Building legitimacy by criticising the pharmaceutical industry: a qualitative study among prescribers and local opinion leaders.

PRINCIPLES: The literature has described opinion leaders not only as marketing tools of the pharmaceutical industry, but also as educators promoting good clinical practice. This qualitative study addresses the distinction between the opinion-leader-as-marketing-tool and the opinion-leader-as-educator, as it is revealed in the discourses of physicians and experts, focusing on the prescription of antidepressants. We explore the relational dynamic between physicians, opinion leaders and the pharmaceutical industry in an area of French-speaking Switzerland. METHODS: Qualitative content analysis of 24 semistructured interviews with physicians and local experts in psychopharmacology, complemented by direct observation of educational events led by the experts, which were all sponsored by various pharmaceutical companies. RESULTS: Both physicians and experts were critical of the pharmaceutical industry and its use of opinion leaders. Local experts, in contrast, were perceived by the physicians as critical of the industry and, therefore, as a legitimate source of information. Local experts did not consider themselves opinion leaders and argued that they remained intellectually independent from the industry. Field observations confirmed that local experts criticised the industry at continuing medical education events. CONCLUSIONS: Local experts were vocal critics of the industry, which nevertheless sponsor their continuing education. This critical attitude enhanced their credibility in the eyes of the prescribing physicians. We discuss how the experts, despite their critical attitude, might still be beneficial to the industry's interests

Calling situated: a survey among medical students supplemented by a qualitative study and a comparison with a surveyed sample of physicians.

Calling within the medical context receives growing academic attention and empirical research has started to demonstrate its beneficial effects. The purpose of this study is to investigate what motivates students to enter medical school and what role calling may play (i), to evaluate if calling influences the way in which they experience their studies (ii), and to compare medical students' experience of calling with those of physicians. A questionnaire survey was distributed among medical students (N = 1048; response rate above 60%) of the University of Lausanne in Switzerland. It was supplemented by a group discussion between bachelor medical students (N = 8) and senior physicians (N = 4), focusing on different facets of calling. An existing data set of a survey among physicians, addressing calling with the same questionnaire, was used to compare students' and physicians' attitudes towards calling. Survey data were analyzed with the habitual statistical procedures for categorical and continuous variables. The group discussion was analyzed with thematic analysis. The survey showed that experiencing calling is a motivational factor for study choice and influences positively choice consistency. Students experiencing calling differed from those who did not: they attributed different definitions to calling, indicated more often prosocial motivational factors for entering medical school and perceived the learning context as less burdensome. The analysis of the group discussion revealed that the concept of calling has a fluid definition. It was conceived as having the characteristics of a double-edged sword and as originating from within or outside or from a dialectic interplay between the inner and outer world. Finally, calling is experienced less often by physicians than by medical students, with a decreasing prevalence as the immersion in the clinical years of the study of medicine progresses. Calling plays an important role in study choice and consistency of medical students. Given its relevance for medical students and its ramifications with the learning context, calling should become a topic of the reflexive parts of the medical curriculum. We critically discuss the role played by calling for medical students and provide some perspectives on how calling could be integrated in the reflection and teaching on physicianhood

Observational study of suicide in Switzerland: comparison between psychiatric in- and outpatients.

In Switzerland, suicide is a major cause of years of potential life lost. Among people who died by suicide, a significant number suffered from mental illness and were treated by psychiatric care institutions. Psychiatric patients are thus a specific target for suicide prevention. Based on data from a clinical committee reviewing every death by suicide of psychiatric patients in the Canton of Vaud (Switzerland), this observational study aimed to gain knowledge on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of psychiatric patients who died by suicide by comparing in- and outpatients. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of patients who died by suicide in our department from January 2007 to December 2019 were analysed. In- and outpatients were compared. The sample included 153 patients (64.7% males, n = 99). Three quarters (76.4%, n = 81) of the patients had at least one previous suicide attempt. In- and outpatients did not differ significantly in terms of sociodemographics data, psychiatric diagnosis or method of suicide. Almost all (97.2%) of the outpatients had at least one past psychiatric hospitalisation. We found gender disparities for several variables and a lower male/female suicide ratio than in the general Swiss population. Seventy-two percent of the outpatients (n = 49) had a last personal contact with clinicians less than a week before their suicide and 38.8 % of those less than 24 hours (28% of outpatients, n = 19). Patients dying by suicide present most of the time a serious psychiatric history. In- and outpatients seem to have a similar clinical and sociodemographic profile and suicide prevention should thus not be addressed differently in these two groups. The time between death of outpatients and last contact with a therapist was shorter than expected

Undergraduate training in breaking bad news: A continuation study exploring the patient perspective.

