Comparison of prescribing practices for older adults treated by female versus male physicians: A retrospective cohort study

IMPORTANCE: Subtle but important differences have been described in the way that male and female physicians care for their patients, with some evidence suggesting women are more likely to adhere to best practice recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To determine if male and female physicians differ in their prescribing practices as measured by the initiation of lower-than-recommended dose cholinesterase inhibitor (ChEI) drug therapy for dementia management. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: All community-dwelling Ontario residents aged 66 years and older with dementia and newly dispensed an oral ChEI drug (donepezil, galantamine, or rivastigmine) between April 1, 2010 and June 30, 2016 were included. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: The association between physician sex and the initiation of a lower than recommended-dose ChEI was examined using generalized linear mixed regression models, adjusting for patient and physician characteristics. Data were stratified by specialty. Secondary analyses explored the association between physician sex and cardiac screening as well as shorter duration of the initial prescription. RESULTS: The analysis included 3,443 female and 5,811 male physicians and the majority (83%) were family physicians, Female physicians were more likely to initiate ChEI therapy at a lower-than-recommended dose (Adjusted odds ratio = 1.43,95% confidence interval = 1.17 to 1.74). Compared to their male counterparts, female physicians were also more likely to follow other conservative prescribing practices including cardiac screening (55.1% vs. 49.2%, P-value \u3c 0.001) around the time of ChEI initiation, and dispensing a shorter duration of initial prescription (41.8% vs 35.5% P-value \u3c 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There is a statistically significant and important difference in ChEI prescribing patterns between female and male physicians, suggesting that female physicians may be more careful and conservative in their approaches. This will inform future research to determine if patients receiving lower-than-recommended initial doses also have better outcomes

Unplanned readmissions after hospital discharge among patients identified as being at high risk for readmission using a validated predictive algorithm

BACKGROUND: Unplanned hospital readmissions are common, expensive and often preventable. Strategies designed to reduce readmissions should target patients at high risk. The purpose of this study was to describe medical patients identified using a recently published and validated algorithm (the LACE index) as being at high risk for readmission and to examine their actual hospital readmission rates. METHODS: We used population-based administrative data to identify adult medical patients discharged alive from 6 hospitals in Toronto, Canada, during 2007. A LACE index score of 10 or higher was used to identify patients at high risk for readmission. We described patient and hospitalization characteristics among both the high-risk and low-risk groups as well as the 30-day readmission rates. RESULTS: Of 26 045 patients, 12.6% were readmitted to hospital within 30 days and 20.9% were readmitted within 90 days of discharge. High-risk patients (LACE ≥ 10) accounted for 34.0% of the sample but 51.7% of the patients who were readmitted within 30 days. High-risk patients were readmitted with twice the frequency as other patients, had longer lengths of stay and were more likely to die during the readmission. INTERPRETATION: Using a LACE index score of 10, we identified patients with a high rate of readmission who may benefit from improved post-discharge care. Our findings suggest that the LACE index is a potentially useful tool for decision-makers interested in identifying appropriate patients for post-discharge interventions

Poor Reporting of Scientific Leadership Information in Clinical Trial Registers

BACKGROUND: In September 2004, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) issued a Statement requiring that all clinical trials be registered at inception in a public register in order to be considered for publication. The World Health Organization (WHO) and ICMJE have identified 20 items that should be provided before a trial is considered registered, including contact information. Identifying those scientifically responsible for trial conduct increases accountability. The objective is to examine the proportion of registered clinical trials providing valid scientific leadership information. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We reviewed clinical trial entries listing Canadian investigators in the two largest international and public trial registers, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) register, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The main outcome measures were the proportion of clinical trials reporting valid contact information for the trials' Principal Investigator (PI)/Co-ordinating Investigator/Study Chair/Site PI, and trial e-mail contact address, stratified by funding source, recruiting status, and register. A total of 1388 entries (142 from ISRCTN and 1246 from ClinicalTrials.gov) comprised our sample. We found non-compliance with mandatory registration requirements regarding scientific leadership and trial contact information. Non-industry and partial industry funded trials were significantly more likely to identify the individual responsible for scientific leadership (OR = 259, 95% CI: 95-701) and to provide a contact e-mail address (OR = 9.6, 95% CI: 6.6-14) than were solely industry funded trials. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Despite the requirements set by WHO and ICMJE, data on scientific leadership and contact e-mail addresses are frequently omitted from clinical trials registered in the two leading public clinical trial registers. To promote accountability and transparency in clinical trials research, public clinical trials registers should ensure adequate monitoring of trial registration to ensure completion of mandatory contact information fields identifying scientific leadership

