User login
Surgeon’s license suspension spotlights hazards, ethics of live-streaming surgeries
potentially endangering patients. The surgeon has a large social media following.
In November, the State Medical Board of Ohio temporarily suspended the license of Katherine Roxanne Grawe, MD, who practices in the wealthy Columbus suburb of Powell.
Among other accusations of misconduct, the board stated that “during some videos/live-streams you engage in dialogue to respond to viewers’ online questions while the surgical procedure remains actively ongoing.”
One patient needed emergency treatment following liposuction and was diagnosed with a perforated bowel and serious bacterial infection.
“Despite liposuction being a blind surgery that requires awareness of the tip of the cannula to avoid injury, your attention to the camera meant at those moments you were not looking at the patient or palpating the location of the tip of the cannula,” the medical board said.
Neither Dr. Grawe nor her attorney responded to requests for comment.
Dr. Grawe, known as “Dr. Roxy,” has a popular TikTok account – now set to private – with 841,600 followers and 14.6 million likes. She has another 123,000 followers on her Instagram account, also now private.
The Columbus Dispatch reported that Dr. Grawe had previously been warned to protect patient privacy on social media. The board has yet to make a final decision regarding her license.
According to Columbus TV station WSYX, she said in a TikTok video, “We show our surgeries every single day on Snapchat. Patients get to decide if they want to be part of it. And if you do, you can watch your own surgery.”
The TV station quoted former patients who described surgical complications. One said: “I went to her because, I thought, from all of her social media that she uplifted women. That she helped women empower themselves. But she didn’t.”
Dallas plastic surgeon Rod J. Rohrich, MD, who has written about social-media best practices and has 430,000 followers on Instagram, said in an interview that many surgeons have been reprimanded by state medical boards for being distracted by social media during procedures.
“It is best not to do live-streaming unless it is an educational event to demonstrate techniques and technology with full informed consent of the patient. It should be a very well-rehearsed event for education,” he said.
Nurses also have been disciplined for inappropriate posts on social media. In December 2022, an Atlanta hospital announced that four nurses were no longer on the job after they appeared in a TikTok video in scrubs and revealed their “icks” regarding obstetric care.
“My ick is when you ask me how much the baby weighs,” one worker said in the video, “and it’s still ... in your hands.”
Plastic surgeon Christian J. Vercler, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who’s studied social-media guidelines for surgeons, said in an interview that plastic surgery content on TikTok has “blown up” in recent years.
“Five years or so ago, it was Snapchat where I saw a lot of inappropriate things posted by surgeons,” Dr. Vercler said in an interview. “That may still be happening on Snapchat, but I actually don’t ever use that platform anymore, and neither do my trainees.”
Dr. Vercler cautioned colleagues to consider their motivations for live-streaming surgery and to think about whether they can fully focus on the patient.
“There are many potential distractions in the OR. We get pages, phone calls, nurses asking us questions, anesthesiologists trying to talk to us. Social media is just one more thing competing for the surgeon’s attention,” he said. “Every surgeon should strive to eliminate unnecessary or unavoidable distractions, so the question becomes, ‘who is best being served by me focusing my attention on recording this operation on someone’s phone so we can post it on social media? Is it the patient?’ ”
Dr. Vercler added, “There are many, many plastic surgeons using social media as the powerful platform that it is to build their brands, to connect with potential patients, and to educate the public about what they do. I believe that most are doing this in a way that is respectful to patients and doesn’t exploit patients for the surgeon’s benefit.
“Unfortunately,” he concluded, “there are some who do see patients as merely instruments by which they can achieve fame, notoriety, and wealth.”
Dr. Rohrich and Dr. Vercler disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
potentially endangering patients. The surgeon has a large social media following.
In November, the State Medical Board of Ohio temporarily suspended the license of Katherine Roxanne Grawe, MD, who practices in the wealthy Columbus suburb of Powell.
Among other accusations of misconduct, the board stated that “during some videos/live-streams you engage in dialogue to respond to viewers’ online questions while the surgical procedure remains actively ongoing.”
One patient needed emergency treatment following liposuction and was diagnosed with a perforated bowel and serious bacterial infection.
“Despite liposuction being a blind surgery that requires awareness of the tip of the cannula to avoid injury, your attention to the camera meant at those moments you were not looking at the patient or palpating the location of the tip of the cannula,” the medical board said.
Neither Dr. Grawe nor her attorney responded to requests for comment.
Dr. Grawe, known as “Dr. Roxy,” has a popular TikTok account – now set to private – with 841,600 followers and 14.6 million likes. She has another 123,000 followers on her Instagram account, also now private.
The Columbus Dispatch reported that Dr. Grawe had previously been warned to protect patient privacy on social media. The board has yet to make a final decision regarding her license.
According to Columbus TV station WSYX, she said in a TikTok video, “We show our surgeries every single day on Snapchat. Patients get to decide if they want to be part of it. And if you do, you can watch your own surgery.”
The TV station quoted former patients who described surgical complications. One said: “I went to her because, I thought, from all of her social media that she uplifted women. That she helped women empower themselves. But she didn’t.”
Dallas plastic surgeon Rod J. Rohrich, MD, who has written about social-media best practices and has 430,000 followers on Instagram, said in an interview that many surgeons have been reprimanded by state medical boards for being distracted by social media during procedures.
“It is best not to do live-streaming unless it is an educational event to demonstrate techniques and technology with full informed consent of the patient. It should be a very well-rehearsed event for education,” he said.
Nurses also have been disciplined for inappropriate posts on social media. In December 2022, an Atlanta hospital announced that four nurses were no longer on the job after they appeared in a TikTok video in scrubs and revealed their “icks” regarding obstetric care.
“My ick is when you ask me how much the baby weighs,” one worker said in the video, “and it’s still ... in your hands.”
Plastic surgeon Christian J. Vercler, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who’s studied social-media guidelines for surgeons, said in an interview that plastic surgery content on TikTok has “blown up” in recent years.
“Five years or so ago, it was Snapchat where I saw a lot of inappropriate things posted by surgeons,” Dr. Vercler said in an interview. “That may still be happening on Snapchat, but I actually don’t ever use that platform anymore, and neither do my trainees.”
Dr. Vercler cautioned colleagues to consider their motivations for live-streaming surgery and to think about whether they can fully focus on the patient.
“There are many potential distractions in the OR. We get pages, phone calls, nurses asking us questions, anesthesiologists trying to talk to us. Social media is just one more thing competing for the surgeon’s attention,” he said. “Every surgeon should strive to eliminate unnecessary or unavoidable distractions, so the question becomes, ‘who is best being served by me focusing my attention on recording this operation on someone’s phone so we can post it on social media? Is it the patient?’ ”
Dr. Vercler added, “There are many, many plastic surgeons using social media as the powerful platform that it is to build their brands, to connect with potential patients, and to educate the public about what they do. I believe that most are doing this in a way that is respectful to patients and doesn’t exploit patients for the surgeon’s benefit.
“Unfortunately,” he concluded, “there are some who do see patients as merely instruments by which they can achieve fame, notoriety, and wealth.”
Dr. Rohrich and Dr. Vercler disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
potentially endangering patients. The surgeon has a large social media following.
In November, the State Medical Board of Ohio temporarily suspended the license of Katherine Roxanne Grawe, MD, who practices in the wealthy Columbus suburb of Powell.
Among other accusations of misconduct, the board stated that “during some videos/live-streams you engage in dialogue to respond to viewers’ online questions while the surgical procedure remains actively ongoing.”
One patient needed emergency treatment following liposuction and was diagnosed with a perforated bowel and serious bacterial infection.
“Despite liposuction being a blind surgery that requires awareness of the tip of the cannula to avoid injury, your attention to the camera meant at those moments you were not looking at the patient or palpating the location of the tip of the cannula,” the medical board said.
Neither Dr. Grawe nor her attorney responded to requests for comment.
Dr. Grawe, known as “Dr. Roxy,” has a popular TikTok account – now set to private – with 841,600 followers and 14.6 million likes. She has another 123,000 followers on her Instagram account, also now private.
The Columbus Dispatch reported that Dr. Grawe had previously been warned to protect patient privacy on social media. The board has yet to make a final decision regarding her license.
According to Columbus TV station WSYX, she said in a TikTok video, “We show our surgeries every single day on Snapchat. Patients get to decide if they want to be part of it. And if you do, you can watch your own surgery.”
The TV station quoted former patients who described surgical complications. One said: “I went to her because, I thought, from all of her social media that she uplifted women. That she helped women empower themselves. But she didn’t.”
Dallas plastic surgeon Rod J. Rohrich, MD, who has written about social-media best practices and has 430,000 followers on Instagram, said in an interview that many surgeons have been reprimanded by state medical boards for being distracted by social media during procedures.
“It is best not to do live-streaming unless it is an educational event to demonstrate techniques and technology with full informed consent of the patient. It should be a very well-rehearsed event for education,” he said.
Nurses also have been disciplined for inappropriate posts on social media. In December 2022, an Atlanta hospital announced that four nurses were no longer on the job after they appeared in a TikTok video in scrubs and revealed their “icks” regarding obstetric care.
“My ick is when you ask me how much the baby weighs,” one worker said in the video, “and it’s still ... in your hands.”
Plastic surgeon Christian J. Vercler, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who’s studied social-media guidelines for surgeons, said in an interview that plastic surgery content on TikTok has “blown up” in recent years.
“Five years or so ago, it was Snapchat where I saw a lot of inappropriate things posted by surgeons,” Dr. Vercler said in an interview. “That may still be happening on Snapchat, but I actually don’t ever use that platform anymore, and neither do my trainees.”
Dr. Vercler cautioned colleagues to consider their motivations for live-streaming surgery and to think about whether they can fully focus on the patient.
“There are many potential distractions in the OR. We get pages, phone calls, nurses asking us questions, anesthesiologists trying to talk to us. Social media is just one more thing competing for the surgeon’s attention,” he said. “Every surgeon should strive to eliminate unnecessary or unavoidable distractions, so the question becomes, ‘who is best being served by me focusing my attention on recording this operation on someone’s phone so we can post it on social media? Is it the patient?’ ”
Dr. Vercler added, “There are many, many plastic surgeons using social media as the powerful platform that it is to build their brands, to connect with potential patients, and to educate the public about what they do. I believe that most are doing this in a way that is respectful to patients and doesn’t exploit patients for the surgeon’s benefit.
“Unfortunately,” he concluded, “there are some who do see patients as merely instruments by which they can achieve fame, notoriety, and wealth.”
Dr. Rohrich and Dr. Vercler disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Best diets in 2023: Mediterranean diet wins again
After all, weight loss usually lands one of the top spots on New Year’s resolution surveys.
And just in time, there’s guidance to pick the best plan, as U.S. News & World Report’s annual rankings of the best diet plans were released on Jan. 3.
Once again, the Mediterranean diet, which emphasizes fruits, vegetables, olive oil, and fish, got the top spot, as best diet overall. It’s the sixth consecutive year for that win. But many other diets got top marks as well.
In 2023, U.S. News, with the help of more than 30 nutritionists, doctors, and epidemiologists, ranked 24 diets in several categories to help people find a plan that meets their goals, whether it’s finding the best weight loss diet, easiest one to follow, or plans for other goals, such as managing diabetes or heart disease. Two new categories were added: Best Diets for Bone & Joint Health and Best Family-Friendly Diets.
In previous years, the publication ranked 40 diets. Even if a diet is no longer ranked, its profile with detailed information remains on the site.
“Each year we ask ourselves what we can do better or differently next time,” said Gretel Schueller, managing editor of health for U.S. News. When the publication got feedback from their experts this year, they had requests to consider sustainability of diets and whether they meet a busy family’s needs, in addition to considering many other factors.
This year’s report ranks plans in 11 categories.
The winners and the categories:
Best diets overall
After the Mediterranean diet, two others tied for second place:
- DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet, which fights high blood pressure and emphasizes fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean protein, and low-fat dairy.
- Flexitarian diet, which focuses on fruits, vegetables, and other healthy foods but also allows occasional meat.
Best weight-loss diets
WW, formerly known as Weight Watchers, got first place. The plan emphasizes not only weight loss but healthier eating and regular activity. The Points program, which assigns specific points to foods, with a daily Points budget, is more personalized than in the past.
- DASH got second place.
- Mayo Clinic Diet and TLC diet tied for third place. The Mayo Clinic Diet focuses on fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. It helps people improve their eating habits. The TLC diet (Therapeutic Lifestyle Changes) focuses on vegetables, fruit, lean protein, and reducing cholesterol levels.
Best fast weight-loss diets
The keto diet got first place. It’s a high-fat, low-carb diet that aims to achieve weight loss through fat burning. Four others tied for second place:
- Atkins, a diet created by the cardiologist Robert Atkins, which begins with very few carbs and then recommends progressively eating more until the weight loss goal is achieved
- Nutrisystem, a commercial program that includes prepackaged meals and focuses on high-protein, lower-glycemic foods to stabilize blood sugar levels
- Optavia, a plan focused on low-carb, low-calorie foods and including fortified meal replacements
- SlimFast Diet, a plan of shakes, smoothies, and meal bars to replace two of three meals a day
Best diets for healthy eating
- Mediterranean
- DASH
- Flexitarian
Best heart-healthy diets
- DASH
- Mediterranean
- Flexitarian and Ornish tied for third. The Ornish Diet focuses on plant-based and whole foods and limiting animal products. It recommends daily exercise and stress reduction.
Best diets for diabetes
- DASH
- Mediterranean
- Flexitarian
Best diets for bone and joint health
DASH and Mediterranean are in a first-place tie, followed by the flexitarian diet.
Best family-friendly diets
This category has a three-way tie: the flexitarian, Mediterranean, and TLC diets.
