I need more knowledge : Qualitative Analysis of Oncology Providers\u27 Experiences with Sexual and Gender Minority Patients

Background: While societal acceptance for sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals is increasing, this group continues to face barriers to quality healthcare. Little is known about clinicians\u27 experiences with SGM patients in the oncology setting. To address this, a mixed method survey was administered to members of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group. Materials and methods: We report results from the open-ended portion of the survey. Four questions asked clinicians to describe experiences with SGM patients, reservations in caring for them, suggestions for improvement in SGM cancer care, and additional comments. Data were analyzed using content analysis and the constant comparison method. Results: The majority of respondents noted they had no or little familiarity with SGM patients. A minority of respondents noted experience with gay and lesbian patients, but not transgender patients; many who reported experience with transgender patients also noted difficulty navigating the correct use of pronouns. Many respondents also highlighted positive experiences with SGM patients. Suggestions for improvement in SGM cancer care included providing widespread training, attending to unique end-of-life care issues among SGM patients, and engaging in efforts to build trust. Conclusion: Clinicians have minimal experiences with SGM patients with cancer but desire training. Training the entire workforce may improve trust with, outreach efforts to, and cancer care delivery to the SGM community

Pathophysiology of Rejection in Kidney Transplantation

Kidney transplantation has been the optimal treatment for end-stage kidney disease for almost 70 years, with increasing frequency over this period. Despite the prevalence of the procedure, allograft rejection continues to impact transplant recipients, with consequences ranging from hospitalization to allograft failure. Rates of rejection have declined over time, which has been largely attributed to developments in immunosuppressive therapy, understanding of the immune system, and monitoring. Developments in these therapies, as well as an improved understanding of rejection risk and the epidemiology of rejection, are dependent on a foundational understanding of the pathophysiology of rejection. This review explains the interconnected mechanisms behind antibody-mediated and T-cell-mediated rejection and highlights how these processes contribute to outcomes and can inform future progress

The relationship between neurocognitive decline and the heart‐lung machine

Surgery involving the use of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) has long been associated with cerebral changes and may also contribute to adverse neurocognitive outcomes. However, there is a debate as to whether bypass itself is responsible for these changes. We conducted a systematic literature review on PubMed, supplementing our work with recent articles from other sources to examine the current evidence on neurocognitive decline associated with CPB. While surgeries involving CPB appear to be associated with cerebral changes and potentially with neurocognitive decline, it is unclear as to whether decline is related to the procedure itself. It is possible that the impacts of CPB can be more readily observed among individuals with preoperative cognitive impairment. It is thus important to screen for subtle and more apparent preoperative cognitive impairment as a risk factor for adverse outcomes. Further research, comparing on‐pump and off‐pump cohorts and involving intensive screening of preoperative cognitive decline, is indicated to elucidate the true neurocognitive consequences of the heart‐lung machine

Cancer and the LGBTQ Population: Quantitative and Qualitative Results from an Oncology Providers’ Survey on Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice Behaviors

Background: Despite growing social acceptance, the LGBTQ population continues to face barriers to healthcare including fear of stigmatization by healthcare providers, and providers’ lack of knowledge about LGBTQ-specific health issues. This analysis focuses on the assessment of quantitative and qualitative responses from a subset of providers who identified as specialists that treat one or more of the seven cancers that may be disproportionate in LGBTQ patients. Methods: A 32-item web-based survey was emailed to 388 oncology providers at a single institution. The survey assessed: demographics, knowledge, attitudes, and practice behaviors. Results: Oncology providers specializing in seven cancer types had poor knowledge of LGBTQ-specific health needs, with fewer than half of the surveyed providers (49.5%) correctly answering knowledge questions. Most providers had overall positive attitudes toward LGBTQ patients, with 91.7% agreeing they would be comfortable treating this population, and would support education and/or training on LGBTQ-related cancer health issues. Conclusion: Results suggest that despite generally positive attitudes toward the LGBTQ population, oncology providers who treat cancer types most prevalent among the population, lack knowledge of their unique health issues. Knowledge and practice behaviors may improve with enhanced education and training on this population’s specific needs

Assessing Medical Students’ Attitudes and Knowledge Regarding LGBTQ Health Needs Across the United States

