Internal Medicine Residency Program Director Support and Burnout During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results of a National Survey

Background: Burnout is common among physicians and physician leaders, including residency program directors (PDs). The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and other stressors in 2020 on PDs is unknown. Objective: To measure the prevalence of burnout among internal medicine (IM) residency PDs 6 months into the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A total of 429 IM PDs, representing 83% of accredited residency programs, were surveyed from August to December 2020. Burnout, using a 2-item screening tool, and self-reported consideration of resigning in 2020, were compared to their annual prevalence since 2012 and tested for possible associations with pandemic stressors and program characteristics. Results: The survey response rate was 61.5% (264 of 429). One-third (33.6%, 87 of 259) of PD respondents met burnout criteria, and 45.1% (110 of 244) reported considering resigning in the past year, which were within the range of preceding years. PDs who reported feeling highly supported by institutional leadership were less likely to meet burnout criteria and to have considered resigning. There were no associations between burnout or consideration of resigning and the amount of clinical time PDs spent in their roles, duration of maximum stress on programs, budget cuts to programs, or geographic region. Conclusions: The prevalence of burnout among PDs in fall 2020 was similar to the prevalence of burnout in pre-pandemic years despite uniquely extreme stressors. PDs\u27 perception of being highly supported by institutional leadership was associated with lower prevalence of burnout and consideration of resigning. Perceived leadership support may be a protective factor against burnout during periods of high stress

Benefit-risk assessment and reporting in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations.

ABSTRACT: Chronic pain clinical trials have historically assessed benefit and risk outcomes separately. However, a growing body of research suggests that a composite metric that accounts for benefit and risk in relation to each other can provide valuable insights into the effects of different treatments. Researchers and regulators have developed a variety of benefit-risk composite metrics, although the extent to which these methods apply to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of chronic pain has not been evaluated in the published literature. This article was motivated by an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials consensus meeting and is based on the expert opinion of those who attended. In addition, a review of the benefit-risk assessment tools used in published chronic pain RCTs or highlighted by key professional organizations (ie, Cochrane, European Medicines Agency, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration) was completed. Overall, the review found that benefit-risk metrics are not commonly used in RCTs of chronic pain despite the availability of published methods. A primary recommendation is that composite metrics of benefit-risk should be combined at the level of the individual patient, when possible, in addition to the benefit-risk assessment at the treatment group level. Both levels of analysis (individual and group) can provide valuable insights into the relationship between benefits and risks associated with specific treatments across different patient subpopulations. The systematic assessment of benefit-risk in clinical trials has the potential to enhance the clinical meaningfulness of RCT results