Best plant-based diets
Mediterranean was first, then flexitarian and the MIND diet. The MIND diet combines the DASH and Mediterranean diets and focuses on “brain-healthy” foods.
Easiest diets to follow
Flexitarian and TLC tied for first, followed by a tie between DASH and Mediterranean.
Best diet programs (formerly called commercial plans)
- WW
- There was a tie for second place between Jenny Craig and Noom, the latter of which focuses on low-calorie foods, with personalized calorie ranges and coaching to help meet goals.
Methodology
A variety of factors were considered, such as whether a diet includes all food groups, how easy it is to follow, whether it can be customized to meet cultural and personal preferences, and if it has a realistic timeline for weight loss.
Response from diet plans
Representatives from two plans that received mixed reviews in the rankings responded.
Jenny Craig was ranked second for best diet program but much lower for family friendly, landing at 22nd place of 24.
“Our program is designed to address the needs of the individual through personalized experiences,” Jenny Craig CEO Mandy Dowson said. “We have many families that participate in our program together but are still evaluated separately to determine appropriate individual goals.”
Its high ranking for best diet program reflects feedback from satisfied members, she said. Among advances will be the new Jenny Fresh program, a line of entrées prepared fresh and delivered to customers’ doors.
Atkins got second place for best fast weight loss but ranked near the bottom for best overall, best weight loss, diabetes, healthy eating, and heart health. In response, Colette Heimowitz, vice president of nutrition and education for Simply Good Foods, which makes Atkins’s food products, said that low-carb eating approaches are a viable option for anyone today.
“There are more than 130 independent, peer-reviewed published studies that show the efficacy and safety of low-carb eating,” she said. “The studies have been conducted for several decades and counting.”
Expert perspective
Samantha Cassetty, a registered dietitian, nutritionist, and wellness expert in New York and author of Sugar Shock, reviewed the report for this news organization. She was not involved in the rankings.
“I think what this shows you is, the best diet overall is also the best for various conditions,” she said. For instance, the Mediterranean, the No. 1 overall, also got high ranking for diabetes, heart health, and bone and joint health.
For consumers trying to lose weight: “If you see fast weight loss, that should be a red flag. A healthy diet for weight loss is one you can sustain,” she said.
She’s not a fan of the programs with prepackaged foods. “It takes the guesswork out, but the portion sizes tend to be unsatisfying. They don’t teach you how to deal with some of the challenges [such as realizing an ‘ideal’ portion size].”
How to use the report
Ms. Schueller’s advice: “Recognize that no diet fits everyone.” When considering which plan to choose, she suggests thinking long-term.
“Whatever we choose has to work in the long run,” she said.
Consumers should consider expenses, meal prep time, and whether the diet fits their lifestyle.
Ideally, she said, the best diet “teaches you smart food preparation and how to make healthy choices, allows the flexibility to be social and eat with groups, whether family or friends.”
Before choosing a diet to follow, consult a medical professional for input on the decision, U.S. News cautioned.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
After all, weight loss usually lands one of the top spots on New Year’s resolution surveys.
And just in time, there’s guidance to pick the best plan, as U.S. News & World Report’s annual rankings of the best diet plans were released on Jan. 3.
Once again, the Mediterranean diet, which emphasizes fruits, vegetables, olive oil, and fish, got the top spot, as best diet overall. It’s the sixth consecutive year for that win. But many other diets got top marks as well.
In 2023, U.S. News, with the help of more than 30 nutritionists, doctors, and epidemiologists, ranked 24 diets in several categories to help people find a plan that meets their goals, whether it’s finding the best weight loss diet, easiest one to follow, or plans for other goals, such as managing diabetes or heart disease. Two new categories were added: Best Diets for Bone & Joint Health and Best Family-Friendly Diets.
In previous years, the publication ranked 40 diets. Even if a diet is no longer ranked, its profile with detailed information remains on the site.
“Each year we ask ourselves what we can do better or differently next time,” said Gretel Schueller, managing editor of health for U.S. News. When the publication got feedback from their experts this year, they had requests to consider sustainability of diets and whether they meet a busy family’s needs, in addition to considering many other factors.
This year’s report ranks plans in 11 categories.
The winners and the categories:
Best diets overall
After the Mediterranean diet, two others tied for second place:
- DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet, which fights high blood pressure and emphasizes fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean protein, and low-fat dairy.
- Flexitarian diet, which focuses on fruits, vegetables, and other healthy foods but also allows occasional meat.
Best weight-loss diets
WW, formerly known as Weight Watchers, got first place. The plan emphasizes not only weight loss but healthier eating and regular activity. The Points program, which assigns specific points to foods, with a daily Points budget, is more personalized than in the past.
- DASH got second place.
- Mayo Clinic Diet and TLC diet tied for third place. The Mayo Clinic Diet focuses on fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. It helps people improve their eating habits. The TLC diet (Therapeutic Lifestyle Changes) focuses on vegetables, fruit, lean protein, and reducing cholesterol levels.
Best fast weight-loss diets
The keto diet got first place. It’s a high-fat, low-carb diet that aims to achieve weight loss through fat burning. Four others tied for second place:
- Atkins, a diet created by the cardiologist Robert Atkins, which begins with very few carbs and then recommends progressively eating more until the weight loss goal is achieved
- Nutrisystem, a commercial program that includes prepackaged meals and focuses on high-protein, lower-glycemic foods to stabilize blood sugar levels
- Optavia, a plan focused on low-carb, low-calorie foods and including fortified meal replacements
- SlimFast Diet, a plan of shakes, smoothies, and meal bars to replace two of three meals a day
Best diets for healthy eating
- Mediterranean
- DASH
- Flexitarian
Best heart-healthy diets
- DASH
- Mediterranean
- Flexitarian and Ornish tied for third. The Ornish Diet focuses on plant-based and whole foods and limiting animal products. It recommends daily exercise and stress reduction.
Best diets for diabetes
- DASH
- Mediterranean
- Flexitarian
Best diets for bone and joint health
DASH and Mediterranean are in a first-place tie, followed by the flexitarian diet.
Best family-friendly diets
This category has a three-way tie: the flexitarian, Mediterranean, and TLC diets.
Best plant-based diets
Mediterranean was first, then flexitarian and the MIND diet. The MIND diet combines the DASH and Mediterranean diets and focuses on “brain-healthy” foods.
Easiest diets to follow
Flexitarian and TLC tied for first, followed by a tie between DASH and Mediterranean.
Best diet programs (formerly called commercial plans)
- WW
- There was a tie for second place between Jenny Craig and Noom, the latter of which focuses on low-calorie foods, with personalized calorie ranges and coaching to help meet goals.
Methodology
A variety of factors were considered, such as whether a diet includes all food groups, how easy it is to follow, whether it can be customized to meet cultural and personal preferences, and if it has a realistic timeline for weight loss.
Response from diet plans
Representatives from two plans that received mixed reviews in the rankings responded.
Jenny Craig was ranked second for best diet program but much lower for family friendly, landing at 22nd place of 24.
“Our program is designed to address the needs of the individual through personalized experiences,” Jenny Craig CEO Mandy Dowson said. “We have many families that participate in our program together but are still evaluated separately to determine appropriate individual goals.”
Its high ranking for best diet program reflects feedback from satisfied members, she said. Among advances will be the new Jenny Fresh program, a line of entrées prepared fresh and delivered to customers’ doors.
Atkins got second place for best fast weight loss but ranked near the bottom for best overall, best weight loss, diabetes, healthy eating, and heart health. In response, Colette Heimowitz, vice president of nutrition and education for Simply Good Foods, which makes Atkins’s food products, said that low-carb eating approaches are a viable option for anyone today.
“There are more than 130 independent, peer-reviewed published studies that show the efficacy and safety of low-carb eating,” she said. “The studies have been conducted for several decades and counting.”
Expert perspective
Samantha Cassetty, a registered dietitian, nutritionist, and wellness expert in New York and author of Sugar Shock, reviewed the report for this news organization. She was not involved in the rankings.
“I think what this shows you is, the best diet overall is also the best for various conditions,” she said. For instance, the Mediterranean, the No. 1 overall, also got high ranking for diabetes, heart health, and bone and joint health.
For consumers trying to lose weight: “If you see fast weight loss, that should be a red flag. A healthy diet for weight loss is one you can sustain,” she said.
She’s not a fan of the programs with prepackaged foods. “It takes the guesswork out, but the portion sizes tend to be unsatisfying. They don’t teach you how to deal with some of the challenges [such as realizing an ‘ideal’ portion size].”
How to use the report
Ms. Schueller’s advice: “Recognize that no diet fits everyone.” When considering which plan to choose, she suggests thinking long-term.
“Whatever we choose has to work in the long run,” she said.
Consumers should consider expenses, meal prep time, and whether the diet fits their lifestyle.
Ideally, she said, the best diet “teaches you smart food preparation and how to make healthy choices, allows the flexibility to be social and eat with groups, whether family or friends.”
Before choosing a diet to follow, consult a medical professional for input on the decision, U.S. News cautioned.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
After all, weight loss usually lands one of the top spots on New Year’s resolution surveys.
And just in time, there’s guidance to pick the best plan, as U.S. News & World Report’s annual rankings of the best diet plans were released on Jan. 3.
Once again, the Mediterranean diet, which emphasizes fruits, vegetables, olive oil, and fish, got the top spot, as best diet overall. It’s the sixth consecutive year for that win. But many other diets got top marks as well.
In 2023, U.S. News, with the help of more than 30 nutritionists, doctors, and epidemiologists, ranked 24 diets in several categories to help people find a plan that meets their goals, whether it’s finding the best weight loss diet, easiest one to follow, or plans for other goals, such as managing diabetes or heart disease. Two new categories were added: Best Diets for Bone & Joint Health and Best Family-Friendly Diets.
In previous years, the publication ranked 40 diets. Even if a diet is no longer ranked, its profile with detailed information remains on the site.
“Each year we ask ourselves what we can do better or differently next time,” said Gretel Schueller, managing editor of health for U.S. News. When the publication got feedback from their experts this year, they had requests to consider sustainability of diets and whether they meet a busy family’s needs, in addition to considering many other factors.
This year’s report ranks plans in 11 categories.
The winners and the categories:
Best diets overall
After the Mediterranean diet, two others tied for second place:
- DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet, which fights high blood pressure and emphasizes fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean protein, and low-fat dairy.
- Flexitarian diet, which focuses on fruits, vegetables, and other healthy foods but also allows occasional meat.
Best weight-loss diets
WW, formerly known as Weight Watchers, got first place. The plan emphasizes not only weight loss but healthier eating and regular activity. The Points program, which assigns specific points to foods, with a daily Points budget, is more personalized than in the past.
- DASH got second place.
- Mayo Clinic Diet and TLC diet tied for third place. The Mayo Clinic Diet focuses on fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. It helps people improve their eating habits. The TLC diet (Therapeutic Lifestyle Changes) focuses on vegetables, fruit, lean protein, and reducing cholesterol levels.
Best fast weight-loss diets
The keto diet got first place. It’s a high-fat, low-carb diet that aims to achieve weight loss through fat burning. Four others tied for second place:
- Atkins, a diet created by the cardiologist Robert Atkins, which begins with very few carbs and then recommends progressively eating more until the weight loss goal is achieved
- Nutrisystem, a commercial program that includes prepackaged meals and focuses on high-protein, lower-glycemic foods to stabilize blood sugar levels
- Optavia, a plan focused on low-carb, low-calorie foods and including fortified meal replacements
- SlimFast Diet, a plan of shakes, smoothies, and meal bars to replace two of three meals a day
Best diets for healthy eating
- Mediterranean
- DASH
- Flexitarian
Best heart-healthy diets
- DASH
- Mediterranean
- Flexitarian and Ornish tied for third. The Ornish Diet focuses on plant-based and whole foods and limiting animal products. It recommends daily exercise and stress reduction.
Best diets for diabetes
- DASH
- Mediterranean
- Flexitarian
Best diets for bone and joint health
DASH and Mediterranean are in a first-place tie, followed by the flexitarian diet.
Best family-friendly diets
This category has a three-way tie: the flexitarian, Mediterranean, and TLC diets.
Best plant-based diets
Mediterranean was first, then flexitarian and the MIND diet. The MIND diet combines the DASH and Mediterranean diets and focuses on “brain-healthy” foods.
Easiest diets to follow
Flexitarian and TLC tied for first, followed by a tie between DASH and Mediterranean.
Best diet programs (formerly called commercial plans)
- WW
- There was a tie for second place between Jenny Craig and Noom, the latter of which focuses on low-calorie foods, with personalized calorie ranges and coaching to help meet goals.
Methodology
A variety of factors were considered, such as whether a diet includes all food groups, how easy it is to follow, whether it can be customized to meet cultural and personal preferences, and if it has a realistic timeline for weight loss.
Response from diet plans
Representatives from two plans that received mixed reviews in the rankings responded.
Jenny Craig was ranked second for best diet program but much lower for family friendly, landing at 22nd place of 24.
“Our program is designed to address the needs of the individual through personalized experiences,” Jenny Craig CEO Mandy Dowson said. “We have many families that participate in our program together but are still evaluated separately to determine appropriate individual goals.”
Its high ranking for best diet program reflects feedback from satisfied members, she said. Among advances will be the new Jenny Fresh program, a line of entrées prepared fresh and delivered to customers’ doors.
Atkins got second place for best fast weight loss but ranked near the bottom for best overall, best weight loss, diabetes, healthy eating, and heart health. In response, Colette Heimowitz, vice president of nutrition and education for Simply Good Foods, which makes Atkins’s food products, said that low-carb eating approaches are a viable option for anyone today.
