Pediatric resident and faculty attitudes toward self-assessment and self-directed learning: a cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The development of self-assessment and self-directed learning skills is essential to lifelong learning and becoming an effective physician. Pediatric residents in the United States are now required to use Individualized Learning Plans (ILPs) to document self-assessment and self-directed learning. A better understanding of resident and faculty attitudes and skills about self-assessment and self-directed learning will allow more successful integration of lifelong learning into residency education. The objective of this study was to compare faculty and resident attitudes, knowledge and skills about self-assessment, self-directed learning and ILPs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Survey of pediatric residents and faculty at a single institution. Respondents rated their attitudes, knowledge, and self-perceived skills surrounding self-assessment, self-directed learning and ILPs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Overall survey response rate was 81% (79/97); 100% (36/36) residents and 70% (43/61) faculty. Residents and faculty agreed that lifelong learning is a necessary part of being a physician. Both groups were comfortable with assessing their own strengths and weaknesses and developing specific goals to improve their own performance. However, residents were less likely than faculty to continuously assess their own performance (44% vs. 81%; p < 0.001) or continuously direct their own learning (53% vs. 86%; p < 0.001). Residents were more likely than faculty to believe that residents should be primarily responsible for directing their own learning (64% vs. 19%; p < 0.0001), but at the same time, more residents believed that assigned clinical (31% vs. 0%; p < 0.0001) or curricular (31% vs. 0%; p < 0.0001) experiences were sufficient to make them competent physicians. Interns were less likely than senior residents to have a good understanding of how to assess their own skills (8% vs. 58%; p = 0.004) or what it means to be a self-directed learner (50% vs. 83%; p = 0.04).</p> <p>Qualitative comments indicated that while ILPs have the potential to help learners develop individualized, goal-directed learning plans based on strengths and weaknesses, successful implementation will require dedicated time and resident and faculty development.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These findings suggest that training and experience are necessary for physicians to understand the role of self-directed learning in education. Deliberate practice, for example by requiring residents to use ILPs, may facilitate self-directed, lifelong learning.</p

Metformin in women with type 2 diabetes in pregnancy (MiTy): a multicentre, international, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Background: Although metformin is increasingly being used in women with type 2 diabetes during pregnancy, little data exist on the benefits and harms of metformin use on pregnancy outcomes in these women. We aimed to investigate the effects of the addition of metformin to a standard regimen of insulin on neonatal morbidity and mortality in pregnant women with type 2 diabetes. Methods: In this prospective, multicentre, international, randomised, parallel, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial, women with type 2 diabetes during pregnancy were randomly assigned from 25 centres in Canada and four in Australia to receive either metformin 1000 mg twice daily or placebo, added to insulin. Randomisation was done via a web-based computerised randomisation service and stratified by centre and pre-pregnancy BMI (<30 kg/m2 or ≥30 kg/m2) in a ratio of 1:1 using random block sizes of 4 and 6. Women were eligible if they had type 2 diabetes, were on insulin, had a singleton viable pregnancy, and were between 6 and 22 weeks plus 6 days' gestation. Participants were asked to check their fasting blood glucose level before the first meal of the day, before the last meal of the day, and 2 h after each meal. Insulin doses were adjusted aiming for identical glucose targets (fasting glucose <5·3 mmol/L [95 mg/dL], 2-h postprandial glucose <6·7 mmol/L [120 mg/dL]). Study visits were done monthly and patients were seen every 1–4 weeks as was needed for standard clinical care. At study visits blood pressure and bodyweight were measured; patients were asked about tolerance to their pills, any hospitalisations, insulin doses, and severe hypoglycaemia events; and glucometer readings were downloaded to the central coordinating centre. Participants, caregivers, and outcome assessors were masked to the intervention. The primary outcome was a composite of fetal and neonatal outcomes, for which we calculated the relative risk and 95% CI between groups, stratifying by site and BMI using a log-binomial regression model with an intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes included several relevant maternal and neonatal outcomes. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01353391. Findings: Between May 25, 2011, and Oct 11, 2018, we randomly assigned 502 women, 253 (50%) to metformin and 249 (50%) to placebo. Complete data were available for 233 (92%) participants in the metformin group and 240 (96%) in the placebo group for the primary outcome. We found no significant difference in the primary composite neonatal outcome between the two groups (40% vs 40%; p=0·86; relative risk [RR] 1·02 [0·83 to 1·26]). Compared with women in the placebo group, metformin-treated women achieved better glycaemic control (HbA1c at 34 weeks' gestation 41·0 mmol/mol [SD 8·5] vs 43·2 mmol/mol [–10]; 5·90% vs 6·10%; p=0·015; mean glucose 6·05 [0·93] vs 6·27 [0·90]; difference −0·2 [–0·4 to 0·0]), required less insulin (1·1 units per kg per day vs 1·5 units per kg per day; difference −0·4 [95% CI −0·5 to −0·2]; p<0·0001), gained less weight (7·2 kg vs 9·0 kg; difference −1·8 [–2·7 to −0·9]; p<0·0001) and had fewer caesarean births (125 [53%] of 234 in the metformin group vs 148 [63%] of 236 in the placebo group; relative risk [RR] 0·85 [95% CI 0·73 to 0·99]; p=0·031). We found no significant difference between the groups in hypertensive disorders (55 [23%] in the metformin group vs 56 [23%] in the placebo group; p=0·93; RR 0·99 [0·72 to 1·35]). Compared with those in the placebo group, metformin-exposed infants weighed less (mean birthweight 3156 g [SD 742] vs 3375 g [742]; difference −218 [–353 to −82]; p=0·002), fewer were above the 97th centile for birthweight (20 [9%] in the metformin group vs 34 [15%] in the placebo group; RR 0·58 [0·34 to 0·97]; p=0·041), fewer weighed 4000 g or more at birth (28 [12%] in the metformin group vs 44 [19%] in the placebo group; RR 0·65 [0·43 to 0·99]; p=0·046), and metformin-exposed infants had reduced adiposity measures (mean sum of skinfolds 16·0 mm [SD 5·0] vs 17·4 [6·2] mm; difference −1·41 [–2·6 to −0·2]; p=0·024; mean neonatal fat mass 13·2 [SD 6·2] vs 14·6 [5·0]; p=0·017). 30 (13%) infants in the metformin group and 15 (7%) in the placebo group were small for gestational age (RR 1·96 [1·10 to 3·64]; p=0·026). We found no significant difference in the cord c-peptide between groups (673 pmol/L [435] in the metformin group vs 758 pmol/L [595] in the placebo group; p=0·10; ratio of means 0·88 [0·72 to 1·02]). The most common adverse event reported was gastrointestinal (38 events in the metformin group and 38 events in the placebo group). Interpretation: We found several maternal glycaemic and neonatal adiposity benefits in the metformin group. Along with reduced maternal weight gain and insulin dosage and improved glycaemic control, the lower adiposity and infant size measurements resulted in fewer large infants but a higher proportion of small-for-gestational-age infants. Understanding the implications of these effects on infants will be important to properly advise patients who are contemplating the use of metformin during pregnancy.The trial was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada, and the Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field