Journal of General Internal Medicine最新文献

Background: The University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine collaborated with The Addis Clinic to create a global telemedicine elective for fourth-year medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic. The elective aimed to promote cross-cultural understanding by providing unique, hands-on telemedicine experience.

Aim: To assess the effectiveness of the telemedicine elective, four of five medical students and 11 of 12 Kenyan clinical officers completed one-on-one interviews and surveys.

Setting: Students and global health faculty connected virtually with patients and clinical officers from several rural clinics in Kenya during the 4-week elective.

Participants: Per elective month, participants of the course included two fourth-year medical students and five Kenyan clinical officers.

Program description: A medical school elective designed in collaboration with The Addis Clinic, using WhatsApp and Telemedicus platform, in which each medical student virtually assisted a team of Kenyan clinical officers with a variety of active patient cases.

Program evaluation: Qualitative analysis of interviews with medical students and Kenyan clinical officers yielded themes of increased competency with clinical decision-making and culturally appropriate care delivery.

Discussion: Implementation of a unique global telemedicine elective was feasible and well received by both medical students and clinical officers in Kenya. The elective can be implemented at other institutions with faculty experienced in global health who would like to partner with The Addis Clinic.

The ethical responsibilities of healthcare professionals amidst geopolitical conflict, particularly regarding their impact on patient care and healthcare delivery, present a significant challenge, especially during current strife. With the rise of national and international discord and debate, and the close relationship between war and healthcare, healthcare organizations are increasingly pressured to comment, which can reflect societal engagement, but also pose demands for maintaining professionalism. This article discusses the need for healthcare practitioners to navigate their roles in advocacy without compromising patient care, emphasizing the importance of self-reflection, adherence to ethical standards, and effective communication. We also address the implications of politicization within healthcare settings, offering strategies to uphold professional integrity and prioritize patient-centered care amidst the complexities of geopolitical tensions. While the premise of this paper was prompted by geopolitical conflict, the principles emphasized are broadly applicable to an array of controversial issues. By fostering a culture of inclusivity and respect, healthcare professionals can mitigate the risks associated with politicization and ensure a commitment to the fundamental principle of "do no harm."

Importance: State policies facilitating telehealth implemented early in COVID may support buprenorphine treatment of opioid use disorder. However, little empirical information is available about those policies' effects.

Objective: Examine association between state policies that may facilitate telehealth use and buprenorphine treatment.

Design, setting, participants: Retrospective cohort study using 2019-2020 national pharmacy data on dispensed buprenorphine prescriptions.

Exposures: State policies implemented after March 3, 2020, public health emergency declaration requiring private insurers' telehealth reimbursement to be commensurate with in-person service reimbursement, authorizing Medicaid reimbursement for audio-only telehealth, allowing physicians to provide cross-state telehealth services, and allowing psychologists to provide cross-state telehealth services.

Main outcomes and measures: (a) Duration of treatment episodes started between March 1 and March 13 in both 2019 and 2020, and (b) daily numbers of new buprenorphine treatment episodes from March 13 through December 31 in each year.

Key results: We found little change in the number of new buprenorphine treatment episodes started in 2020 compared to 2019 and an increase in treatment duration of 10.3 days (95%CI 8.3 to 12.2 days) for episodes started in March 2020 before the public health emergency declaration compared to the comparable 2019 period. States implementing a telehealth parity policy in 2020 had 7.3% (95%CI - 13.3% to - 0.4%) fewer new buprenorphine treatment episodes. States joining the psychologist interstate compact in 2020 after the public health emergency declaration had treatment episodes 7.97 days longer (95%CI 0.78 to 15.16) than other states. None of the other policies examined was associated with changes in new treatment episodes or treatment duration.

Conclusions and relevance: Policies undertaken during the pandemic we examined were associated with few significant changes in buprenorphine treatment initiation and duration. Findings suggest realizing the benefits of telehealth and other policy changes for buprenorphine may require more extensive implementation and infrastructure support.

Background: Few eligible patients in the United States participate in lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT).

Objective: What is the efficacy of interventions to increase LCS participation?

Design: We performed a systematic review following a prespecified protocol registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021283984). In June/July of 2021, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and Epistemonikos from 1946 to October 2021 to identify studies evaluating interventions to increase LCS participation.

Participants: Thirteen of 2761 studies met inclusion criteria for data extraction. Of these, six had results available (five RCTs and one prospective observational study). The studies had predominantly White and non-Hispanic participants.

Main measures: An intention-to-treat analysis was used to calculate each study's relative risk (RR) to increase LCS. Effect sizes were pooled using a random-effects model with a subgroup analysis for multi- versus single-step interventions. Risk of bias was evaluated with the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2) and risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I).

Key results: Overall, the proportion of screening LDCTs performed did not improve in the intervention group relative to the comparator group (RR [95% CI] of 1.30 [0.74, 2.29]), and meta-analysis indicated high heterogeneity of studies (I² = 91%). Subgroup analysis suggests that interventions targeting multiple barriers may increase LCS participation (RR [95% CI] for multistep vs single-step; 2.68 [1.77, 4.05] vs 0.99 [0.89, 1.10], P < 0.01). Quality assessment revealed that three of five RCTs showed some concerns or high risk of bias.

Conclusion: Evidence on efficacy of interventions to increase LCS participation is limited due to a small number of prospective studies performed in non-diverse populations with critical risk of bias. Further, overall, studied interventions did not improve lung cancer screening participation, though interventions targeting multiple barriers may have some benefit.

Background: Black-White coronary heart disease (CHD) treatment disparities are well documented, especially regarding the use of high-quality hospitals. Physician referral networks may play a role.

Objective: To understand how primary care physicians (PCPs) make specialty referrals for CHD treatment and how referrals may contribute to treatment disparities.