“There are more than 130 independent, peer-reviewed published studies that show the efficacy and safety of low-carb eating,” she said. “The studies have been conducted for several decades and counting.”
Expert perspective
Samantha Cassetty, a registered dietitian, nutritionist, and wellness expert in New York and author of Sugar Shock, reviewed the report for this news organization. She was not involved in the rankings.
“I think what this shows you is, the best diet overall is also the best for various conditions,” she said. For instance, the Mediterranean, the No. 1 overall, also got high ranking for diabetes, heart health, and bone and joint health.
For consumers trying to lose weight: “If you see fast weight loss, that should be a red flag. A healthy diet for weight loss is one you can sustain,” she said.
She’s not a fan of the programs with prepackaged foods. “It takes the guesswork out, but the portion sizes tend to be unsatisfying. They don’t teach you how to deal with some of the challenges [such as realizing an ‘ideal’ portion size].”
How to use the report
Ms. Schueller’s advice: “Recognize that no diet fits everyone.” When considering which plan to choose, she suggests thinking long-term.
“Whatever we choose has to work in the long run,” she said.
Consumers should consider expenses, meal prep time, and whether the diet fits their lifestyle.
Ideally, she said, the best diet “teaches you smart food preparation and how to make healthy choices, allows the flexibility to be social and eat with groups, whether family or friends.”
Before choosing a diet to follow, consult a medical professional for input on the decision, U.S. News cautioned.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA considers regulating CBD products
The products can have drug-like effects on the body and contain CBD (cannabidiol) and THC (tetrahydrocannabinol). Both CBD and THC can be derived from hemp, which was legalized by Congress in 2018.
“Given what we know about the safety of CBD so far, it raises concerns for FDA about whether these existing regulatory pathways for food and dietary supplements are appropriate for this substance,” FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, told The Wall Street Journal.
A 2021 FDA report valued the CBD market at $4.6 billion and projected it to quadruple by 2026. The only FDA-approved CBD product is an oil called Epidiolex, which can be prescribed for the seizure-associated disease epilepsy. Research on CBD to treat other diseases is ongoing.
Food, beverage, and beauty products containing CBD are sold in stores and online in many forms, including oils, vaporized liquids, and oil-based capsules, but “research supporting the drug’s benefits is still limited,” the Mayo Clinic said.
Recently, investigations have found that many CBD products also contain THC, which can be derived from legal hemp in a form that is referred to as Delta 8 and produces a psychoactive high. The CDC warned in 2022 that people “mistook” THC products for CBD products, which are often sold at the same stores, and experienced “adverse events.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and FDA warn that much is unknown about CBD and delta-8 products. The CDC says known CBD risks include liver damage; interference with other drugs you are taking, which may lead to injury or serious side effects; drowsiness or sleepiness; diarrhea or changes in appetite; changes in mood, such as crankiness; potential negative effects on fetuses during pregnancy or on babies during breastfeeding; or unintentional poisoning of children when mistaking THC products for CBD products or due to containing other ingredients such as THC or pesticides.
“I don’t think that we can have the perfect be the enemy of the good when we’re looking at such a vast market that is so available and utilized,” Norman Birenbaum, a senior FDA adviser who is working on the regulatory issue, told the Journal. “You’ve got a widely unregulated market.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The products can have drug-like effects on the body and contain CBD (cannabidiol) and THC (tetrahydrocannabinol). Both CBD and THC can be derived from hemp, which was legalized by Congress in 2018.
“Given what we know about the safety of CBD so far, it raises concerns for FDA about whether these existing regulatory pathways for food and dietary supplements are appropriate for this substance,” FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, told The Wall Street Journal.
A 2021 FDA report valued the CBD market at $4.6 billion and projected it to quadruple by 2026. The only FDA-approved CBD product is an oil called Epidiolex, which can be prescribed for the seizure-associated disease epilepsy. Research on CBD to treat other diseases is ongoing.
Food, beverage, and beauty products containing CBD are sold in stores and online in many forms, including oils, vaporized liquids, and oil-based capsules, but “research supporting the drug’s benefits is still limited,” the Mayo Clinic said.
Recently, investigations have found that many CBD products also contain THC, which can be derived from legal hemp in a form that is referred to as Delta 8 and produces a psychoactive high. The CDC warned in 2022 that people “mistook” THC products for CBD products, which are often sold at the same stores, and experienced “adverse events.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and FDA warn that much is unknown about CBD and delta-8 products. The CDC says known CBD risks include liver damage; interference with other drugs you are taking, which may lead to injury or serious side effects; drowsiness or sleepiness; diarrhea or changes in appetite; changes in mood, such as crankiness; potential negative effects on fetuses during pregnancy or on babies during breastfeeding; or unintentional poisoning of children when mistaking THC products for CBD products or due to containing other ingredients such as THC or pesticides.
“I don’t think that we can have the perfect be the enemy of the good when we’re looking at such a vast market that is so available and utilized,” Norman Birenbaum, a senior FDA adviser who is working on the regulatory issue, told the Journal. “You’ve got a widely unregulated market.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The products can have drug-like effects on the body and contain CBD (cannabidiol) and THC (tetrahydrocannabinol). Both CBD and THC can be derived from hemp, which was legalized by Congress in 2018.
“Given what we know about the safety of CBD so far, it raises concerns for FDA about whether these existing regulatory pathways for food and dietary supplements are appropriate for this substance,” FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, told The Wall Street Journal.
A 2021 FDA report valued the CBD market at $4.6 billion and projected it to quadruple by 2026. The only FDA-approved CBD product is an oil called Epidiolex, which can be prescribed for the seizure-associated disease epilepsy. Research on CBD to treat other diseases is ongoing.
Food, beverage, and beauty products containing CBD are sold in stores and online in many forms, including oils, vaporized liquids, and oil-based capsules, but “research supporting the drug’s benefits is still limited,” the Mayo Clinic said.
Recently, investigations have found that many CBD products also contain THC, which can be derived from legal hemp in a form that is referred to as Delta 8 and produces a psychoactive high. The CDC warned in 2022 that people “mistook” THC products for CBD products, which are often sold at the same stores, and experienced “adverse events.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and FDA warn that much is unknown about CBD and delta-8 products. The CDC says known CBD risks include liver damage; interference with other drugs you are taking, which may lead to injury or serious side effects; drowsiness or sleepiness; diarrhea or changes in appetite; changes in mood, such as crankiness; potential negative effects on fetuses during pregnancy or on babies during breastfeeding; or unintentional poisoning of children when mistaking THC products for CBD products or due to containing other ingredients such as THC or pesticides.
“I don’t think that we can have the perfect be the enemy of the good when we’re looking at such a vast market that is so available and utilized,” Norman Birenbaum, a senior FDA adviser who is working on the regulatory issue, told the Journal. “You’ve got a widely unregulated market.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Cervical cancer rise in White women: A ‘canary in the coal mine’
Cervical cancer appears to be rising more rapidly in White women than in Black women in the United States, according to two independent studies. Researchers puzzling over this counterintuitive finding say that, if true, the findings may be a “canary in the coal mine,” signaling problems with U.S. health care that go way beyond women’s health.
Cervical cancer incidence in the United States has plateaued since 2010 and now stands at 7.5 per 100,000 people. Well-known disparities exist: Compared with White women, Black women are more likely to have distant-stage disease at diagnosis and more commonly die of their cancer.
However, two unconnected studies published in the past 5 months suggest that White women are catching up fast.
Cervical cancer rates in White women aged 30-34 are rising 2.8% a year, but holding steady for Black women, according to a recent study led by Ashish A. Deshmukh, PhD, of the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. His team analyzed the 2001-2019 National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) dataset, which covers 98% of the U.S. population and 227,062 cervical cancer cases.
These findings were echoed by an analysis of the same database for 2001-2018 by the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), suggesting that distant-stage cervical cancer (defined as disease that has spread to the bladder and/or rectum at diagnosis) is climbing 1.69% a year in White people versus 0.67% in Black individuals.
The UCLA researchers, headed by Alex Francoeur, MD, a resident in the department of obstetrics and gynecology, found that disparities were most stark in adenocarcinoma, with an annual increase of 3.40% a year among White women and 1.71% in Black women.
Such findings have equity researchers scratching their heads. In cancer, it’s rare to see evidence that Black patients are doing better than their White counterparts.
One theoretical explanation is that the data are flawed, Ahmedin Jemal, DVM, PhD, senior vice president of surveillance and health equity science at the American Cancer Society, told this news organization. For example, the UCLA analysis may have been fogged by changes in staging definitions over time, Dr. Jemal said, although this would not explain the racial disparities per se.
Dr. Deshmukh stands by his data and said that, for him, the message is clear: “If rising incidence is not for localized-stage disease, but for advanced stages, that means it’s attributable to lack of screening,” he told this news organization.
However, this ‘simple’ explanation generates even more questions, Dr. Deshmukh said: “Screening is not a one-time procedure [but] a spectrum of timely cervical precancer treatment if [required]. We don’t know when exactly non-Hispanic White women are falling behind on that spectrum.”
The UCLA study supports Dr. Deshmukh’s conclusions. Using data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to calculate trends in “nonguideline screening,” the researchers found that White women were almost twice as likely to report that they were not following screening guidelines compared with Black women over the period of 2001-2016 (26.6% vs. 13.8%; P < .001).
“It’s not an artifact, it’s real,” said Timothy Rebbeck, PhD, the Vincent L. Gregory Jr. Professor of Cancer Prevention at Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, who was not an author of either study and was approached for comment.
“The data are correct but there are so many things going on that might explain these patterns,” he told this news organization.
“This is a great example of complex changes in our social system, political system, health care system that are having really clear, measurable effects,” Dr. Rebbeck said. “Cervical cancer is almost a canary in the coal mine for some of this because it’s so preventable.”
(The saying “canary in a coal mine” is a warning of danger or trouble ahead. It comes from the time when coal miners would carry a caged canary down into the tunnels to warn them of noxious gases, which would kill the bird but give men time to escape.)
For example, Dr. Rebbeck said, recent turmoil in U.S. health care has left many people distrustful of the system. Although he acknowledged this was “high speculation,” he suggested that some women may have become less willing to participate in any mass health care intervention because of their political beliefs.
The UCLA study found that distant cervical cancer was rising fastest in middle-aged White women in the U.S. South, at a rate of 4.5% per year (P < .001).
Dr. Rebbeck also suggested that Medicaid expansion – the broadening of health insurance coverage in some states since the Affordable Care Act in 2014 – could be implicated. Of the 11 states that have not yet expanded Medicaid, eight are in the South.
“White populations who are in states that didn’t expand Medicaid are not getting a lot of the standard treatment and care that you would expect ...” Dr. Rebbeck said. “You could very well imagine that Medicaid nonexpanding states would have all kinds of patterns that would lead to more aggressive disease.”
In fact, there is already evidence that Medicaid expansion has affected racial disparities, disproportionately benefiting Black and Hispanic families, as for example, from an analysis of 65 studies by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2020.
Commenting on these data, Dr. Rebbeck said, “Does that mean that the patterns of advanced cervical cancer had a smaller effect on Black women in this period because there was a greater shift in access to care? This is again a speculation, but it does fit with the ‘canary in a coal mine’ concept that advanced cervical cancer may be more rapidly influenced by health care access than other health conditions.”
The authors of the UCLA study suggested another explanation for their results: Differing enthusiasm for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination among White and Black families. The team also analyzed data on HPV vaccination, which offers protection against cervical cancer. The researchers found that vaccination rates were lowest, at 66.1%, among White teenagers aged 13-17 years, compared with Hispanics at 75.3%, Black teenagers at 74.6%, and Asians at 68.1%.
However, this theory was dismissed by both Dr. Jemal and Dr. Rebbeck due to timing. HPV vaccines have been around for approximately 15 years, so women who benefited (or didn’t benefit) from vaccination would be only in their late 20s today, they pointed out.
“Ninety-five percent of the cervical cancer cases we see now are in women who have not been vaccinated,” said Dr. Jemal, “So that’s out of the equation.”
Dr. Rebbeck agreed: “HPV may or may not be a thing here because it’s [got] such a latency.”
HPV vaccination may be out of the picture, but what about the epidemiology of HPV itself? Could the virus directly or indirectly be boosting advanced cervical cancer in White women?
Dr. Deshmukh thinks that it might be doing so.
He published an analysis of 2000-2018 SEER data showing that U.S. counties with the highest incidences of HPV-associated cancers also had the highest levels of smoking.
Other recent data suggest that middle-aged White women in the United States are more likely to reach for a smoke than are Black women.
Dr. Deshmukh acknowledges that the link is speculative but reasonable: “We don’t know exactly what the impact of smoking would be in terms of ... the ability to clear HPV infection. It may inhibit apoptosis, promoting tumor growth. There’s no causal association. It’s a cofactor risk.”
Dr. Rebbeck is also suspicious that smoking patterns might be a factor, pointing out that “smoking is certainly associated with both health behaviors and advanced cervical cancer.”
Both Dr. Rebbeck and Dr. Deshmukh concluded that, at this point, we can only speculate on what’s driving the puzzling acceleration of cervical cancer in White women in the United States.
However, whether it’s political aversion to screening, smoking-boosted HPV infection, Medicaid expansion or lack of it, or something else, they all agree that this canary in the coal mine clearly needs urgent medical attention.
Dr. Rebbeck and Dr. Jemal have declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Deshmukh has declared consultant or advisory roles for Merck and Value Analytics Labs. None of the authors of the UCLA study have declared competing interests.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cervical cancer appears to be rising more rapidly in White women than in Black women in the United States, according to two independent studies. Researchers puzzling over this counterintuitive finding say that, if true, the findings may be a “canary in the coal mine,” signaling problems with U.S. health care that go way beyond women’s health.