Depression rating scales for detection of major depression in people with dementia

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To identify the accuracy of depression rating scales as screening tools for detecting DpD and compare the diagnostic accuracy of different depression rating scales for detecting MDD among adults with Alzheimer's disease and related forms of dementia. To examine factors that may impact on the accuracy of depression rating scales that are used to diagnose depression. We will examine the reference standard used for verification of DpD, baseline prevalence of DpD in the study population, age of the underlying study population, gender of participants, type of dementia (any-cause dementia versus Alzheimer’s disease), study setting (community or primary care setting, long-term care, tertiary care setting), and study country as potential sources of heterogeneity. We will also evaluate the effects of using different cut-points of individual depression rating scales on the diagnostic accuracy of the scales

Representation of women's health in general medical versus women's health specialty journals: a content analysis

BACKGROUND: Women's health, traditionally defined, emphasises reproductive and maternal conditions without consideration of social contexts. Advocates urge a broader conceptualisation. The medical literature influences the definitions and delivery of women's health care. We compared how women's health was represented in leading general medical (GM) versus women's health specialty (WS) journals. METHODS: Original investigations published between January 1 – June 30, 1999 in leading GM (n = 514) and WS (n = 82) journals were compared. Data were collected from 99 GM and 82 WS articles on women's health. Independent reviewers conducted content analyses of sample characteristics, study design, and health topic. Each article was classified as "Traditional" (e.g. menstruation, breast cancer), "Non-traditional" (e.g. abuse, osteoporosis), or "Both." RESULTS: Of the GM articles, 53 (53.5%) focused solely on a traditional women's health topic; half were reproductive and half female cancers. In contrast, 22 (26.8%) WS articles were traditionally focused. A non-traditional topic was the sole focus of 27 (27.3%) GM articles versus 34 (41.5%) WS articles. One-fifth of GM and one-third of WS articles addressed both. RCTs dominated the GM articles, while 40% of WS articles used qualitative or mixed study designs. Leading sources of women's death and disability were not well covered in either type of journal. CONCLUSIONS: Most GM articles drew on a narrow definition of women's health. WS journals provided more balanced coverage, addressing social concerns in addition to "navel-to-knees" women's health. Since GM journals have wide impact, editorial decisions and peer review processes should promote a broader conceptualisation of women's health

Investigator experiences with financial conflicts of interest in clinical trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Financial conflicts of interest (fCOI) can introduce actions that bias clinical trial results and reduce their objectivity. We obtained information from investigators about adherence to practices that minimize the introduction of such bias in their clinical trials experience.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Email survey of clinical trial investigators from Canadian sites to learn about adherence to practices that help maintain research independence across all stages of trial preparation, conduct, and dissemination. The main outcome was the proportion of investigators that reported full adherence to preferred trial practices for all of their trials conducted from 2001-2006, stratified by funding source.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>844 investigators responded (76%) and 732 (66%) provided useful information. Full adherence to preferred clinical trial practices was highest for institutional review of signed contracts and budgets (82% and 75% of investigators respectively). Lower rates of full adherence were reported for the other two practices in the trial preparation stage (avoidance of confidentiality clauses, 12%; trial registration after 2005, 39%). Lower rates of full adherence were reported for 7 practices in the trial conduct (35% to 43%) and dissemination (53% to 64%) stages, particularly in industry funded trials. 269 investigators personally experienced (n = 85) or witnessed (n = 236) a fCOI; over 70% of these situations related to industry trials.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Full adherence to practices designed to promote the objectivity of research varied across trial stages and was low overall, particularly for industry funded trials.</p