This paper reports on the continuation of an initial study that demonstrated the effectiveness, as rated by experts, of an undergraduate training in breaking bad news (BBN) using simulated patient (SP) and individual feedback. The current study aimed to further explore whether such an individualized training approach also has positive effects from the perspective of the patient, using the analogue patient (AP) methodology. A subsample of 180 videotaped interviews with SPs were selected from the existing data set (N = 332), consisting of 60 pre- and post-training interviews of students benefiting from the individualized approach (intervention group) and 60 post-training interviews of students having small-group SP training and collective supervision (comparison group). Sixty-eight APs-healthy untrained observers-were asked to view the videotaped interviews while "putting themselves in the patient's shoes" and evaluate satisfaction, trust, liking, and the competence of medical students. The intervention group students improved significantly from pre- to post-training on several dimensions evaluated by the APs: patient satisfaction, trust in the student, liking of the student, and perceived medical competence. Increased AP satisfaction was related to different changes in students' communication behavior between pre- and post-training: increase in positive talk, emotional responsiveness, biomedical and psychosocial information, and biomedical counseling. There was no significant between-group difference at post-training. AP evaluation showed significant improvement between pre- and post-training. This result provides additional and complementary evidence of the positive effects of individualized training in BBN from the AP perspective, a proxy of (real) patients

Psychiatric Comorbidity and Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Through the Lens of the Biopsychosocial Model: A Comparative Study.

To compare the prevalence of psychiatric comorbidity between patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) of the hand and non-CRPS patients and to assess the association between biopsychosocial (BPS) complexity profiles and psychiatric comorbidity in a comparative study. We included a total of 103 patients with CRPS of the hand and 290 patients with chronic hand impairments but without CRPS. Psychiatric comorbidities were diagnosed by a psychiatrist, and BPS complexity was measured by means of the INTERMED. The odds ratios (OR) of having psychiatric comorbidities according to BPS complexity were calculated with multiple logistic regression (adjusted for age, sex, and pain). Prevalence of psychiatric comorbidity was 29% in CRPS patients, which was not significantly higher than in non-CRPS patients (21%, relative risk=1.38, 95% CI: 0.95 to 2.01 p=0.10). The median total scores of the INTERMED were the same in both groups (23 points). INTERMED total scores (0-60 points) were related to an increased risk of having psychiatric comorbidity in CRPS patients (OR=1.46; 95% CI: 1.23-1.73) and in non-CRPS patients (OR=1.21; 95% CI: 1.13-1.30). The four INTERMED subscales (biological, psychological, social, and health care) were correlated with a higher risk of having psychiatric comorbidity in both groups. The differences in the OR of having psychiatric comorbidity in relation to INTERMED total and subscale scores were not statistically different between the two groups. The total scores, as well as all four dimensions of BPS complexity measured by the INTERMED, were associated with psychiatric comorbidity, with comparable magnitudes of association between the CRPS and non-CRPS groups. The INTERMED was useful in screening for psychological vulnerability in the two groups

Core stories of physicians on a Swiss internal medicine ward during the first COVID-19 wave: a qualitative exploration.

The first COVID-19 wave (2020), W1, will remain extraordinary due to its novelty and the uncertainty on how to handle the pandemic. To understand what physicians went through, we collected narratives of frontline physicians working in a Swiss university hospital during W1. Physicians in the Division of Internal Medicine of Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV) were invited to send anonymous narratives to an online platform, between 28 April and 30 June 2020. The analysed material consisted of 13 written texts and one audio record. They were examined by means of a narrative analysis based on a holistic content approach, attempting to identify narrative highlights, referred to as foci, in the texts. Five main foci were identified: danger and threats, acquisition of knowledge and practices, adaptation to a changing context, commitment to the profession, and sense of belonging to the medical staff. In physicians' narratives, danger designated a variety of rather negative feelings and emotions, whereas threats were experienced as being dangerous for others, but also for oneself. The acquisition of knowledge and practices focus referred to the different types of acquisition that took place during W1. The narratives that focused on adaptation reflected how physicians coped with W1 and private or professional upheavals. COVID-19 W1 contributed to revealing a natural commitment (or not) of physicians towards the profession and patients, accompanied by the concern of offering the best possible care to all. Lastly, sense of belonging referred to the team and its reconfiguration during W1. Our study deepens the understanding of how physicians experienced the pandemic both in their professional and personal settings. It offers insights into how they prepared and reacted to a pandemic. The foci reflect topics that are inherent to a physician's profession, whatever the context. During a pandemic, these foundational elements are particularly challenged. Strikingly, these topics are not studied in medical school, thus raising the general question of how students are prepared for the medical profession