Cervical cancer incidence in the United States has plateaued since 2010 and now stands at 7.5 per 100,000 people. Well-known disparities exist: Compared with White women, Black women are more likely to have distant-stage disease at diagnosis and more commonly die of their cancer.
However, two unconnected studies published in the past 5 months suggest that White women are catching up fast.
Cervical cancer rates in White women aged 30-34 are rising 2.8% a year, but holding steady for Black women, according to a recent study led by Ashish A. Deshmukh, PhD, of the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. His team analyzed the 2001-2019 National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) dataset, which covers 98% of the U.S. population and 227,062 cervical cancer cases.
These findings were echoed by an analysis of the same database for 2001-2018 by the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), suggesting that distant-stage cervical cancer (defined as disease that has spread to the bladder and/or rectum at diagnosis) is climbing 1.69% a year in White people versus 0.67% in Black individuals.
The UCLA researchers, headed by Alex Francoeur, MD, a resident in the department of obstetrics and gynecology, found that disparities were most stark in adenocarcinoma, with an annual increase of 3.40% a year among White women and 1.71% in Black women.
Such findings have equity researchers scratching their heads. In cancer, it’s rare to see evidence that Black patients are doing better than their White counterparts.
One theoretical explanation is that the data are flawed, Ahmedin Jemal, DVM, PhD, senior vice president of surveillance and health equity science at the American Cancer Society, told this news organization. For example, the UCLA analysis may have been fogged by changes in staging definitions over time, Dr. Jemal said, although this would not explain the racial disparities per se.
Dr. Deshmukh stands by his data and said that, for him, the message is clear: “If rising incidence is not for localized-stage disease, but for advanced stages, that means it’s attributable to lack of screening,” he told this news organization.
However, this ‘simple’ explanation generates even more questions, Dr. Deshmukh said: “Screening is not a one-time procedure [but] a spectrum of timely cervical precancer treatment if [required]. We don’t know when exactly non-Hispanic White women are falling behind on that spectrum.”
The UCLA study supports Dr. Deshmukh’s conclusions. Using data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to calculate trends in “nonguideline screening,” the researchers found that White women were almost twice as likely to report that they were not following screening guidelines compared with Black women over the period of 2001-2016 (26.6% vs. 13.8%; P < .001).
“It’s not an artifact, it’s real,” said Timothy Rebbeck, PhD, the Vincent L. Gregory Jr. Professor of Cancer Prevention at Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, who was not an author of either study and was approached for comment.
“The data are correct but there are so many things going on that might explain these patterns,” he told this news organization.
“This is a great example of complex changes in our social system, political system, health care system that are having really clear, measurable effects,” Dr. Rebbeck said. “Cervical cancer is almost a canary in the coal mine for some of this because it’s so preventable.”
(The saying “canary in a coal mine” is a warning of danger or trouble ahead. It comes from the time when coal miners would carry a caged canary down into the tunnels to warn them of noxious gases, which would kill the bird but give men time to escape.)
For example, Dr. Rebbeck said, recent turmoil in U.S. health care has left many people distrustful of the system. Although he acknowledged this was “high speculation,” he suggested that some women may have become less willing to participate in any mass health care intervention because of their political beliefs.
The UCLA study found that distant cervical cancer was rising fastest in middle-aged White women in the U.S. South, at a rate of 4.5% per year (P < .001).
Dr. Rebbeck also suggested that Medicaid expansion – the broadening of health insurance coverage in some states since the Affordable Care Act in 2014 – could be implicated. Of the 11 states that have not yet expanded Medicaid, eight are in the South.
“White populations who are in states that didn’t expand Medicaid are not getting a lot of the standard treatment and care that you would expect ...” Dr. Rebbeck said. “You could very well imagine that Medicaid nonexpanding states would have all kinds of patterns that would lead to more aggressive disease.”
In fact, there is already evidence that Medicaid expansion has affected racial disparities, disproportionately benefiting Black and Hispanic families, as for example, from an analysis of 65 studies by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2020.
Commenting on these data, Dr. Rebbeck said, “Does that mean that the patterns of advanced cervical cancer had a smaller effect on Black women in this period because there was a greater shift in access to care? This is again a speculation, but it does fit with the ‘canary in a coal mine’ concept that advanced cervical cancer may be more rapidly influenced by health care access than other health conditions.”
The authors of the UCLA study suggested another explanation for their results: Differing enthusiasm for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination among White and Black families. The team also analyzed data on HPV vaccination, which offers protection against cervical cancer. The researchers found that vaccination rates were lowest, at 66.1%, among White teenagers aged 13-17 years, compared with Hispanics at 75.3%, Black teenagers at 74.6%, and Asians at 68.1%.
However, this theory was dismissed by both Dr. Jemal and Dr. Rebbeck due to timing. HPV vaccines have been around for approximately 15 years, so women who benefited (or didn’t benefit) from vaccination would be only in their late 20s today, they pointed out.
“Ninety-five percent of the cervical cancer cases we see now are in women who have not been vaccinated,” said Dr. Jemal, “So that’s out of the equation.”
Dr. Rebbeck agreed: “HPV may or may not be a thing here because it’s [got] such a latency.”
HPV vaccination may be out of the picture, but what about the epidemiology of HPV itself? Could the virus directly or indirectly be boosting advanced cervical cancer in White women?
Dr. Deshmukh thinks that it might be doing so.
He published an analysis of 2000-2018 SEER data showing that U.S. counties with the highest incidences of HPV-associated cancers also had the highest levels of smoking.
Other recent data suggest that middle-aged White women in the United States are more likely to reach for a smoke than are Black women.
Dr. Deshmukh acknowledges that the link is speculative but reasonable: “We don’t know exactly what the impact of smoking would be in terms of ... the ability to clear HPV infection. It may inhibit apoptosis, promoting tumor growth. There’s no causal association. It’s a cofactor risk.”
Dr. Rebbeck is also suspicious that smoking patterns might be a factor, pointing out that “smoking is certainly associated with both health behaviors and advanced cervical cancer.”
Both Dr. Rebbeck and Dr. Deshmukh concluded that, at this point, we can only speculate on what’s driving the puzzling acceleration of cervical cancer in White women in the United States.
However, whether it’s political aversion to screening, smoking-boosted HPV infection, Medicaid expansion or lack of it, or something else, they all agree that this canary in the coal mine clearly needs urgent medical attention.
Dr. Rebbeck and Dr. Jemal have declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Deshmukh has declared consultant or advisory roles for Merck and Value Analytics Labs. None of the authors of the UCLA study have declared competing interests.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cervical cancer appears to be rising more rapidly in White women than in Black women in the United States, according to two independent studies. Researchers puzzling over this counterintuitive finding say that, if true, the findings may be a “canary in the coal mine,” signaling problems with U.S. health care that go way beyond women’s health.
Cervical cancer incidence in the United States has plateaued since 2010 and now stands at 7.5 per 100,000 people. Well-known disparities exist: Compared with White women, Black women are more likely to have distant-stage disease at diagnosis and more commonly die of their cancer.
However, two unconnected studies published in the past 5 months suggest that White women are catching up fast.
Cervical cancer rates in White women aged 30-34 are rising 2.8% a year, but holding steady for Black women, according to a recent study led by Ashish A. Deshmukh, PhD, of the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. His team analyzed the 2001-2019 National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) dataset, which covers 98% of the U.S. population and 227,062 cervical cancer cases.
These findings were echoed by an analysis of the same database for 2001-2018 by the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), suggesting that distant-stage cervical cancer (defined as disease that has spread to the bladder and/or rectum at diagnosis) is climbing 1.69% a year in White people versus 0.67% in Black individuals.
The UCLA researchers, headed by Alex Francoeur, MD, a resident in the department of obstetrics and gynecology, found that disparities were most stark in adenocarcinoma, with an annual increase of 3.40% a year among White women and 1.71% in Black women.
Such findings have equity researchers scratching their heads. In cancer, it’s rare to see evidence that Black patients are doing better than their White counterparts.
One theoretical explanation is that the data are flawed, Ahmedin Jemal, DVM, PhD, senior vice president of surveillance and health equity science at the American Cancer Society, told this news organization. For example, the UCLA analysis may have been fogged by changes in staging definitions over time, Dr. Jemal said, although this would not explain the racial disparities per se.
Dr. Deshmukh stands by his data and said that, for him, the message is clear: “If rising incidence is not for localized-stage disease, but for advanced stages, that means it’s attributable to lack of screening,” he told this news organization.
However, this ‘simple’ explanation generates even more questions, Dr. Deshmukh said: “Screening is not a one-time procedure [but] a spectrum of timely cervical precancer treatment if [required]. We don’t know when exactly non-Hispanic White women are falling behind on that spectrum.”
The UCLA study supports Dr. Deshmukh’s conclusions. Using data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to calculate trends in “nonguideline screening,” the researchers found that White women were almost twice as likely to report that they were not following screening guidelines compared with Black women over the period of 2001-2016 (26.6% vs. 13.8%; P < .001).
“It’s not an artifact, it’s real,” said Timothy Rebbeck, PhD, the Vincent L. Gregory Jr. Professor of Cancer Prevention at Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, who was not an author of either study and was approached for comment.
“The data are correct but there are so many things going on that might explain these patterns,” he told this news organization.
“This is a great example of complex changes in our social system, political system, health care system that are having really clear, measurable effects,” Dr. Rebbeck said. “Cervical cancer is almost a canary in the coal mine for some of this because it’s so preventable.”
(The saying “canary in a coal mine” is a warning of danger or trouble ahead. It comes from the time when coal miners would carry a caged canary down into the tunnels to warn them of noxious gases, which would kill the bird but give men time to escape.)
For example, Dr. Rebbeck said, recent turmoil in U.S. health care has left many people distrustful of the system. Although he acknowledged this was “high speculation,” he suggested that some women may have become less willing to participate in any mass health care intervention because of their political beliefs.
The UCLA study found that distant cervical cancer was rising fastest in middle-aged White women in the U.S. South, at a rate of 4.5% per year (P < .001).
Dr. Rebbeck also suggested that Medicaid expansion – the broadening of health insurance coverage in some states since the Affordable Care Act in 2014 – could be implicated. Of the 11 states that have not yet expanded Medicaid, eight are in the South.
“White populations who are in states that didn’t expand Medicaid are not getting a lot of the standard treatment and care that you would expect ...” Dr. Rebbeck said. “You could very well imagine that Medicaid nonexpanding states would have all kinds of patterns that would lead to more aggressive disease.”
In fact, there is already evidence that Medicaid expansion has affected racial disparities, disproportionately benefiting Black and Hispanic families, as for example, from an analysis of 65 studies by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2020.
Commenting on these data, Dr. Rebbeck said, “Does that mean that the patterns of advanced cervical cancer had a smaller effect on Black women in this period because there was a greater shift in access to care? This is again a speculation, but it does fit with the ‘canary in a coal mine’ concept that advanced cervical cancer may be more rapidly influenced by health care access than other health conditions.”
The authors of the UCLA study suggested another explanation for their results: Differing enthusiasm for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination among White and Black families. The team also analyzed data on HPV vaccination, which offers protection against cervical cancer. The researchers found that vaccination rates were lowest, at 66.1%, among White teenagers aged 13-17 years, compared with Hispanics at 75.3%, Black teenagers at 74.6%, and Asians at 68.1%.
However, this theory was dismissed by both Dr. Jemal and Dr. Rebbeck due to timing. HPV vaccines have been around for approximately 15 years, so women who benefited (or didn’t benefit) from vaccination would be only in their late 20s today, they pointed out.
“Ninety-five percent of the cervical cancer cases we see now are in women who have not been vaccinated,” said Dr. Jemal, “So that’s out of the equation.”
Dr. Rebbeck agreed: “HPV may or may not be a thing here because it’s [got] such a latency.”
HPV vaccination may be out of the picture, but what about the epidemiology of HPV itself? Could the virus directly or indirectly be boosting advanced cervical cancer in White women?
Dr. Deshmukh thinks that it might be doing so.
He published an analysis of 2000-2018 SEER data showing that U.S. counties with the highest incidences of HPV-associated cancers also had the highest levels of smoking.
Other recent data suggest that middle-aged White women in the United States are more likely to reach for a smoke than are Black women.
Dr. Deshmukh acknowledges that the link is speculative but reasonable: “We don’t know exactly what the impact of smoking would be in terms of ... the ability to clear HPV infection. It may inhibit apoptosis, promoting tumor growth. There’s no causal association. It’s a cofactor risk.”
Dr. Rebbeck is also suspicious that smoking patterns might be a factor, pointing out that “smoking is certainly associated with both health behaviors and advanced cervical cancer.”
Both Dr. Rebbeck and Dr. Deshmukh concluded that, at this point, we can only speculate on what’s driving the puzzling acceleration of cervical cancer in White women in the United States.
However, whether it’s political aversion to screening, smoking-boosted HPV infection, Medicaid expansion or lack of it, or something else, they all agree that this canary in the coal mine clearly needs urgent medical attention.
Dr. Rebbeck and Dr. Jemal have declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Deshmukh has declared consultant or advisory roles for Merck and Value Analytics Labs. None of the authors of the UCLA study have declared competing interests.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Diabetes surge expected in young people
according to a new study published in Diabetes Care.
It is expected that as many as 526,000 people younger than 20 years in the United States will have diabetes by 2060, researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report. Their projections found that the number of young people with diabetes will increase 12%, from 213,000 in 2017 to 239,000 in 2060.
The estimates include a 673% rise in the number of youth with type 2 diabetes and a 65% increase in cases of type 1 diabetes over the next 4 decades.
Most of the new cases are projected to occur among non-Hispanic Blacks, exacerbating the already significant racial disparities in type 2 diabetes in particular, the study found.
