Challenges and Potential Solutions for Physician\u27s Suicide risk factors in the COVID-19 Era: Psychiatric Comorbidities, Medicine Judicialization, and Burnout

INTRODUCTION: Suicide in physicians outlines a public health problem that deserves more consideration. A recently performed meta-analysis and systematic review evaluated suicide mortality in physicians by gender and investigated several related risk factors. It showed a post-1980 suicide mortality ratio 46% higher in female physicians than women in the general population and a 33% lower risk in male physicians than men in general, despite an overall contraction in physicians\u27 mortality rates in both genders. METHODS: This narrative review was conducted through a search and analysis of relevant articles/databases to address questions raised by the meta-analysis, and how they may be affected by COVID-19. The process included unstructured searches on physician suicide, burnout, medicine judicialization, healthcare organization and COVID-19 on Pubmed, and Google searches for relevant databases, medical society, expert and media commentaries on these topics. We focus on three factors critical to address physician suicides: epidemiological data limitations, psychiatric comorbidities, and professional overload. RESULTS: We found relevant articles on suicide reporting, physician mental health, effects of healthcare judicialization and organization on physician and patient health, and how COVID-19 may impact such factors. This review addresses information sources, underreporting/misreporting of physicians\u27 suicide rates, inadequate diagnosis and management of psychiatric comorbidities and chronic effects on physicians\u27 work capacity, and finally, medicine judicialization and organization failure increasing physician burnout . We discuss these factors in general and in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: We describe an overview of the above factors, discuss possible solutions, and specifically address how COVID-19 may impact such factors

Evidence-based guidelines and secondary meta-analysis for the use of transcranial direct current stimulation in neurological and psychiatric disorders

Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation has shown promising clinical results, leading to increased demand for an evidence-based review on its clinical effects. Objective: We convened a team of transcranial direct current stimulation experts to conduct a systematic review of clinical trials with more than 1 session of stimulation testing: pain, Parkinson’s disease motor function and cognition, stroke motor function and language, epilepsy, major depressive disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, Tourette syndrome, schizophrenia, and drug addiction. Methods: Experts were asked to conduct this systematic review according to the search methodology from PRISMA guidelines. Recommendations on efficacy were categorized into Levels A (definitely effective), B (probably effective), C (possibly effective), or no recommendation. We assessed risk of bias for all included studies to confirm whether results were driven by potentially biased studies. Results: Although most of the clinical trials have been designed as proof-of-concept trials, some of the indications analyzed in this review can be considered as definitely effective (Level A), such as depression, and probably effective (Level B), such as neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, migraine, post-operative patient-controlled analgesia and pain, Parkinson’s disease (motor and cognition), stroke (motor), epilepsy, schizophrenia, and alcohol addiction. Assessment of bias showed that most of the studies had low risk of biases, and sensitivity analysis for bias did not change these results. Effect sizes vary from 0.01 to 0.70 and were significant in about 8 conditions, with the largest effect size being in postoperative acute pain and smaller in stroke motor recovery (nonsignificant when combined with robotic therapy). Conclusion: All recommendations listed here are based on current published PubMed-indexed data. Despite high levels of evidence in some conditions, it must be underscored that effect sizes and duration of effects are often limited; thus, real clinical impact needs to be further determined with different study designs

EEG modulation by different transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) montages: a randomized double-blind sham-control mechanistic pilot trial in healthy participants.

Background: Based on our Phantom study on transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), we hypothesized that EEG band power and field confinement would be greater following left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC - F3) tDCS using circular vs. rectangular electrodes. Methods: Double-blind-randomized trial comparing tDCS with anode over left DLPFC (groups: rectangular electrodes, circular electrodes, sham) and 2 active subgroup references (right shoulder vs. right DLPFC). Results: Twenty-four randomized participants were assessed. We indeed found higher average EEG power spectral density (PSD) across bands for circular vs. rectangular electrodes, largely confined to F3 and there was a significant increase at AF3 for low alpha (p = 0.037). Significant differences included: increased PSD in low beta (p = 0.024) and theta bands (p = 0.021) at F3, and in theta (p = 0.036) at FC5 for the right DLPFC vs. shoulder with no coherence changes. We found PSD differences between active vs. sham tDCS at Fz for alpha (p = 0.043), delta (p = 0.036), high delta (p = 0.030); and at FC1 for alpha (p = 0.031), with coherence differences for F3-Fz in beta (p = 0.044), theta (p = 0.044), delta (p = 0.037) and high delta (p = 0.009). Conclusion: This pilot study despite low statistical power given its small sample size shows that active left DLPFC tDCS modulates EEG frontocentrally and suggests that electrode shapes/reference locations affect its neurophysiological effects, such as increased low alpha power at AF3 using circular vs. rectangular electrodes. Further research with more participants is warranted

Evidence-based guidelines and secondary meta-analysis for the use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in neurological and psychiatric disorders.

Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation has shown promising clinical results, leading to increased demand for an evidence-based review on its clinical effects. Objective: We convened a team of transcranial direct current stimulation experts to conduct a systematic review of clinical trials with more than 1 session of stimulation testing: pain, Parkinson’s disease motor function and cognition, stroke motor function and language, epilepsy, major depressive disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, Tourette syndrome, schizophrenia, and drug addiction. Methods: Experts were asked to conduct this systematic review according to the search methodology from PRISMA guidelines. Recommendations on efficacy were categorized into Levels A (definitely effective), B (probably effective), C (possibly effective), or no recommendation. We assessed risk of bias for all included studies to confirm whether results were driven by potentially biased studies. Results: Although most of the clinical trials have been designed as proof-of-concept trials, some of the indications analyzed in this review can be considered as definitely effective (Level A), such as depression, and probably effective (Level B), such as neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, migraine, post-operative patient-controlled analgesia and pain, Parkinson’s disease (motor and cognition), stroke (motor), epilepsy, schizophrenia, and alcohol addiction. Assessment of bias showed that most of the studies had low risk of biases, and sensitivity analysis for bias did not change these results. Effect sizes vary from 0.01 to 0.70 and were significant in about 8 conditions, with the largest effect size being in postoperative acute pain and smaller in stroke motor recovery (nonsignificant when combined with robotic therapy). Conclusion: All recommendations listed here are based on current published PubMed-indexed data. Despite high levels of evidence in some conditions, it must be underscored that effect sizes and duration of effects are often limited; thus, real clinical impact needs to be further determined with different study designs.publishe