Impact on patient satisfaction and importance of medical intake and office staff in a multidisciplinary, one-stop shop transgender program in Indianapolis, Indiana

Background: Historically, the transgender population has postponed seeking primary care due to discrimination within social and medical settings. Very few studies have considered patient satisfaction with transgender care and whether there are differences in staff satisfaction. This cross-sectional study focuses on the satisfaction of transgender patients who receive primary care at a comprehensive, “one-stop shop” program in Indianapolis, IN, USA. Methods: Sixty-two patients completed a patient satisfaction survey. Items consisted of 5-point Likert scales with anchors of satisfaction, caring, competence, and doctor recommendation. Results: Overall, there were positive responses to all items, ranging from moderately high to very high. There was high overall satisfaction in the program’s trans-friendliness, office visits, and “one-stop shop” model. Lower scoring items concerned medical intake with appointment making and timing. There were no statistical differences across age, gender, education, duration at the program, and number of visits in the past 12 months. There were clear differences between how respondents viewed the care and competence of the program’s staff. In particular, the doctor was viewed most positively and office staff least positively with medical staff rated in-between. Conclusion: There is high patient satisfaction with this comprehensive, “one-stop shop” care model among the transgender population. We recommend that transgender programs routinely conduct quality improvement measures, maintain sufficient workforce coverage, and provide cultural competency training which should include appropriate care standards and patient-centered concerns regarding appointment making and burdens associated with timing, traveling, and cost

The Spectrum of C9orf72-mediated Neurodegeneration and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis

The discovery that a hexanucleotide repeat expansion in C9orf72 is the most numerous genetic variant of both amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia has opened a rapidly growing field, which may provide long hoped for advances in the understanding and treatment of these devastating diseases. In this review we describe the various phenotypes, clinical and pathological, associated with expansion of C9orf72, which go beyond amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia to include neurodegeneration more broadly. Next we take a step back and summarize the current understanding of the C9orf72 expansion and its protein products at a molecular level. Three mechanisms are prominent: toxicity mediated directly by RNA transcribed from the repeat; toxicity mediated by dipeptide repeat proteins translated from the repeat sequence; and haploinsufficiency resulting from reduced transcription of the C9orf72 exonic sequence. A series of exciting advances have recently described how dipeptide repeat proteins might interfere with the normal role of the nucleolus in maturation of RNA binding proteins and in production of ribosomes. Importantly, these mechanisms are unlikely to be mutually exclusive. We draw attention to the fact that clinical and pathological similarities to other genetic variants without a repeat expansion must not be overlooked in ascribing a pathogenic mechanism to C9orf72-disease. Finally, with a view to impact on patient care, we discuss current practice with respect to genetic screening in patients with and without a family history of disease, and the most promising developments towards therapy that have been reported to date

The Role of Mitigating Factors in Capital Sentencing Before and After McKoy v. North Carolina

In 1990, the United States Supreme Court ruled that capital jurors do not have to be unanimous in deciding whether or not to accept any particular mitigating circumstance presented to them by the defense during the penalty phase of a capital murder trial. This study examines whether this shift in procedure may have altered the role of mitigation in predicting capital sentencing outcomes by comparing death sentencing predictors before and after the McKoy decision with data from an extensive sample of capital cases in North Carolina tried between 1977 and 2002. The results indicate that (1) both the number of aggravating and mitigating circumstances accepted by capital jurors had statistically significant and substantial effects on capital sentencing outcomes both before and after the McKoy decision; (2) the number of mitigating circumstances presented to and accepted by capital juries in North Carolina doubled during the post‐McKoy period; and (3) the influence of mitigating circumstance on capital sentencing outcomes was attenuated in the post‐McKoy period. Implications of these findings are discussed