“This study’s startling projections of type 2 diabetes increases show why it is crucial to advance health equity and reduce the widespread disparities that already take a toll on people’s health,” Christopher Holliday, PhD, MPH, FACHE, director of CDC’s Division of Diabetes Translation, said in a press release about the new estimates.
Even if trends remain the same in coming decades, researchers said diagnoses of type 2 diabetes will rise almost 70% and that diagnoses of type 1 diabetes will increase by 3%.
The researchers attribute the increase in diabetes cases among youth to a variety of factors, including the growing prevalence of childhood obesity and the presence of diabetes in women of childbearing age, which is linked to obesity in their offspring.
Debra Houry, MD, MPH, acting principal director of the CDC, said the focus should be on prevention.
“This new research should serve as a wake-up call for all of us. It’s vital that we focus our efforts to ensure all Americans, especially our young people, are the healthiest they can be,” she said in a press release.
The findings come from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study, funded by the CDC and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Houry and Dr. Holliday report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a new study published in Diabetes Care.
It is expected that as many as 526,000 people younger than 20 years in the United States will have diabetes by 2060, researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report. Their projections found that the number of young people with diabetes will increase 12%, from 213,000 in 2017 to 239,000 in 2060.
The estimates include a 673% rise in the number of youth with type 2 diabetes and a 65% increase in cases of type 1 diabetes over the next 4 decades.
Most of the new cases are projected to occur among non-Hispanic Blacks, exacerbating the already significant racial disparities in type 2 diabetes in particular, the study found.
“This study’s startling projections of type 2 diabetes increases show why it is crucial to advance health equity and reduce the widespread disparities that already take a toll on people’s health,” Christopher Holliday, PhD, MPH, FACHE, director of CDC’s Division of Diabetes Translation, said in a press release about the new estimates.
Even if trends remain the same in coming decades, researchers said diagnoses of type 2 diabetes will rise almost 70% and that diagnoses of type 1 diabetes will increase by 3%.
The researchers attribute the increase in diabetes cases among youth to a variety of factors, including the growing prevalence of childhood obesity and the presence of diabetes in women of childbearing age, which is linked to obesity in their offspring.
Debra Houry, MD, MPH, acting principal director of the CDC, said the focus should be on prevention.
“This new research should serve as a wake-up call for all of us. It’s vital that we focus our efforts to ensure all Americans, especially our young people, are the healthiest they can be,” she said in a press release.
The findings come from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study, funded by the CDC and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Houry and Dr. Holliday report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a new study published in Diabetes Care.
It is expected that as many as 526,000 people younger than 20 years in the United States will have diabetes by 2060, researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report. Their projections found that the number of young people with diabetes will increase 12%, from 213,000 in 2017 to 239,000 in 2060.
The estimates include a 673% rise in the number of youth with type 2 diabetes and a 65% increase in cases of type 1 diabetes over the next 4 decades.
Most of the new cases are projected to occur among non-Hispanic Blacks, exacerbating the already significant racial disparities in type 2 diabetes in particular, the study found.
“This study’s startling projections of type 2 diabetes increases show why it is crucial to advance health equity and reduce the widespread disparities that already take a toll on people’s health,” Christopher Holliday, PhD, MPH, FACHE, director of CDC’s Division of Diabetes Translation, said in a press release about the new estimates.
Even if trends remain the same in coming decades, researchers said diagnoses of type 2 diabetes will rise almost 70% and that diagnoses of type 1 diabetes will increase by 3%.
The researchers attribute the increase in diabetes cases among youth to a variety of factors, including the growing prevalence of childhood obesity and the presence of diabetes in women of childbearing age, which is linked to obesity in their offspring.
Debra Houry, MD, MPH, acting principal director of the CDC, said the focus should be on prevention.
“This new research should serve as a wake-up call for all of us. It’s vital that we focus our efforts to ensure all Americans, especially our young people, are the healthiest they can be,” she said in a press release.
The findings come from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study, funded by the CDC and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Houry and Dr. Holliday report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM DIABETES CARE
Women with cycle disorders across their life span may be at increased risk of cardiovascular disease
This finding is demonstrated in a new analysis of the Nurses’ Health Study II.
“To date, several studies have reported increased risks of cardiovascular risk factors or cardiovascular disease in connection with cycle disorders,” Yi-Xin Wang, MD, PhD, a research fellow in nutrition, and associates from the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, wrote in an article published in JAMA Network Open.
Ute Seeland, MD, speaker of the Gender Medicine in Cardiology Working Group of the German Cardiology Society, said in an interview“We know that women who have indicated in their medical history that they have irregular menstrual cycles, invariably in connection with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), more commonly develop diabetes and other metabolic disorders, as well as cardiovascular diseases.”
Cycle disorders’ role
However, the role that irregular or especially long cycles play at different points of a woman’s reproductive life span was unclear. Therefore, the research group investigated the associations in the Nurses’ Health Study II between cycle irregularity and cycle length in women of different age groups who later experienced cardiovascular events.
At the end of this study in 1989, the participants also provided information regarding the length and irregularity of their menstrual cycle from ages 14 to 17 years and again from ages 18 to 22 years. The information was updated in 1993 when the participants were aged 29-46 years. The data from 2019 to 2022 were analyzed.
“This kind of long-term cohort study is extremely rare and therefore something special,” said Dr. Seeland, who conducts research at the Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology, and Health Economics at the Charité – University Hospital Berlin.
The investigators used the following cycle classifications: very regular (no more than 3 or 4 days before or after the expected date), regular (within 5-7 days), usually irregular, always irregular, or no periods.
The cycle lengths were divided into the following categories: less than 21 days, 21-25 days, 26-31 days, 32-39 days, 40-50 days, more than 50 days, and too irregular to estimate the length.
The onset of cardiovascular diseases was determined using information from the participants and was confirmed by reviewing the medical files. Relevant to the study were lethal and nonlethal coronary heart diseases (such as myocardial infarction or coronary artery revascularization), as well as strokes.
Significant in adulthood
The data from 80,630 study participants were included in the analysis. At study inclusion, the average age of the participants was 37.7 years, and the average body mass index (BMI) was 25.1. “Since it was predominantly White nurses who took part in the study, the data are not transferable to other, more diverse populations,” said Dr. Seeland.
Over 24 years, 1,816 women (2.4%) had a cardiovascular event. “We observed an increased rate of cardiovascular events in women with an irregular cycle and longer cycle, both in early an in mid-adulthood,” wrote Dr. Wang and associates. “Similar trends were also observed for cycle disorders when younger, but this association was weaker than in adulthood.”
Compared with women with very regular cycles, women with irregular cycles or without periods who were aged 14-17 years, 18-22 years, or 29-49 years exhibited a 15%, 36%, and 40% higher risk of a cardiovascular event, respectively.
Similarly, women aged 18-22 years or 29-46 years with long cycles of 40 days or more had a 44% or 30% higher risk of cardiovascular disease, respectively, compared with women with cycle lengths of 26-31 days.
“The coronary heart diseases were decisive for the increase, and less so, the strokes,” wrote the researchers.
Classic risk factors?
Dr. Seeland praised the fact that the study authors tried to determine the role that classic cardiovascular risk factors played. “Compared with women with a regular cycle, women with an irregular cycle had a higher BMI, more frequently increased cholesterol levels, and an elevated blood pressure,” she said. Women with a long cycle displayed a similar pattern.
It can be assumed from this that over a woman’s life span, BMI affects the risk of cardiovascular disease. Therefore, Dr. Wang and coauthors adjusted the results on the basis of BMI, which varies over time.
Regarding other classic risk factors that may have played a role, “hypercholesterolemia, chronic high blood pressure, and type 2 diabetes were only responsible in 5.4%-13.5% of the associations,” wrote the researchers.
“Our results suggest that certain characteristics of the menstrual cycle across a woman’s reproductive lifespan may constitute additional risk markers for cardiovascular disease,” according to the authors.
The highest rates of cardiovascular disease were among women with permanently irregular or long cycles in early to mid adulthood, as well as women who had regular cycles when younger but had irregular cycles in mid adulthood. “This indicates that the change from one cycle phenotype to another could be a surrogate marker for metabolic changes, which in turn contribute to the formation of cardiovascular diseases,” wrote the authors.
The study was observational and so conclusions cannot be drawn regarding causal relationships. But Dr. Wang and associates indicate that the most common cause of an irregular menstrual cycle may be PCOS. “Roughly 90% of women with cycle disorders or oligomenorrhea have signs of PCOS. And it was shown that women with PCOS have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.”
They concluded that “the associations observed between irregular and long cycles in early to mid-adulthood and cardiovascular diseases are likely attributable to underlying PCOS.”
For Dr. Seeland, however, this conclusion is “too monocausal. At no point in time did there seem to be any direct information regarding the frequency of PCOS during the data collection by the respondents.”
For now, we can only speculate about the mechanisms. “The association between a very irregular and long cycle and the increased risk of cardiovascular diseases has now only been described. More research should be done on the causes,” said Dr. Seeland.
This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This finding is demonstrated in a new analysis of the Nurses’ Health Study II.
“To date, several studies have reported increased risks of cardiovascular risk factors or cardiovascular disease in connection with cycle disorders,” Yi-Xin Wang, MD, PhD, a research fellow in nutrition, and associates from the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, wrote in an article published in JAMA Network Open.
Ute Seeland, MD, speaker of the Gender Medicine in Cardiology Working Group of the German Cardiology Society, said in an interview“We know that women who have indicated in their medical history that they have irregular menstrual cycles, invariably in connection with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), more commonly develop diabetes and other metabolic disorders, as well as cardiovascular diseases.”
Cycle disorders’ role
However, the role that irregular or especially long cycles play at different points of a woman’s reproductive life span was unclear. Therefore, the research group investigated the associations in the Nurses’ Health Study II between cycle irregularity and cycle length in women of different age groups who later experienced cardiovascular events.
At the end of this study in 1989, the participants also provided information regarding the length and irregularity of their menstrual cycle from ages 14 to 17 years and again from ages 18 to 22 years. The information was updated in 1993 when the participants were aged 29-46 years. The data from 2019 to 2022 were analyzed.
“This kind of long-term cohort study is extremely rare and therefore something special,” said Dr. Seeland, who conducts research at the Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology, and Health Economics at the Charité – University Hospital Berlin.
The investigators used the following cycle classifications: very regular (no more than 3 or 4 days before or after the expected date), regular (within 5-7 days), usually irregular, always irregular, or no periods.
The cycle lengths were divided into the following categories: less than 21 days, 21-25 days, 26-31 days, 32-39 days, 40-50 days, more than 50 days, and too irregular to estimate the length.
The onset of cardiovascular diseases was determined using information from the participants and was confirmed by reviewing the medical files. Relevant to the study were lethal and nonlethal coronary heart diseases (such as myocardial infarction or coronary artery revascularization), as well as strokes.
Significant in adulthood
The data from 80,630 study participants were included in the analysis. At study inclusion, the average age of the participants was 37.7 years, and the average body mass index (BMI) was 25.1. “Since it was predominantly White nurses who took part in the study, the data are not transferable to other, more diverse populations,” said Dr. Seeland.
Over 24 years, 1,816 women (2.4%) had a cardiovascular event. “We observed an increased rate of cardiovascular events in women with an irregular cycle and longer cycle, both in early an in mid-adulthood,” wrote Dr. Wang and associates. “Similar trends were also observed for cycle disorders when younger, but this association was weaker than in adulthood.”
Compared with women with very regular cycles, women with irregular cycles or without periods who were aged 14-17 years, 18-22 years, or 29-49 years exhibited a 15%, 36%, and 40% higher risk of a cardiovascular event, respectively.
Similarly, women aged 18-22 years or 29-46 years with long cycles of 40 days or more had a 44% or 30% higher risk of cardiovascular disease, respectively, compared with women with cycle lengths of 26-31 days.
“The coronary heart diseases were decisive for the increase, and less so, the strokes,” wrote the researchers.
Classic risk factors?
Dr. Seeland praised the fact that the study authors tried to determine the role that classic cardiovascular risk factors played. “Compared with women with a regular cycle, women with an irregular cycle had a higher BMI, more frequently increased cholesterol levels, and an elevated blood pressure,” she said. Women with a long cycle displayed a similar pattern.
It can be assumed from this that over a woman’s life span, BMI affects the risk of cardiovascular disease. Therefore, Dr. Wang and coauthors adjusted the results on the basis of BMI, which varies over time.
Regarding other classic risk factors that may have played a role, “hypercholesterolemia, chronic high blood pressure, and type 2 diabetes were only responsible in 5.4%-13.5% of the associations,” wrote the researchers.
“Our results suggest that certain characteristics of the menstrual cycle across a woman’s reproductive lifespan may constitute additional risk markers for cardiovascular disease,” according to the authors.
The highest rates of cardiovascular disease were among women with permanently irregular or long cycles in early to mid adulthood, as well as women who had regular cycles when younger but had irregular cycles in mid adulthood. “This indicates that the change from one cycle phenotype to another could be a surrogate marker for metabolic changes, which in turn contribute to the formation of cardiovascular diseases,” wrote the authors.
The study was observational and so conclusions cannot be drawn regarding causal relationships. But Dr. Wang and associates indicate that the most common cause of an irregular menstrual cycle may be PCOS. “Roughly 90% of women with cycle disorders or oligomenorrhea have signs of PCOS. And it was shown that women with PCOS have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.”
They concluded that “the associations observed between irregular and long cycles in early to mid-adulthood and cardiovascular diseases are likely attributable to underlying PCOS.”
For Dr. Seeland, however, this conclusion is “too monocausal. At no point in time did there seem to be any direct information regarding the frequency of PCOS during the data collection by the respondents.”
