An Interactive Individualized Intervention to Promote Behavioral Change to Increase Personal Well-Being in US Surgeons

ObjectiveEvaluate the utility of a computer-based, interactive, and individualized intervention for promoting well-being in US surgeons.BackgroundDistress and burnout are common among US surgeons. Surgeons experiencing distress are unlikely to seek help on their own initiative. A belief that distress and burnout are a normal part of being a physician and lack of awareness of distress level relative to colleagues may contribute to this problem.MethodsSurgeons who were members of the American College of Surgeons were invited to participate in an intervention study. Participating surgeons completed a 3-step, interactive, electronic intervention. First, surgeons subjectively assessed their well-being relative to colleagues. Second, surgeons completed the 7-item Mayo Clinic Physician Well-Being Index and received objective, individualized feedback about their well-being relative to national physician norms. Third, surgeons evaluated the usefulness of the feedback and whether they intended to make specific changes as a result.ResultsA total of 1150 US surgeons volunteered to participate in the study. Surgeons' subjective assessment of their well-being relative to colleagues was poor. A majority of surgeons (89.2%) believed that their well-being was at or above average, including 70.5% with scores in the bottom 30% relative to national norms. After receiving objective, individualized feedback based on the Mayo Clinic Physician Well-Being Index score, 46.6% of surgeons indicated that they intended to make specific changes as a result. Surgeons with lower well-being scores were more likely to make changes in each dimension assessed (all Ps<0.001).ConclusionsUS surgeons do not reliably calibrate their level of distress. After self-assessment and individualized feedback using the Mayo Clinic Physician Well-Being Index, half of participating surgeons reported that they were contemplating behavioral changes to improve personal well-being

The Complementary Nature of Patient-Reported Outcomes and Adverse Event Reporting in Cooperative Group Oncology Clinical Trials: A Pooled Analysis (NCCTG N0591)

CONTEXT: Clinical trials use clinician-graded adverse events (AEs) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to describe symptoms. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to examine the agreement between PROs and AEs in the clinical trial setting. METHODS: Patient-level data were pooled from seven North Central Cancer Treatment Group, two Southwest Oncology Group, and three Radiation Therapy Oncology Group lung studies that included both PROs and AE data. Ten-point changes (on a 0-100 scale) in PRO scores were considered clinically significant differences (CSDs). PRO score changes were compared to AE grade (Gr) categories (2+ yes vs. no and 3+ yes vs. no) using Wilcoxon rank-sum or two-sample t-tests between Gr categories. Incidence rates and concordance of CSD in PRO scores and AE Gr categories were compiled. Spearman correlations were computed between PRO scores and AE severity. RESULTS: PROs completed by patients (n = 1013) were the Uniscale, Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L), Symptom Distress Scale, and/or Functional Living Index-Cancer. Significantly worse PRO score changes were found for the FACT-L in patients with Gr 2+ AEs. Worse scores were seen for the Uniscale for patients with Gr 2+ AEs (P = 0.07) and LCSS for patients with Gr 3+ AEs (P = 0.09). Agreement between incidence of any Gr 2+ (Gr 3+) AE and a CSD in PROs ranged from 27% to 67% (36%-61%). Correlations between PRO scores and AE severity were low: -0.06 Uniscale, -0.03 LCSS, 0.10 FACT-L, -0.11 Symptom Distress Scale, and -0.51 Functional Living Index-Cancer. CONCLUSION: These results support previous work and an a priori hypothesis that AEs and PROs measure differing aspects of the disease experience and are complementary