Development of A Tool to Assess Resident Physicians’ Perceived Competence for Patient-centered Obesity Counseling

Physicians report a number of barriers to obesity counseling, among them low perceived competence in the ability to counsel. While there is increasing recognition of the need for resident training on counseling, implementation requires residency programs to have the necessary curricula and tools to evaluate training effectiveness. This study’s objective was to describe the development and psychometric testing of the Perceived Competence for Obesity Counseling (PCOC) scale. Items were generated based on constructs from the 5A’s counseling framework, review of the obesity literature, and expert opinion. The 20-item scale was piloted among 74 resident physicians. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to identify the number and nature of factors in the scale.  Pearson's correlation was used to assess scale validity of the total scores and sub-scale scores association with residents’ overall confidence in counseling and outcome expectancy for obesity counseling. Analyses suggested a 3-factor solution. After the removal of cross loading items, eighteen items were retained; eleven items loaded on the first factor, four items on the second factor, and three on the third factor. Cronbach's alpha for the 18-item PCOC scale was 0.95 indicating internal consistency. The PCOC scale was significantly correlated with resident’s overall confidence in counseling (r = 0.60, p < 0.01) and outcome expectancy for obesity counseling (r = 0.41, p < 0.01). This pilot study suggests PCOC is holds promise as a valid and reliable measure of resident’s perceived competence for obesity counseling. Future studies are needed to assess the scale’s association with counseling skills

End points for sickle cell disease clinical trials:Patient-reported outcomes, pain, and the brain

To address the global burden of sickle cell disease (SCD) and the need for novel therapies, the American Society of Hematology partnered with the US Food and Drug Administration to engage the work of 7 panels of clinicians, investigators, and patients to develop consensus recommendations for clinical trial end points. The panels conducted their work through literature reviews, assessment of available evidence, and expert judgment focusing on end points related to: patient-reported outcomes (PROs), pain (non-PROs), the brain, end-organ considerations, biomarkers, measurement of cure, and low-resource settings. This article presents the findings and recommendations of the PROs, pain, and brain panels, as well as relevant findings and recommendations from the biomarkers panel. The panels identify end points, where there were supporting data, to use in clinical trials of SCD. In addition, the panels discuss where further research is needed to support the development and validation of additional clinical trial end points.</p