Design: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions.

Participants: We purposively recruited 45 PCPs (50 invited, 90% response rate) in three metro areas with high Black-White segregation of cardiac care networks (New York City; Chicago; Atlanta).

Approach: We developed the focus group discussion guide from interviews and current literature. We conducted two focus groups per metro area via Zoom. Two expert team members independently coded the transcripts using inductive techniques and analyzed focus group content and themes using Dedoose.

Key results: Most participants were male (62.2%), White (57.8%), and practiced for at least 23 years. We identified several recurrent themes for factors influencing cardiology referrals. The most frequently mentioned themes were heavy reliance on professional networks, specialist availability, timeliness, communication style, patient geographic and economic constraints, and patient preferences. PCPs used anecdotal and not data-driven evidence to assess hospital quality and viewed Black-White differences in high-quality hospital use as due to patient economic status and preferences or differences in hospital access and provider referral bias.

Conclusion: PCPs' referral decisions for CHD treatment are primarily driven by access to specific professional networks and the socioeconomic circumstances of their patients. Nevertheless, PCPs strive to make the best available decisions, leaning into their networks and honoring patient preferences. While PCPs acknowledged existing disparities, they attributed them to patient and system factors rather than provider referral bias. Mitigating disparities will require interventions to improve minority-serving providers' formal and informal connections with high-quality specialists and hospitals, address patient socioeconomic constraints, and train providers to recognize their potential biases and misconceptions.

Generative artificial intelligence (generative AI) is a new technology with potentially broad applications across important domains of healthcare, but serious questions remain about how to balance the promise of generative AI against unintended consequences from adoption of these tools. In this position statement, we provide recommendations on behalf of the Society of General Internal Medicine on how clinicians, technologists, and healthcare organizations can approach the use of these tools. We focus on three major domains of medical practice where clinicians and technology experts believe generative AI will have substantial immediate and long-term impacts: clinical decision-making, health systems optimization, and the patient-physician relationship. Additionally, we highlight our most important generative AI ethics and equity considerations for these stakeholders. For clinicians, we recommend approaching generative AI similarly to other important biomedical advancements, critically appraising its evidence and utility and incorporating it thoughtfully into practice. For technologists developing generative AI for healthcare applications, we recommend a major frameshift in thinking away from the expectation that clinicians will "supervise" generative AI. Rather, these organizations and individuals should hold themselves and their technologies to the same set of high standards expected of the clinical workforce and strive to design high-performing, well-studied tools that improve care and foster the therapeutic relationship, not simply those that improve efficiency or market share. We further recommend deep and ongoing partnerships with clinicians and patients as necessary collaborators in this work. And for healthcare organizations, we recommend pursuing a combination of both incremental and transformative change with generative AI, directing resources toward both endeavors, and avoiding the urge to rapidly displace the human clinical workforce with generative AI. We affirm that the practice of medicine remains a fundamentally human endeavor which should be enhanced by technology, not displaced by it.

Background: The US faces a maternal health crisis and struggles to deliver recommended postpartum care. In some populations, less than half of mothers attend a postpartum visit.

Objective: To determine if a two-generation (Two-Gen) model of interdisciplinary, postpartum primary care was associated with increased visit attendance for postpartum care, primary care, and behavioral health.

Design: Retrospective study of care delivered at a single, urban, academic, safety-net medical center between 2020 and 2023.

Participants: Mothers who received postpartum care in Two-Gen and a comparison group who received usual postpartum care.

Main measures: Adjusted logistic regression to estimate the effect of Two-Gen participation on the odds of attending an early (birth-to-3 weeks) postpartum visit, later (4-to-12 weeks) postpartum visit, OB/GYN visit, and primary care visit.

Key results: A total of 247 mothers (98 Two-Gen and 149 usual care) were included for analysis. Most identified as Non-Hispanic Black (55%) or Hispanic (34%) and had Medicaid insurance (74%). On average, Two-Gen mothers were younger and more likely to be primiparous. Compared to usual care, Two-Gen mothers had similar rates of early postpartum visits (79% vs 64%; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92-3.14) and were significantly more likely to have a later postpartum visit (92% vs 79%; aOR 2.46; 95%CI 1.06-5.74) in adjusted analyses. Almost all Two-Gen mothers (97%) had a visit with a primary care doctor in the first postpartum year, compared to 19% of mothers receiving usual care (aOR 12.95; 95%CI 6.80-24.68). Of those with behavioral health diagnoses, Two-Gen mothers had higher rates of psychiatrist visits than usual care mothers (49% vs 13%; p = 0.001).

Conclusions: Two-Gen clinic participation was associated with high rates of timely postpartum care in a group of predominantly young, publicly insured, racial, and ethnic minority mothers and compared favorably to usual care across multiple metrics, notably utilization of primary and behavioral health care.

Diet-related chronic diseases account for seven out of the ten leading causes of death in the USA. Food is Medicine (FIM) interventions can be effective adjuncts to standard medical care to address this cost burden. While the Food is Medicine Pyramid recommends some culinary skill development when integrating FIM into healthcare, the emphasis is on medically tailored meals and food provision. Hence, there is a practice gap to ensure patients develop the necessary skills to apply nutrition recommendations into improved food behaviors to achieve positive long-term health outcomes. This paper presents a theoretical framework for optimizing existing clinical services to provide FIM interventions, tracking associated improvements in patient outcomes, and identifying healthcare cost saving/revenue generation that can lead to a net value on investment. It describes how these interventions can and have been used in a clinical setting as adjuncts to clinical care. While there is published evidence for each modality individually, the literature lacks evidence of the value of an integrated approach. The framework therefore provides a roadmap to both identify best practices and evaluate outcomes that will inform viable financial models.