For now, we can only speculate about the mechanisms. “The association between a very irregular and long cycle and the increased risk of cardiovascular diseases has now only been described. More research should be done on the causes,” said Dr. Seeland.
This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This finding is demonstrated in a new analysis of the Nurses’ Health Study II.
“To date, several studies have reported increased risks of cardiovascular risk factors or cardiovascular disease in connection with cycle disorders,” Yi-Xin Wang, MD, PhD, a research fellow in nutrition, and associates from the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, wrote in an article published in JAMA Network Open.
Ute Seeland, MD, speaker of the Gender Medicine in Cardiology Working Group of the German Cardiology Society, said in an interview“We know that women who have indicated in their medical history that they have irregular menstrual cycles, invariably in connection with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), more commonly develop diabetes and other metabolic disorders, as well as cardiovascular diseases.”
Cycle disorders’ role
However, the role that irregular or especially long cycles play at different points of a woman’s reproductive life span was unclear. Therefore, the research group investigated the associations in the Nurses’ Health Study II between cycle irregularity and cycle length in women of different age groups who later experienced cardiovascular events.
At the end of this study in 1989, the participants also provided information regarding the length and irregularity of their menstrual cycle from ages 14 to 17 years and again from ages 18 to 22 years. The information was updated in 1993 when the participants were aged 29-46 years. The data from 2019 to 2022 were analyzed.
“This kind of long-term cohort study is extremely rare and therefore something special,” said Dr. Seeland, who conducts research at the Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology, and Health Economics at the Charité – University Hospital Berlin.
The investigators used the following cycle classifications: very regular (no more than 3 or 4 days before or after the expected date), regular (within 5-7 days), usually irregular, always irregular, or no periods.
The cycle lengths were divided into the following categories: less than 21 days, 21-25 days, 26-31 days, 32-39 days, 40-50 days, more than 50 days, and too irregular to estimate the length.
The onset of cardiovascular diseases was determined using information from the participants and was confirmed by reviewing the medical files. Relevant to the study were lethal and nonlethal coronary heart diseases (such as myocardial infarction or coronary artery revascularization), as well as strokes.
Significant in adulthood
The data from 80,630 study participants were included in the analysis. At study inclusion, the average age of the participants was 37.7 years, and the average body mass index (BMI) was 25.1. “Since it was predominantly White nurses who took part in the study, the data are not transferable to other, more diverse populations,” said Dr. Seeland.
Over 24 years, 1,816 women (2.4%) had a cardiovascular event. “We observed an increased rate of cardiovascular events in women with an irregular cycle and longer cycle, both in early an in mid-adulthood,” wrote Dr. Wang and associates. “Similar trends were also observed for cycle disorders when younger, but this association was weaker than in adulthood.”
Compared with women with very regular cycles, women with irregular cycles or without periods who were aged 14-17 years, 18-22 years, or 29-49 years exhibited a 15%, 36%, and 40% higher risk of a cardiovascular event, respectively.
Similarly, women aged 18-22 years or 29-46 years with long cycles of 40 days or more had a 44% or 30% higher risk of cardiovascular disease, respectively, compared with women with cycle lengths of 26-31 days.
“The coronary heart diseases were decisive for the increase, and less so, the strokes,” wrote the researchers.
Classic risk factors?
Dr. Seeland praised the fact that the study authors tried to determine the role that classic cardiovascular risk factors played. “Compared with women with a regular cycle, women with an irregular cycle had a higher BMI, more frequently increased cholesterol levels, and an elevated blood pressure,” she said. Women with a long cycle displayed a similar pattern.
It can be assumed from this that over a woman’s life span, BMI affects the risk of cardiovascular disease. Therefore, Dr. Wang and coauthors adjusted the results on the basis of BMI, which varies over time.
Regarding other classic risk factors that may have played a role, “hypercholesterolemia, chronic high blood pressure, and type 2 diabetes were only responsible in 5.4%-13.5% of the associations,” wrote the researchers.
“Our results suggest that certain characteristics of the menstrual cycle across a woman’s reproductive lifespan may constitute additional risk markers for cardiovascular disease,” according to the authors.
The highest rates of cardiovascular disease were among women with permanently irregular or long cycles in early to mid adulthood, as well as women who had regular cycles when younger but had irregular cycles in mid adulthood. “This indicates that the change from one cycle phenotype to another could be a surrogate marker for metabolic changes, which in turn contribute to the formation of cardiovascular diseases,” wrote the authors.
The study was observational and so conclusions cannot be drawn regarding causal relationships. But Dr. Wang and associates indicate that the most common cause of an irregular menstrual cycle may be PCOS. “Roughly 90% of women with cycle disorders or oligomenorrhea have signs of PCOS. And it was shown that women with PCOS have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.”
They concluded that “the associations observed between irregular and long cycles in early to mid-adulthood and cardiovascular diseases are likely attributable to underlying PCOS.”
For Dr. Seeland, however, this conclusion is “too monocausal. At no point in time did there seem to be any direct information regarding the frequency of PCOS during the data collection by the respondents.”
For now, we can only speculate about the mechanisms. “The association between a very irregular and long cycle and the increased risk of cardiovascular diseases has now only been described. More research should be done on the causes,” said Dr. Seeland.
This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Study of beliefs about what causes cancer sparks debate
The study, entitled, “Everything Causes Cancer? Beliefs and Attitudes Towards Cancer Prevention Among Anti-Vaxxers, Flat Earthers, and Reptilian Conspiracists: Online Cross Sectional Survey,” was published in the Christmas 2022 issue of The British Medical Journal (BMJ).
The authors explain that they set out to evaluate “the patterns of beliefs about cancer among people who believed in conspiracies, rejected the COVID-19 vaccine, or preferred alternative medicine.”
They sought such people on social media and online chat platforms and asked them questions about real and mythical causes of cancer.
Almost half of survey participants agreed with the statement, “It seems like everything causes cancer.”
Overall, among all participants, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was greater than awareness of the mythical causes of cancer, the authors report. However, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was lower among the unvaccinated and members of conspiracy groups than among their counterparts.
The authors are concerned that their findings suggest “a direct connection between digital misinformation and consequent potential erroneous health decisions, which may represent a further preventable fraction of cancer.”
Backlash and criticism
The study “highlights the difficulty society encounters in distinguishing the actual causes of cancer from mythical causes,” The BMJ commented on Twitter.
However, both the study and the journal received some backlash.
This is a “horrible article seeking to smear people with concerns about COVID vaccines,” commented Clare Craig, a British consultant pathologist who specializes in cancer diagnostics.
The study and its methodology were also harshly criticized on Twitter by Normal Fenton, professor of risk information management at the Queen Mary University of London.
The senior author of the study, Laura Costas, a medical epidemiologist with the Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, told this news organization that the naysayers on social media, many of whom focused their comments on the COVID-19 vaccine, prove the purpose of the study – that misinformation spreads widely on the internet.
“Most comments focused on spreading COVID-19 myths, which were not the direct subject of the study, and questioned the motivations of BMJ authors and the scientific community, assuming they had a common malevolent hidden agenda,” Ms. Costas said.
“They stated the need of having critical thinking, a trait in common with the scientific method, but dogmatically dismissed any information that comes from official sources,” she added.
Ms. Costas commented that “society encounters difficulty in differentiating actual from mythical causes of cancer owing to mass information. We therefore planned this study with a certain satire, which is in line with the essence of The BMJ Christmas issue.”
The BMJ has a long history of publishing a lighthearted Christmas edition full of original, satirical, and nontraditional studies. Previous years have seen studies that explored potential harms from holly and ivy, survival time of chocolates on hospital wards, and the question, “Were James Bond’s drinks shaken because of alcohol induced tremor?”
Study details
Ms. Costas and colleagues sought participants for their survey from online forums that included 4chan and Reddit, which are known for their controversial content posted by anonymous users. Data were also collected from ForoCoches and HispaChan, well-known Spanish online forums. These online sites were intentionally chosen because researchers thought “conspiracy beliefs would be more prevalent,” according to Ms. Costas.
Across the multiple forums, there were 1,494 participants. Of these, 209 participants were unvaccinated against COVID-19, 112 preferred alternatives rather than conventional medicine, and 62 reported that they believed the earth was flat or believed that humanoids take reptilian forms to manipulate human societies.
The team then sought to assess beliefs about actual and mythical (nonestablished) causes of cancer by presenting the participants with the closed risk factor questions on two validated scales – the Cancer Awareness Measure (CAM) and CAM–Mythical Causes Scale (CAM-MYCS).
Responses to both were recorded on a five-point scale; answers ranged from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”
The CAM assesses cancer risk perceptions of 11 established risk factors for cancer: smoking actively or passively, consuming alcohol, low levels of physical activity, consuming red or processed meat, getting sunburnt as a child, family history of cancer, human papillomavirus infection, being overweight, age greater than or equal to 70 years, and low vegetable and fruit consumption.
The CAM-MYCS measure includes 12 questions on risk perceptions of mythical causes of cancer – nonestablished causes that are commonly believed to cause cancer but for which there is no supporting scientific evidence, the authors explain. These items include drinking from plastic bottles; eating food containing artificial sweeteners or additives and genetically modified food; using microwave ovens, aerosol containers, mobile phones, and cleaning products; living near power lines; feeling stressed; experiencing physical trauma; and being exposed to electromagnetic frequencies/non-ionizing radiation, such as wi-fi networks, radio, and television.
The most endorsed mythical causes of cancer were eating food containing additives (63.9%) or sweeteners (50.7%), feeling stressed (59.7%), and eating genetically modified foods (38.4%).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The study, entitled, “Everything Causes Cancer? Beliefs and Attitudes Towards Cancer Prevention Among Anti-Vaxxers, Flat Earthers, and Reptilian Conspiracists: Online Cross Sectional Survey,” was published in the Christmas 2022 issue of The British Medical Journal (BMJ).
The authors explain that they set out to evaluate “the patterns of beliefs about cancer among people who believed in conspiracies, rejected the COVID-19 vaccine, or preferred alternative medicine.”
They sought such people on social media and online chat platforms and asked them questions about real and mythical causes of cancer.
Almost half of survey participants agreed with the statement, “It seems like everything causes cancer.”
Overall, among all participants, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was greater than awareness of the mythical causes of cancer, the authors report. However, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was lower among the unvaccinated and members of conspiracy groups than among their counterparts.
The authors are concerned that their findings suggest “a direct connection between digital misinformation and consequent potential erroneous health decisions, which may represent a further preventable fraction of cancer.”
Backlash and criticism
The study “highlights the difficulty society encounters in distinguishing the actual causes of cancer from mythical causes,” The BMJ commented on Twitter.
However, both the study and the journal received some backlash.
This is a “horrible article seeking to smear people with concerns about COVID vaccines,” commented Clare Craig, a British consultant pathologist who specializes in cancer diagnostics.
The study and its methodology were also harshly criticized on Twitter by Normal Fenton, professor of risk information management at the Queen Mary University of London.
The senior author of the study, Laura Costas, a medical epidemiologist with the Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, told this news organization that the naysayers on social media, many of whom focused their comments on the COVID-19 vaccine, prove the purpose of the study – that misinformation spreads widely on the internet.
“Most comments focused on spreading COVID-19 myths, which were not the direct subject of the study, and questioned the motivations of BMJ authors and the scientific community, assuming they had a common malevolent hidden agenda,” Ms. Costas said.
“They stated the need of having critical thinking, a trait in common with the scientific method, but dogmatically dismissed any information that comes from official sources,” she added.
Ms. Costas commented that “society encounters difficulty in differentiating actual from mythical causes of cancer owing to mass information. We therefore planned this study with a certain satire, which is in line with the essence of The BMJ Christmas issue.”
The BMJ has a long history of publishing a lighthearted Christmas edition full of original, satirical, and nontraditional studies. Previous years have seen studies that explored potential harms from holly and ivy, survival time of chocolates on hospital wards, and the question, “Were James Bond’s drinks shaken because of alcohol induced tremor?”
Study details
Ms. Costas and colleagues sought participants for their survey from online forums that included 4chan and Reddit, which are known for their controversial content posted by anonymous users. Data were also collected from ForoCoches and HispaChan, well-known Spanish online forums. These online sites were intentionally chosen because researchers thought “conspiracy beliefs would be more prevalent,” according to Ms. Costas.
Across the multiple forums, there were 1,494 participants. Of these, 209 participants were unvaccinated against COVID-19, 112 preferred alternatives rather than conventional medicine, and 62 reported that they believed the earth was flat or believed that humanoids take reptilian forms to manipulate human societies.
The team then sought to assess beliefs about actual and mythical (nonestablished) causes of cancer by presenting the participants with the closed risk factor questions on two validated scales – the Cancer Awareness Measure (CAM) and CAM–Mythical Causes Scale (CAM-MYCS).
Responses to both were recorded on a five-point scale; answers ranged from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”
The CAM assesses cancer risk perceptions of 11 established risk factors for cancer: smoking actively or passively, consuming alcohol, low levels of physical activity, consuming red or processed meat, getting sunburnt as a child, family history of cancer, human papillomavirus infection, being overweight, age greater than or equal to 70 years, and low vegetable and fruit consumption.
The CAM-MYCS measure includes 12 questions on risk perceptions of mythical causes of cancer – nonestablished causes that are commonly believed to cause cancer but for which there is no supporting scientific evidence, the authors explain. These items include drinking from plastic bottles; eating food containing artificial sweeteners or additives and genetically modified food; using microwave ovens, aerosol containers, mobile phones, and cleaning products; living near power lines; feeling stressed; experiencing physical trauma; and being exposed to electromagnetic frequencies/non-ionizing radiation, such as wi-fi networks, radio, and television.
