Comparison of Osteopathic and Allopathic Medical Schools' Support for Primary Care

OBJECTIVE: To contrast prevailing behaviors and attitudes relative to primary care education and practice in osteopathic and allopathic medical schools. DESIGN: Descriptive study using confidential telephone interviews conducted in 1993–94. Analyses compared responses of osteopaths and allopaths, controlling for primary care orientation. SETTING: United States academic health centers. PARTICIPANTS: National stratified probability samples of first-year and fourth-year medical students, postgraduate year 2 residents, and clinical faculty in osteopathic and allopathic medical schools, a sample of allopathic deans, and a census of deans of osteopathic schools (n =457 osteopaths; n =2,045 allopaths). MEASUREMENTS: Survey items assessed personal characteristics, students' reasons for entering medicine, learners' primary care educational experiences, community support for primary care, and attitudes toward the clinical and academic competence of primary care physicians. MAIN RESULTS: Primary care physicians composed a larger fraction of the faculty in osteopathic schools than in allopathic schools. Members of the osteopathic community were significantly more likely than their allopathic peers to describe themselves as socioemotionally oriented rather than technoscientifically oriented. Osteopathic learners were more likely than allopathic learners to have educational experiences in primary care venues and with primary care faculty, and to receive encouragement from faculty, including specialists, to enter primary care. Attitudes toward the clinical and academic competence of primary care physicians were consistently negative in both communities. Differences between communities were sustained after controlling for primary care orientation. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with allopathic schools, the cultural practices and educational structures in osteopathic medical schools better support the production of primary care physicians. However, there is a lack of alignment between attitudes and practices in the osteopathic community

Variation in Predictors of Primary Care Career Choice by Year and Stage of Training: A National Survey

CONTEXT: It is not known whether factors associated with primary care career choice affect trainees differently at different times or stages of medical education. OBJECTIVE: To examine how role models, encouragement, and personal characteristics affect career choice at different stages (medical school vs residency) and periods (1994 vs 1997) of training. DESIGN: A split-panel design with 2 cross-sectional telephone surveys and a panel survey in 1994 and 1997. PARTICIPANTS: A national probability sample of fourth-year students (307 in 1994, 219 in 1997), 645 second-year residents in 1994, and 494 third-year residents in 1997. Of the fourth-year students interviewed in 1994, 241 (78.5%) were re-interviewed as third-year residents in 1997. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Primary care (general internal medicine, general pediatrics, or family medicine) career choice. RESULTS: Having a primary care role model was a stronger predictor of primary care career choice for residents (odds ratio [OR], 18.0; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 11.2 to 28.8 in 1994; OR, 43.7; 95% CI, 24.4 to 78.3 in 1997) than for students (OR, 6.5; 95% CI, 4.3 to 10.2; no variation by year). Likewise, peer encouragement was more predictive for residents (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 3.3 to 8.9 in 1994; OR, 16.6; 95% CI; 9 .7 to 28.4 in 1997) than for students (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.2; no variation by year). Orientation to the emotional aspects of care was consistently associated with primary care career choice across stages and years of training. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of peer encouragement and role models on career choice differed for students and residents and, in the case of residents, by year of training, suggesting that interventions to increase the primary care workforce should be tailored to stage of training

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field