The Jefferson Scale of Empathy: a nationwide study of measurement properties, underlying components, latent variable structure, and national norms in medical students.

The Jefferson Scale of Empathy (JSE) is a broadly used instrument developed to measure empathy in the context of health professions education and patient care. Evidence in support of psychometrics of the JSE has been reported in health professions students and practitioners with the exception of osteopathic medical students. This study was designed to examine measurement properties, underlying components, and latent variable structure of the JSE in a nationwide sample of first-year matriculants at U.S. colleges of osteopathic medicine, and to develop a national norm table for the assessment of JSE scores. A web-based survey was administered at the beginning of the 2017-2018 academic year which included the JSE, a scale to detect good impression responses, and demographic/background information. Usable surveys were received from 6009 students enrolled in 41 college campuses (median response rate = 92%). The JSE mean score and standard deviation for the sample were 116.54 and 10.85, respectively. Item-total score correlations were positive and statistically significant (p \u3c 0.01), and Cronbach α = 0.82. Significant gender differences were observed on the JSE scores in favor of women. Also, significant differences were found on item scores between top and bottom third scorers on the JSE. Three factors of Perspective Taking, Compassionate Care, and Walking in Patient\u27s Shoes emerged in an exploratory factor analysis by using half of the sample. Results of confirmatory factor analysis with another half of the sample confirmed the 3-factor model. We also developed a national norm table which is the first to assess students\u27 JSE scores against national data

Attitudes toward osteopathic medicine scale: development and psychometrics

Objective: To develop a valid and reliable instrument for measuring attitudes toward osteopathic medicine. Methods: Participants included 5,669 first-year students from 33 U.S. colleges of osteopathic medicine, who completed an online survey at the beginning of the 2019-2020 academic year. Using data from the nationwide Project in Osteopathic Medical Education and Empathy, we developed a 13-item instrument: Attitudes Toward Osteopathic Medicine Scale (ATOMS) and demonstrated the validity and reliability of its scores. The social desirability response bias was controlled in statistical analyses. Results: The corrected item-total score correlations were all positive and statistically significant, and the effect sizes of item discrimination indices were large. Cronbach\u27s coefficient alpha reliability was 0.83. Construct validity, corroborating face and content validity of the ATOMS, was supported by three components, emerged from factor analysis: Perspectives on Osteopathic Medicine, Osteopathic Diagnosis and Treatment, and Holistic-Integrative Care. Correlations between ATOMS scores and scores of cognitive empathy, emotional empathy; orientation toward interprofessional collaboration; lifelong learning; and burnout were statistically significant in the expected direction, providing validity evidence for the ATOMS. Using the method of contrasted groups, significant differences in the ATOMS scores were found by gender, ethnicity, academic background, and career interest in the expected direction, supporting the validity of the ATOMS scores. National norms were developed to assess individual scores alongside national percentile ranks. Conclusions: The ATOMS, developed in a nationwide study, supported by strong psychometric evidence for measuring orientation toward osteopathic medicine, has implications for the assessment of osteopathic medical education, patient outcomes, and admission decisions

Determining Frequent Patterns of Copy Number Alterations in Cancer

Cancer progression is often driven by an accumulation of genetic changes but also accompanied by increasing genomic instability. These processes lead to a complicated landscape of copy number alterations (CNAs) within individual tumors and great diversity across tumor samples. High resolution array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) is being used to profile CNAs of ever larger tumor collections, and better computational methods for processing these data sets and identifying potential driver CNAs are needed. Typical studies of aCGH data sets take a pipeline approach, starting with segmentation of profiles, calls of gains and losses, and finally determination of frequent CNAs across samples. A drawback of pipelines is that choices at each step may produce different results, and biases are propagated forward. We present a mathematically robust new method that exploits probe-level correlations in aCGH data to discover subsets of samples that display common CNAs. Our algorithm is related to recent work on maximum-margin clustering. It does not require pre-segmentation of the data and also provides grouping of recurrent CNAs into clusters. We tested our approach on a large cohort of glioblastoma aCGH samples from The Cancer Genome Atlas and recovered almost all CNAs reported in the initial study. We also found additional significant CNAs missed by the original analysis but supported by earlier studies, and we identified significant correlations between CNAs

A cross-sectional study of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on an ophthalmology consult service in four Michigan community hospitals

Purpose: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, private practice, inpatient consult services, and academic residency programs in ophthalmology saw a decrease in patient encounters. This study elucidates how community hospital ophthalmology consult (OC) services were affected during the pandemic. We aim to determine whether there was a change in resident OC volume in a community-based ophthalmology program consult service during the COVID-19 pandemic. Secondary objectives included analyzing the change in the types of diagnoses and the number of patients seen for diabetic retinopathy over the same time. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted reviewing the electronic health record (EHR) charts from OCs for the period 2017–2021. Records were categorized by referral source and the nature of OCs (trauma, acute, or chronic); OCs were further grouped by year and weak of referral. An intermonth analysis of weekly OC counts in each category was performed for the average number of consults in February–April 2017–2019 and for February–April 2020. A one-tailed t-test was performed. All t-tests assumed equal variances. Results: Weekly OCs in 2020 revealed no statistically significant differences in overall cases or in acute or chronic cases when the volume before the COVID-19 pandemic was compared to the volume after the onset of the pandemic. However, a statistically significant increase in the average weekly trauma cases was noted when 2020 (an average of 2.7 cases per week) was compared to the weekly average for the same weeks of years 2017– 2019 (0.4; P = 0.016). This statistically significant increase in trauma in 2020 disappeared when comparing weeks 11–17 in 2020 (2.2 cases per week) and the average of 2017–2019 (1.1).Conclusion: This report outlines no significant change in OCs before and after the onset of the pandemic compared to three previous years. There was, however, an increase in trauma consults during the pandemic and an increase in the number (though not the proportion) of diabetic retinopathy (DR+) patients seen by residents. This report uniquely describes no significant changes in the resident volume of patients seen during the COVID-19 global pandemic