The most endorsed mythical causes of cancer were eating food containing additives (63.9%) or sweeteners (50.7%), feeling stressed (59.7%), and eating genetically modified foods (38.4%).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The study, entitled, “Everything Causes Cancer? Beliefs and Attitudes Towards Cancer Prevention Among Anti-Vaxxers, Flat Earthers, and Reptilian Conspiracists: Online Cross Sectional Survey,” was published in the Christmas 2022 issue of The British Medical Journal (BMJ).
The authors explain that they set out to evaluate “the patterns of beliefs about cancer among people who believed in conspiracies, rejected the COVID-19 vaccine, or preferred alternative medicine.”
They sought such people on social media and online chat platforms and asked them questions about real and mythical causes of cancer.
Almost half of survey participants agreed with the statement, “It seems like everything causes cancer.”
Overall, among all participants, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was greater than awareness of the mythical causes of cancer, the authors report. However, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was lower among the unvaccinated and members of conspiracy groups than among their counterparts.
The authors are concerned that their findings suggest “a direct connection between digital misinformation and consequent potential erroneous health decisions, which may represent a further preventable fraction of cancer.”
Backlash and criticism
The study “highlights the difficulty society encounters in distinguishing the actual causes of cancer from mythical causes,” The BMJ commented on Twitter.
However, both the study and the journal received some backlash.
This is a “horrible article seeking to smear people with concerns about COVID vaccines,” commented Clare Craig, a British consultant pathologist who specializes in cancer diagnostics.
The study and its methodology were also harshly criticized on Twitter by Normal Fenton, professor of risk information management at the Queen Mary University of London.
The senior author of the study, Laura Costas, a medical epidemiologist with the Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, told this news organization that the naysayers on social media, many of whom focused their comments on the COVID-19 vaccine, prove the purpose of the study – that misinformation spreads widely on the internet.
“Most comments focused on spreading COVID-19 myths, which were not the direct subject of the study, and questioned the motivations of BMJ authors and the scientific community, assuming they had a common malevolent hidden agenda,” Ms. Costas said.
“They stated the need of having critical thinking, a trait in common with the scientific method, but dogmatically dismissed any information that comes from official sources,” she added.
Ms. Costas commented that “society encounters difficulty in differentiating actual from mythical causes of cancer owing to mass information. We therefore planned this study with a certain satire, which is in line with the essence of The BMJ Christmas issue.”
The BMJ has a long history of publishing a lighthearted Christmas edition full of original, satirical, and nontraditional studies. Previous years have seen studies that explored potential harms from holly and ivy, survival time of chocolates on hospital wards, and the question, “Were James Bond’s drinks shaken because of alcohol induced tremor?”
Study details
Ms. Costas and colleagues sought participants for their survey from online forums that included 4chan and Reddit, which are known for their controversial content posted by anonymous users. Data were also collected from ForoCoches and HispaChan, well-known Spanish online forums. These online sites were intentionally chosen because researchers thought “conspiracy beliefs would be more prevalent,” according to Ms. Costas.
Across the multiple forums, there were 1,494 participants. Of these, 209 participants were unvaccinated against COVID-19, 112 preferred alternatives rather than conventional medicine, and 62 reported that they believed the earth was flat or believed that humanoids take reptilian forms to manipulate human societies.
The team then sought to assess beliefs about actual and mythical (nonestablished) causes of cancer by presenting the participants with the closed risk factor questions on two validated scales – the Cancer Awareness Measure (CAM) and CAM–Mythical Causes Scale (CAM-MYCS).
Responses to both were recorded on a five-point scale; answers ranged from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”
The CAM assesses cancer risk perceptions of 11 established risk factors for cancer: smoking actively or passively, consuming alcohol, low levels of physical activity, consuming red or processed meat, getting sunburnt as a child, family history of cancer, human papillomavirus infection, being overweight, age greater than or equal to 70 years, and low vegetable and fruit consumption.
The CAM-MYCS measure includes 12 questions on risk perceptions of mythical causes of cancer – nonestablished causes that are commonly believed to cause cancer but for which there is no supporting scientific evidence, the authors explain. These items include drinking from plastic bottles; eating food containing artificial sweeteners or additives and genetically modified food; using microwave ovens, aerosol containers, mobile phones, and cleaning products; living near power lines; feeling stressed; experiencing physical trauma; and being exposed to electromagnetic frequencies/non-ionizing radiation, such as wi-fi networks, radio, and television.
The most endorsed mythical causes of cancer were eating food containing additives (63.9%) or sweeteners (50.7%), feeling stressed (59.7%), and eating genetically modified foods (38.4%).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ED docs need a clearer path to outpatient primary care
It was 2 p.m. on a sunny and humid day, 1 hour before my 8-hour shift was over in the emergency department at the community hospital that I was rotating through. It was part of my fourth-year emergency medicine (EM) clerkship. Not that I would have noticed the weather, save for the few seconds the sliding door to the ED would open periodically, as if on its own cadence, with the sounds of stomping boots and a rolling gurney making its way through.
We were busy. At this particular hospital, I was told, EM volume is already up 35% this year compared with the previous year, and bed holds had been hitting new highs each week.
One more hour until my shift is over and a poor soul will take over my computer, seat, and the chaos.
I took a glance at the electronic health record again, seeing whether there was anything I could do to discharge any of the patients to relieve some of the strain. Knee pain, toe pain, headache/migraine, shoulder pain, elevated blood pressure. Although it’s true that any of these listed complaints could have emergent etiologies, the truth was that all of these patients were here owing to exacerbations of chronic issues. And yet most, if not all, of these patients had been here for nearly 8 hours, some even longer, waiting for treatment and exacerbating an already busy ED.
“I don’t understand. Couldn’t these patients have sought care outpatient with their PCP [primary care physician]? It would have been a lot cheaper and faster.” I asked. A seasoned ED physician, bald, graying, and whom I had just met today and hadn’t spoken to much until this very moment, turned to me and said: “We have become the dumping ground for primary care complaints.”
‘Go to the ED’
“PCPs are already too busy,” the physician continued. “It’s just easier to say: ‘Go to the ED. They’ll take care of it.’ ”
He continued: “In my 30 years of practicing, emergency medicine has changed so much. When I first started in the 1980s, I was only seeing emergencies, and it was fun. Now, 80% of my patients are primary care complaints. These days, I am more of a primary care physician than an emergency physician.”
Hmmm, I thought. Was this physician burned out and jaded? Quite possibly. Was this change the physician experienced throughout his career more likely attributed to a capitalist-run, profit-driven health care system and its cohort of underinsured and noninsured citizens? Certainly. I’m only a fourth-year medical student, so my view of the situation is no doubt limited.
But something he said definitely rang my bell: I’m more of a primary care physician than an emergency physician. That is an argument I can consider. Whether it is caused by poorly designed reimbursement schedules or the state of America’s profit-driven health care system, which effectively makes these physicians double as PCPs on a daily basis.
I let this thought ruminate on my drive home, along with how there’s a such a huge demand for PCPs, resulting in it taking up to 3 months to get an appointment with one. That’s crazy, and I understand the need to come to the ED where you’ll (hopefully) be seen the same day.
I also ruminated on how emergency physicians have the highest rate of burnout among all the specialties, with no career recourse afterward. Either you’re part of the hospital machine complex, or you’re out. Practicing EM for nearly 30 years is apparently a rarity these days. Most emergency physicians last 5 years, 10 years tops, and then are so burned out that they retire to pursue a life outside of medicine (real estate seems to be popular). But this is a shame.
Emergency docs exiting medicine
Emergency physicians have seen a ton of wildly different pathologies and have treated a variety of different conditions, including conditions usually reserved for primary care. To let knowledgeable, experienced emergency physicians just exit medicine, with no recourse to further contribute to this country’s health system outside of the hospital machine, is a travesty in its own right.
I ruminated further on the 2021 American College of Emergency Physicians 2021 report on the EM physician workforce, which stated that there is projected to be an oversupply of emergency physicians by 2030, leaving thousands of them out of work. No doubt that report has left an impact on the volume of residency applications into EM in 2021. No one wants to go through residency and be unemployed at the end of it.
And finally, I ruminated on the sheer volume of patients visiting EDs across the country. Patient volumes are up, wait times in general are up, wait times in the ED are up, and bed holds to get admitted are hitting highs across the country each week. The deluge of patients visiting the ED is not getting better, and it’s only likely to get worse as the population ages.
It’s time to offer emergency physicians a path to outpatient primary care.
Now before I get hung for this suggestion (“I went into EM precisely not to do outpatient care!”), hear me out: Such a path should be offered via a 1-year accelerated fellowship and will allow emergency physicians to practice outpatient primary care medicine independently. And although working in urgent care centers is already an option, the opportunity to own and operate their own primary care practice should also exist.
In my humble opinion, by offering such a path, the following objectives could be accomplished:
Alleviate the pressure on primary care medicine in the United States. It’s no secret that the United States needs more primary care physicians. Allowing emergency physicians who got burnt out by hospital life an alternative way to serve their community and country via outpatient primary care would greatly alleviate the pressure on the need for PCPs today.
Provide an alternative career path for emergency physicians. We would be doing a disservice if we don’t offer emergency physicians a way to revive their burnout and utilize their skill set in a post-ED life. Outpatient primary care is the perfect way to do this, and it’s a win-win-win on several fronts: We need more outpatient physicians, they need an opportunity to flex their knowledge in an alternative setting.
Solve the “ACEP” problem. The ACEP report scared medical students away from applying to residency in EM. Who wants to go through 3 years of residency only to be unemployed at the end of it? By offering a path to outpatient primary care, we can offer an important and viable path for those emergency physicians who would be unemployed to continue to practice medicine and serve the community, thereby alleviating concern about an oversupply.
For better or for worse, because of the state of health care today, ED physicians have been exposed to a myriad of primary care concerns, all of which have prepared them for a career as an outpatient PCP. By offering such a path, we can provide more flexibility for an emergency physician’s career, help alleviate the primary care shortage affecting the United States, and serve our community and country in new and helpful ways.
Dr. Gogna is a fourth-year medical student at Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine Georgia, Suwanee. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It was 2 p.m. on a sunny and humid day, 1 hour before my 8-hour shift was over in the emergency department at the community hospital that I was rotating through. It was part of my fourth-year emergency medicine (EM) clerkship. Not that I would have noticed the weather, save for the few seconds the sliding door to the ED would open periodically, as if on its own cadence, with the sounds of stomping boots and a rolling gurney making its way through.
We were busy. At this particular hospital, I was told, EM volume is already up 35% this year compared with the previous year, and bed holds had been hitting new highs each week.
One more hour until my shift is over and a poor soul will take over my computer, seat, and the chaos.
I took a glance at the electronic health record again, seeing whether there was anything I could do to discharge any of the patients to relieve some of the strain. Knee pain, toe pain, headache/migraine, shoulder pain, elevated blood pressure. Although it’s true that any of these listed complaints could have emergent etiologies, the truth was that all of these patients were here owing to exacerbations of chronic issues. And yet most, if not all, of these patients had been here for nearly 8 hours, some even longer, waiting for treatment and exacerbating an already busy ED.
“I don’t understand. Couldn’t these patients have sought care outpatient with their PCP [primary care physician]? It would have been a lot cheaper and faster.” I asked. A seasoned ED physician, bald, graying, and whom I had just met today and hadn’t spoken to much until this very moment, turned to me and said: “We have become the dumping ground for primary care complaints.”
‘Go to the ED’
“PCPs are already too busy,” the physician continued. “It’s just easier to say: ‘Go to the ED. They’ll take care of it.’ ”
He continued: “In my 30 years of practicing, emergency medicine has changed so much. When I first started in the 1980s, I was only seeing emergencies, and it was fun. Now, 80% of my patients are primary care complaints. These days, I am more of a primary care physician than an emergency physician.”
Hmmm, I thought. Was this physician burned out and jaded? Quite possibly. Was this change the physician experienced throughout his career more likely attributed to a capitalist-run, profit-driven health care system and its cohort of underinsured and noninsured citizens? Certainly. I’m only a fourth-year medical student, so my view of the situation is no doubt limited.
But something he said definitely rang my bell: I’m more of a primary care physician than an emergency physician. That is an argument I can consider. Whether it is caused by poorly designed reimbursement schedules or the state of America’s profit-driven health care system, which effectively makes these physicians double as PCPs on a daily basis.
I let this thought ruminate on my drive home, along with how there’s a such a huge demand for PCPs, resulting in it taking up to 3 months to get an appointment with one. That’s crazy, and I understand the need to come to the ED where you’ll (hopefully) be seen the same day.
I also ruminated on how emergency physicians have the highest rate of burnout among all the specialties, with no career recourse afterward. Either you’re part of the hospital machine complex, or you’re out. Practicing EM for nearly 30 years is apparently a rarity these days. Most emergency physicians last 5 years, 10 years tops, and then are so burned out that they retire to pursue a life outside of medicine (real estate seems to be popular). But this is a shame.
Emergency docs exiting medicine
Emergency physicians have seen a ton of wildly different pathologies and have treated a variety of different conditions, including conditions usually reserved for primary care. To let knowledgeable, experienced emergency physicians just exit medicine, with no recourse to further contribute to this country’s health system outside of the hospital machine, is a travesty in its own right.
I ruminated further on the 2021 American College of Emergency Physicians 2021 report on the EM physician workforce, which stated that there is projected to be an oversupply of emergency physicians by 2030, leaving thousands of them out of work. No doubt that report has left an impact on the volume of residency applications into EM in 2021. No one wants to go through residency and be unemployed at the end of it.
