – health care and air travel are both well-known for long waits, uncertainty, and implicit risk. Both sectors are also notorious drivers of innovation, constantly leveraging new technologies in pursuit of better outcomes and experiences. Occasionally, however, advancements in technology can present unforeseen challenges and even compromise safety, with the potential to produce unexpected consequences.

A familiar reminder of this potential was provided to us at the commencement of a recent flight, when we were instructed to turn off our personal electronic devices or flip them into “airplane mode.” This same admonishment is often given to patients and visitors in health care settings – everywhere from clinic waiting rooms to intensive care units – though the reason for this is typically left vague. This got us thinking. We wondered, what is the real risk of smart phones in medicine , or aviation, for that matter. More importantly, what other emerging technologies have the potential to create issues we may not have anticipated?

Mayo Clinic findings on radio communication used by mobile phones

Once our flight landed, we did some research to answer our initial question about personal communication technology and its ability to interfere with sensitive electronic devices. Specifically, we wanted to know whether radio communication used by mobile phones could affect the operation of medical equipment, potentially leading to dire consequences for patients. Spoiler alert: There is very little evidence that this can occur. In fact, a well-documented study performed by the Mayo Clinic in 2007 found interference in 0 out of 300 tests performed. To quote the authors, “the incidence of clinically important interference was 0%.”

We could find no other studies since 2007 that strongly contradict Mayo’s findings, except for several anecdotal reports and articles that postulate the theoretical possibility.

This is confirmed by the American Heart Association, who maintains a list of devices that may interfere with ICDs and pacemakers on their website. According to the AHA, “wireless transmissions from the antennae of phones available in the United States are a very small risk to ICDs and even less of a risk for pacemakers.” And in case you’re wondering, the story is quite similar for airplanes as well.

The latest publication from NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) documents incidents related to personal electronic devices during air travel. Most involve smoke production – or even small fires – caused by malfunctioning phone batteries during charging. Only a few entries reference wireless interference, and these were all minor and unconfirmed events. As with health care environments, airplanes don’t appear to face significant risks from radio interference. But that doesn’t mean personal electronics are completely harmless to patients.

Smartphones’ risks to patient with cardiac devices

On May 13 of 2021, the FDA issued a warning to cardiac patients about their smart phones and smart watches. Many current personal electronic devices and accessories are equipped with strong magnets, such as those contained in the “MagSafe” connector on the iPhone 12, that can deactivate pacemakers and implanted cardiac defibrillators. These medical devices are designed to be manipulated by magnets for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes, but strong magnetic fields can disable them unintentionally, leading to catastrophic results.

Apple and other manufacturers have acknowledged this risk and recommend that smartphones and other devices be kept at least 6 inches from cardiac devices. Given the ubiquity of offending products, it is also imperative that we warn our patients about this risk to their physical wellbeing.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.