Background: The lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) community experiences health disparities. It is thus imperative that medical trainees receive training in the care of LGBTQ community. The objective of this study was to identify gaps in knowledge and comfort among medical school students in providing care for the LGBTQ community. Methods: An online survey was administered to medical students at 3 institutions in the United States from December 2020 to March 2021. Using a Likert scale, the survey assessed attitudes, comfort, and knowledge in providing care for the LGBTQ community. The survey included questions for each specific LGBTQ population. Results were quantified using descriptive and stratified analyses, and an exploratory factor analysis was used to calculate attitude summary measure (ASM) scores. A total knowledge score was calculated, with higher values indicating greater knowledge. Results: Among the 300 medical students who completed the survey, the majority were female (55.7%), White (54.7%), and heterosexual (64.3%). The majority of medical students felt comfortable (strongly agree/agree) participating in the care of lesbian (94.3%), gay (96.0%), and bisexual (96.3%) patients; this percentage dropped to 82.3% for non-binary and 71.3% for transgender patients. Only 27.0% of medical students reported confidence in their knowledge of health needs of transgender patients. LGBTQ self-identification, percent of core rotations completed in school, region of country, and friends and/or family who are part of the LGBTQ community were significantly associated with various ASM scores. Knowledge questions yielded high percentages of “neutral” responses, and medical students who identified as LGBTQ had significantly higher total knowledge scores. Conclusions: Overall, the surveyed medical students feel comfortable and willing to provide care for LGBTQ persons. But, there is limited knowledge about specific LGBTQ health needs. More education and training in the needs of transgender and non-binary patients, in particular, is indicated

Assessment of cardiovascular risk of new drugs for the treatment of diabetes mellitus: risk assessment vs. risk aversion.

The Food and Drug Administration issued guidance for evaluating the cardiovascular risk of new diabetes mellitus drugs in 2008. Accumulating evidence from several completed trials conducted within this framework raises questions as to whether requiring safety outcome studies for all new diabetes mellitus therapies remains justified. Given the burden of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes, the focus should shift towards cardiovascular outcome studies designed to evaluate efficacy (i.e. to determine the efficacy of a drug over placebo or standard care) rather than demonstrating that risk is not increased by a pre-specified safety margin. All stakeholders are responsible for ensuring that new drug approvals occur under conditions of appropriate safety and effectiveness. It is also a shared responsibility to avoid unnecessary hurdles that may compromise access to useful drugs and threaten the sustainability of health systems. It is critical to renew this debate so that stakeholders can collectively determine the optimal approach for developing new drugs to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus

sj-docx-1-jpc-10.1177_21501319231186729 – Supplemental material for Assessing Medical Students’ Attitudes and Knowledge Regarding LGBTQ Health Needs Across the United States

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jpc-10.1177_21501319231186729 for Assessing Medical Students’ Attitudes and Knowledge Regarding LGBTQ Health Needs Across the United States by Hannah C. Karpel, Amani Sampson, Mia Charifson, Lydia A. Fein, Devin Murphy, Megan Sutter, Christina L. Tamargo, Gwendolyn P. Quinn and Matthew B. Schabath in Journal of Primary Care & Community Health</p

Assessment of cardiovascular risk of new drugs for the treatment of diabetes mellitus: risk assessment vs. risk aversion

The Food and Drug Administration issued guidance for evaluating the cardiovascular risk of new diabetes mellitus drugs in 2008. Accumulating evidence from several completed trials conducted within this framework raises questions as to whether requiring safety outcome studies for all new diabetes mellitus therapies remains justified. Given the burden of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes, the focus should shift towards cardiovascular outcome studies designed to evaluate efficacy (i.e. to determine the efficacy of a drug over placebo or standard care) rather than demonstrating that risk is not increased by a pre-specified safety margin. All stakeholders are responsible for ensuring that new drug approvals occur under conditions of appropriate safety and effectiveness. It is also a shared responsibility to avoid unnecessary hurdles that may compromise access to useful drugs and threaten the sustainability of health systems. It is critical to renew this debate so that stakeholders can collectively determine the optimal approach for developing new drugs to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus.status: publishe