Oncology Fellows' Career Plans, Expectations, and Well-Being: Do Fellows Know What They Are Getting Into?

To evaluate the career plans, professional expectations, and well-being of oncology fellows compared with actual experiences of practicing oncologists

Temporal, Location- and Symptom-Specific Likelihood of Patient-Reported Sensory Symptoms Related to Oxaliplatin-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy (OIPN) in Patients Receiving Oxaliplatin for Three Months

While oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy (OIPN) is more common and severe in patients who receive the previous standard, 6-month oxaliplatin-based treatment, we hypothesized that OIPN was still pervasive in patients who received shorter, 3-month-treatment regimens. Using six EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 questions that quantify numbness (N), tingling (T) and shooting/burning pain (P) in upper/lower distal extremities, our aim is to quantify patient-reported responses over 3 months (6 cycles) of oxaliplatin regarding symptom-specific timing, location and severity. For each question, patients were asked how each of the sensory symptoms had affected them during the preceding week, with 1 = “Not at all”, 2 = “A little”, 3 = “Quite a bit” and 4 = “Very much”. The proportional odds model for the cumulative log odds of response that allowed symptom-specific patient heterogeneity to be obtained was applied to a pooled dataset from the placebo arms of two multisite OIPN prevention trials and fit separately to the upper/lower distal extremities. For each symptom, we report the cycle-specific marginal probabilities for each response. In 141 patients, substantial patient heterogeneity in the likelihood, at a given cycle, of a more severe response for a symptom was present. Distinct patterns in the probabilities for each response over time for N and T were observed between the upper/lower distal extremities, while the probabilities of a response >1 for P was largely negligible in both locations. Despite the decrease in exposure to oxaliplatin from 6 to 3 months, OIPN was still pervasive with patients experiencing considerable N and T in the fingers (or hands) and toes (or feet)

A randomized, controlled study of an online intervention to promote job satisfaction and well-being among physicians

Although burnout, poor quality of life (QOL), depression, and other forms of psychological distress are common among physicians, few studies testing interventions to reduce distress have been reported. We conducted a randomized trial to determine the impact of a 10-week, individualized, online intervention on well-being among physicians (n = 290). Participants were randomized to either the intervention or control arm. Those in the intervention arm received a menu of self-directed micro-tasks once a week for 10 weeks, and were asked to select and complete one task weekly. Baseline and end-of-study questionnaires evaluating well-being (i.e., burnout, depression, QOL, fatigue) and professional satisfaction (i.e., job satisfaction, work engagement, meaning in work, and satisfaction with work-life balance) were administered to both arms. Overall quality of life and fatigue improved over the 10 weeks of the study for those in the intervention arm (both p < 0.01). When compared to the control arm, however, no statistically significant improvement in these dimensions of well-being was observed. At the completion of the study, those in the intervention arm were more likely to report participating in the study was worthwhile compared to those in the control arm. The findings suggest that although participants found the micro-tasks in the intervention arm worthwhile, they did not result in measurable improvements in well-being or professional satisfaction when compared to the control group. These results also highlight the critical importance of an appropriate control group in studies evaluating interventions to address physician burnout and distress

An Interactive Individualized Intervention to Promote Behavioral Change to Increase Personal Well-Being in US Surgeons

ObjectiveEvaluate the utility of a computer-based, interactive, and individualized intervention for promoting well-being in US surgeons.BackgroundDistress and burnout are common among US surgeons. Surgeons experiencing distress are unlikely to seek help on their own initiative. A belief that distress and burnout are a normal part of being a physician and lack of awareness of distress level relative to colleagues may contribute to this problem.MethodsSurgeons who were members of the American College of Surgeons were invited to participate in an intervention study. Participating surgeons completed a 3-step, interactive, electronic intervention. First, surgeons subjectively assessed their well-being relative to colleagues. Second, surgeons completed the 7-item Mayo Clinic Physician Well-Being Index and received objective, individualized feedback about their well-being relative to national physician norms. Third, surgeons evaluated the usefulness of the feedback and whether they intended to make specific changes as a result.ResultsA total of 1150 US surgeons volunteered to participate in the study. Surgeons' subjective assessment of their well-being relative to colleagues was poor. A majority of surgeons (89.2%) believed that their well-being was at or above average, including 70.5% with scores in the bottom 30% relative to national norms. After receiving objective, individualized feedback based on the Mayo Clinic Physician Well-Being Index score, 46.6% of surgeons indicated that they intended to make specific changes as a result. Surgeons with lower well-being scores were more likely to make changes in each dimension assessed (all Ps&lt;0.001).ConclusionsUS surgeons do not reliably calibrate their level of distress. After self-assessment and individualized feedback using the Mayo Clinic Physician Well-Being Index, half of participating surgeons reported that they were contemplating behavioral changes to improve personal well-being

The Complementary Nature of Patient-Reported Outcomes and Adverse Event Reporting in Cooperative Group Oncology Clinical Trials: A Pooled Analysis (NCCTG N0591)

CONTEXT: Clinical trials use clinician-graded adverse events (AEs) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to describe symptoms. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to examine the agreement between PROs and AEs in the clinical trial setting. METHODS: Patient-level data were pooled from seven North Central Cancer Treatment Group, two Southwest Oncology Group, and three Radiation Therapy Oncology Group lung studies that included both PROs and AE data. Ten-point changes (on a 0-100 scale) in PRO scores were considered clinically significant differences (CSDs). PRO score changes were compared to AE grade (Gr) categories (2+ yes vs. no and 3+ yes vs. no) using Wilcoxon rank-sum or two-sample t-tests between Gr categories. Incidence rates and concordance of CSD in PRO scores and AE Gr categories were compiled. Spearman correlations were computed between PRO scores and AE severity. RESULTS: PROs completed by patients (n = 1013) were the Uniscale, Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L), Symptom Distress Scale, and/or Functional Living Index-Cancer. Significantly worse PRO score changes were found for the FACT-L in patients with Gr 2+ AEs. Worse scores were seen for the Uniscale for patients with Gr 2+ AEs (P = 0.07) and LCSS for patients with Gr 3+ AEs (P = 0.09). Agreement between incidence of any Gr 2+ (Gr 3+) AE and a CSD in PROs ranged from 27% to 67% (36%-61%). Correlations between PRO scores and AE severity were low: -0.06 Uniscale, -0.03 LCSS, 0.10 FACT-L, -0.11 Symptom Distress Scale, and -0.51 Functional Living Index-Cancer. CONCLUSION: These results support previous work and an a priori hypothesis that AEs and PROs measure differing aspects of the disease experience and are complementary

Additional file 1: of Parental satisfaction of U.S. physicians: associated factors and comparison with the general U.S. working population

Survey Questions Related to Parental Satisfaction. Figure S1. Physicians’ Satisfaction with Relationship with Children. A. Satisfaction with Relationship with Children by Gender. B. Satisfaction with Relationship with Children by Age. C. Satisfaction with Relationship with Children by Relationship status. D. Satisfaction with Relationship with Children by Hours worked/wk. E. Satisfaction Relationship with Children by nights on call/week. F. Satisfaction Relationship with Children by Specialty. G. Satisfaction Relationship with Children by practice setting. H. Satisfaction Relationship with Children by method compensation. Table S1. Demographic Characteristics of Population Sample of Parents. (DOCX 73 kb