BRIEF REPORT: Multiprogram Evaluation of Reading Habits of Primary Care Internal Medicine Residents on Ambulatory Rotations

OBJECTIVE: To assess the reading habits and educational resources of primary care internal medicine residents for their ambulatory medicine education. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, multiprogram survey of primary care internal medicine residents. PARTICIPANTS/SETTING: Second- and third-year residents on ambulatory care rotations at 9 primary care medicine programs (124 eligible residents; 71% response rate). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Participants were asked open-ended and 5-point Likert-scaled questions about reading habits: time spent reading, preferred resources, and motivating and inhibiting factors. Participants reported reading medical topics for a mean of 4.3 ± 3.0 SD hours weekly. Online-only sources were the most frequently utilized medical resource (mean Likert response 4.16 ± 0.87). Respondents most commonly cited specific patients' cases (4.38 ± 0.65) and preparation for talks (4.08 ± 0.89) as motivating factors, and family responsibilities (3.99 ± 0.65) and lack of motivation (3.93 ± 0.81) as inhibiting factors. CONCLUSIONS: To stimulate residents' reading, residency programs should encourage patient- and case-based learning; require teaching assignments; and provide easy access to online curricula

Changing Habits of Practice: Transforming Internal Medicine Residency Education in Ambulatory Settings

PURPOSE: The majority of health care, both for acute and chronic conditions, is delivered in the ambulatory setting. Despite repeated proposals for change, the majority of internal medicine residency training still occurs in the inpatient setting. Substantial changes in ambulatory education are needed to correct the current imbalance. To assist educators and policy makers in this process, this paper reviews the literature on ambulatory education and makes recommendations for change. METHODS: The authors searched the Medline, Psychlit, and ERIC databases from 2000 to 2004 for studies that focused specifically on curriculum, teaching, and evaluation of internal medicine residents in the ambulatory setting to update previous reviews. Studies had to contain primary data and were reviewed for methodological rigor and relevance. RESULTS: Fifty-five studies met criteria for review. Thirty-five of the studies focused on specific curricular areas and 11 on ambulatory teaching methods. Five involved evaluating performance and 4 focused on structural issues. No study evaluated the overall effectiveness of ambulatory training or investigated the effects of current resident continuity clinic microsystems on education. CONCLUSION: This updated review continues to identify key deficiencies in ambulatory training curriculum and faculty skills. The authors make several recommendations: (1) Make training in the ambulatory setting a priority. (2) Address systems problems in practice environments. (3) Create learning experiences appropriate to the resident's level of development. (4) Teach and evaluate in the examination room. (5) Expand subspecialty-based training to the ambulatory setting. (6) Make faculty development a priority. (7) Create and fund multiinstitutional educational research consortia

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health