Journal of general internal medicine
-
Review
Does Sponsorship Promote Equity in Career Advancement in Academic Medicine? A Scoping Review.
Sponsorship describes a set of actions wherein an influential champion (sponsor) uses their position to actively support a colleague's career by helping them gain visibility, recognition, and/or positions. There is growing awareness of the importance of sponsorship for career advancement in academic medicine, particularly for women and those who are historically underrepresented and excluded in medicine (UIM). This scoping review examines the current landscape of evidence, and knowledge gaps, on sponsorship as it relates to career advancement in academic medicine for women and UIM faculty. ⋯ The existing data are inconclusive regarding best ways to measure and assess sponsorship, what institutional support (e.g., structured programs, formal recognition, or incentives for sponsorship) should look like, and at what career stage sponsorship is most important. Addressing this knowledge gap will be critically important for understanding what sponsorship best practices, if any, should be used to promote equity in career advancement in academic medicine. We advocate for commitment at the institutional and national levels to develop new infrastructure for transparently and equitably supporting women and UIM in career advancement.
-
Derivation and External Validation of the Ottawa Bloodstream Infection Model for Acutely Ill Adults.
Knowing the probability that patients have a bloodstream infection (BSI) could influence the ordering of blood cultures and interpretation of their preliminary results. Many previous BSI probability models have limited applicability and accuracy. This study used currently recommended modeling techniques and a large sample to derive and validate the Ottawa BSI Model. ⋯ The Ottawa BSI Model uses commonly available data to return an expected BSI probability for acutely ill patients. However, it cannot exclude BSI and its complexity requires computational assistance to use.
-
Communicating bad news such as a new cancer diagnosis to patients may have a major impact on their well-being. We investigated differences in patients' psychological distress due to the disclosure of bad news by telephone compared to in person in a systematic review and meta-analysis. ⋯ This meta-analysis found no difference regarding psychological distress regardless if bad news were disclosed by telephone or in person, but there were overall only few and heterogeneous studies with a small number of eligible patients. The findings suggest that the modality of disclosure might play a secondary role and the way in which the bad news are communicated might be more important.
-
Observational research can be strengthened by examining potential dose-response relationships that correlate a clinical intervention with a patient outcome. Despite being a classic criterion for establishing causality, dose-response testing can be difficult to interpret in clinical medicine due to multiple diverse pitfalls. This review introduces a cautionary framework for investigators considering dose-response relationships in observational research to support evidence-based medicine. ⋯ Further pitfalls arise in special situations including subjective self-report and artifacts from survival bias. These caveats are common sources of misunderstanding in analyses that examine the link between varying exposures and the intensity of clinical outcomes. Awareness of specific pitfalls, we suggest, might help advance the conduct, application, and translation of dose-response relationships in observational research to inform evidence-based medical care.
-
Review
Health-Related Quality of Life Scores and Values as Predictors of Mortality: A Scoping Review.
Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) can be assessed through measures that can be generic or disease specific, encompass several independent scales, or employ holistic assessment (i.e., the derivation of composite scores). HRQoL measures may identify patients with differential risk profiles. However, the usefulness of generic and holistic HRQoL measures in identifying patients at higher risk of death is unclear. ⋯ HRQoL was found to be associated with mortality in the general population and clinical sub-populations with physical health conditions. Whether this relationship holds in people with mental health conditions is not known. HRQoL assessment may be useful for screening and/or monitoring purposes to understand how people perceive their health and well-being and as an indicator of mortality risk, encouraging better-quality and timely patient care to support and maximize what may be a patient's only modifiable outcome.