And finally, I ruminated on the sheer volume of patients visiting EDs across the country. Patient volumes are up, wait times in general are up, wait times in the ED are up, and bed holds to get admitted are hitting highs across the country each week. The deluge of patients visiting the ED is not getting better, and it’s only likely to get worse as the population ages.
It’s time to offer emergency physicians a path to outpatient primary care.
Now before I get hung for this suggestion (“I went into EM precisely not to do outpatient care!”), hear me out: Such a path should be offered via a 1-year accelerated fellowship and will allow emergency physicians to practice outpatient primary care medicine independently. And although working in urgent care centers is already an option, the opportunity to own and operate their own primary care practice should also exist.
In my humble opinion, by offering such a path, the following objectives could be accomplished:
Alleviate the pressure on primary care medicine in the United States. It’s no secret that the United States needs more primary care physicians. Allowing emergency physicians who got burnt out by hospital life an alternative way to serve their community and country via outpatient primary care would greatly alleviate the pressure on the need for PCPs today.
Provide an alternative career path for emergency physicians. We would be doing a disservice if we don’t offer emergency physicians a way to revive their burnout and utilize their skill set in a post-ED life. Outpatient primary care is the perfect way to do this, and it’s a win-win-win on several fronts: We need more outpatient physicians, they need an opportunity to flex their knowledge in an alternative setting.
Solve the “ACEP” problem. The ACEP report scared medical students away from applying to residency in EM. Who wants to go through 3 years of residency only to be unemployed at the end of it? By offering a path to outpatient primary care, we can offer an important and viable path for those emergency physicians who would be unemployed to continue to practice medicine and serve the community, thereby alleviating concern about an oversupply.
For better or for worse, because of the state of health care today, ED physicians have been exposed to a myriad of primary care concerns, all of which have prepared them for a career as an outpatient PCP. By offering such a path, we can provide more flexibility for an emergency physician’s career, help alleviate the primary care shortage affecting the United States, and serve our community and country in new and helpful ways.
Dr. Gogna is a fourth-year medical student at Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine Georgia, Suwanee. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It was 2 p.m. on a sunny and humid day, 1 hour before my 8-hour shift was over in the emergency department at the community hospital that I was rotating through. It was part of my fourth-year emergency medicine (EM) clerkship. Not that I would have noticed the weather, save for the few seconds the sliding door to the ED would open periodically, as if on its own cadence, with the sounds of stomping boots and a rolling gurney making its way through.
We were busy. At this particular hospital, I was told, EM volume is already up 35% this year compared with the previous year, and bed holds had been hitting new highs each week.
One more hour until my shift is over and a poor soul will take over my computer, seat, and the chaos.
I took a glance at the electronic health record again, seeing whether there was anything I could do to discharge any of the patients to relieve some of the strain. Knee pain, toe pain, headache/migraine, shoulder pain, elevated blood pressure. Although it’s true that any of these listed complaints could have emergent etiologies, the truth was that all of these patients were here owing to exacerbations of chronic issues. And yet most, if not all, of these patients had been here for nearly 8 hours, some even longer, waiting for treatment and exacerbating an already busy ED.
“I don’t understand. Couldn’t these patients have sought care outpatient with their PCP [primary care physician]? It would have been a lot cheaper and faster.” I asked. A seasoned ED physician, bald, graying, and whom I had just met today and hadn’t spoken to much until this very moment, turned to me and said: “We have become the dumping ground for primary care complaints.”
‘Go to the ED’
“PCPs are already too busy,” the physician continued. “It’s just easier to say: ‘Go to the ED. They’ll take care of it.’ ”
He continued: “In my 30 years of practicing, emergency medicine has changed so much. When I first started in the 1980s, I was only seeing emergencies, and it was fun. Now, 80% of my patients are primary care complaints. These days, I am more of a primary care physician than an emergency physician.”
Hmmm, I thought. Was this physician burned out and jaded? Quite possibly. Was this change the physician experienced throughout his career more likely attributed to a capitalist-run, profit-driven health care system and its cohort of underinsured and noninsured citizens? Certainly. I’m only a fourth-year medical student, so my view of the situation is no doubt limited.
But something he said definitely rang my bell: I’m more of a primary care physician than an emergency physician. That is an argument I can consider. Whether it is caused by poorly designed reimbursement schedules or the state of America’s profit-driven health care system, which effectively makes these physicians double as PCPs on a daily basis.
I let this thought ruminate on my drive home, along with how there’s a such a huge demand for PCPs, resulting in it taking up to 3 months to get an appointment with one. That’s crazy, and I understand the need to come to the ED where you’ll (hopefully) be seen the same day.
I also ruminated on how emergency physicians have the highest rate of burnout among all the specialties, with no career recourse afterward. Either you’re part of the hospital machine complex, or you’re out. Practicing EM for nearly 30 years is apparently a rarity these days. Most emergency physicians last 5 years, 10 years tops, and then are so burned out that they retire to pursue a life outside of medicine (real estate seems to be popular). But this is a shame.
Emergency docs exiting medicine
Emergency physicians have seen a ton of wildly different pathologies and have treated a variety of different conditions, including conditions usually reserved for primary care. To let knowledgeable, experienced emergency physicians just exit medicine, with no recourse to further contribute to this country’s health system outside of the hospital machine, is a travesty in its own right.
I ruminated further on the 2021 American College of Emergency Physicians 2021 report on the EM physician workforce, which stated that there is projected to be an oversupply of emergency physicians by 2030, leaving thousands of them out of work. No doubt that report has left an impact on the volume of residency applications into EM in 2021. No one wants to go through residency and be unemployed at the end of it.
And finally, I ruminated on the sheer volume of patients visiting EDs across the country. Patient volumes are up, wait times in general are up, wait times in the ED are up, and bed holds to get admitted are hitting highs across the country each week. The deluge of patients visiting the ED is not getting better, and it’s only likely to get worse as the population ages.
It’s time to offer emergency physicians a path to outpatient primary care.
Now before I get hung for this suggestion (“I went into EM precisely not to do outpatient care!”), hear me out: Such a path should be offered via a 1-year accelerated fellowship and will allow emergency physicians to practice outpatient primary care medicine independently. And although working in urgent care centers is already an option, the opportunity to own and operate their own primary care practice should also exist.
In my humble opinion, by offering such a path, the following objectives could be accomplished:
Alleviate the pressure on primary care medicine in the United States. It’s no secret that the United States needs more primary care physicians. Allowing emergency physicians who got burnt out by hospital life an alternative way to serve their community and country via outpatient primary care would greatly alleviate the pressure on the need for PCPs today.
Provide an alternative career path for emergency physicians. We would be doing a disservice if we don’t offer emergency physicians a way to revive their burnout and utilize their skill set in a post-ED life. Outpatient primary care is the perfect way to do this, and it’s a win-win-win on several fronts: We need more outpatient physicians, they need an opportunity to flex their knowledge in an alternative setting.
Solve the “ACEP” problem. The ACEP report scared medical students away from applying to residency in EM. Who wants to go through 3 years of residency only to be unemployed at the end of it? By offering a path to outpatient primary care, we can offer an important and viable path for those emergency physicians who would be unemployed to continue to practice medicine and serve the community, thereby alleviating concern about an oversupply.
For better or for worse, because of the state of health care today, ED physicians have been exposed to a myriad of primary care concerns, all of which have prepared them for a career as an outpatient PCP. By offering such a path, we can provide more flexibility for an emergency physician’s career, help alleviate the primary care shortage affecting the United States, and serve our community and country in new and helpful ways.
Dr. Gogna is a fourth-year medical student at Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine Georgia, Suwanee. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Nursing exam failure rates spark review of test results
Nursing oversight groups in the United States and Canada are holding the line on testing standards as more would-be nurses fail entry exams. As a result, pressure is growing to make tests easier to pass given widespread nursing shortages, and some critics wonder whether the exams accurately assess students’ true abilities.
When it comes to training more nurses to keep up with growing demand, the U.S. organization that oversees the main licensing exams for nurses decided earlier this month not to change the passing standards for entry-level tests. Meanwhile,
A similar scenario also is unfolding in Quebec, where the agency overseeing nurse licensing exams announced last month it is holding the line on its passing rates despite an outcry from nurses after more than half of those taking the exam in September failed. Quebec’s commissioner for professional admissions is investigating dozens of complaints from nurses about the failure rate. Nurses who failed the test can sign up to retake it in March.
Joseph Oujeil, DESS, DEF, has been teaching in Canada for 4 years, now at two Quebec nursing schools. “This is surprising and very shocking to our students as well as nurses from outside Quebec who were [completing] an integration program to adjust their practice to Quebec guidelines,” Mr. Oujeil told this news organization. Students from outside the province failed the licensing exam at a higher rate than their Quebec-native peers, he explained.
Quebec’s professional Order of Nurses of Quebec (OIIQ) responded to the nurses’ outcry in a press release last month, saying that the pandemic may be partly to blame for the lower passing rate because it made it more difficult to access internships, labs, and face-to-face teaching. Some students weren’t able to demonstrate their ability to practice during the exam as in previous years, OIIQ reported.
Mr. Oujeil agreed. “I’m sure the pandemic has an impact on the situation as well as some students did less training in hospitals” because of restrictions caused by the pandemic, he said. But students also told Mr. Oujeil some questions seemed ambiguous.
OIIQ stated in its release that it doesn’t want to lower the standard. The goal is to protect the public “by and with nurses,” to “ensure the competence and integrity of nurses in Quebec,” and “promote quality nursing practice,” the release noted.
Similarly in the United States, the National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN) announced Dec. 8 that it would uphold the current passing standards for its entry-level NCLEX tests for registered nurses and practical nurses. NCSBN analyzes the passing standard every 3 years “to keep the test plan and passing standard current,” a press release explains.
NCLEX pass rates have dropped from about 73% for all candidates and 88% for first-time U.S.-educated candidates to 69% and 82% respectively in 2021, the last full year for which results are available, NCSBN spokesperson Dawn Kappel told this news organization.
Over the past 3 years, including during the pandemic, the board decided “that the current passing standard is appropriate as a measure of safe and effective entry-level nurse practice,” after reviewing national nurse surveys and the findings of panels of nurses representing NCSBN’s geographic areas in the United States and Canada, board president Jay Douglas, MSM, RN, CSAC, said in a press release.
Still, NCSBN is not blind to the larger issues facing nursing, Ms. Kappel told this news organization. “There is a huge nursing shortage in the U.S. and Canada. We want as many nurses in the workforce as possible, but we want to ensure safe practice,” she said.
“Everyone has access to the same test, regardless of which state, province, or country they take it in,” she said. Some international students may not perform as well as U.S.-educated students because of their command of English and the nursing education standards in their home countries, Ms. Kappel added.
“Obviously COVID and the challenge of education in general” affected the results, she said.
Mr. Oujeil, the nursing school professor, said he is frustrated by the test results because the majority of students who failed maintained good grades and passed all of their trainings. Yet they scored just below the passing rate of 55%. He said students are proposing the passing rate be lowered to 50%. The current test doesn’t reflect what students are learning in the classroom or during clinical trainings, Mr. Oujeil added. “I don’t know of any students who scored more than 60%.”
He said he understands that the mission of the OIIQ is protecting the population, but he doesn’t believe lowering the passing rate to 50% will put the population at risk – and it will help offset the staffing shortage.
“I’m especially frustrated by those who were doing integration programs – mothers and fathers with children with family lives and financial responsibilities. Many of them are good, hard workers and were shocked they should have to pass the exam another time.”
Since 2018, the pass rate on the first attempt at the Quebec test has generally been between 71% and 96%, compared with 51.4% during the exam in September, according to the OIIQ press release. Meanwhile, graduates from 30 of the 55 schools and universities in Quebec teaching nurses performed above the average on the recent professional exam, OIIQ reported.
The professional licensing organization pointed out that nursing candidates have three attempts to pass their exam. “In order to better prepare for their next attempt, all those who failed received an individual response detailing the difficulties encountered. The OIIQ offers all the tools necessary to pass the exam; a detailed guide and preparatory workshops are available online.
“In the run up to the next exams, we will continue to support students by working with educational institutions to provide the optimal conditions for passing the exam. This exam is usually successful and we are convinced that the return to face-to-face teaching, as well as support for students, will be factors of success,” OIIQ President Luc Mathieu said in a press release.
Nursing candidates “who have not passed the exam will be put to work in the network, with the possibility of practicing under the supervision of a nurse. ... In addition, we will contact health establishments in order to support them in their supervision activities” of the candidates, he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Nursing oversight groups in the United States and Canada are holding the line on testing standards as more would-be nurses fail entry exams. As a result, pressure is growing to make tests easier to pass given widespread nursing shortages, and some critics wonder whether the exams accurately assess students’ true abilities.
When it comes to training more nurses to keep up with growing demand, the U.S. organization that oversees the main licensing exams for nurses decided earlier this month not to change the passing standards for entry-level tests. Meanwhile,
A similar scenario also is unfolding in Quebec, where the agency overseeing nurse licensing exams announced last month it is holding the line on its passing rates despite an outcry from nurses after more than half of those taking the exam in September failed. Quebec’s commissioner for professional admissions is investigating dozens of complaints from nurses about the failure rate. Nurses who failed the test can sign up to retake it in March.
Joseph Oujeil, DESS, DEF, has been teaching in Canada for 4 years, now at two Quebec nursing schools. “This is surprising and very shocking to our students as well as nurses from outside Quebec who were [completing] an integration program to adjust their practice to Quebec guidelines,” Mr. Oujeil told this news organization. Students from outside the province failed the licensing exam at a higher rate than their Quebec-native peers, he explained.
Quebec’s professional Order of Nurses of Quebec (OIIQ) responded to the nurses’ outcry in a press release last month, saying that the pandemic may be partly to blame for the lower passing rate because it made it more difficult to access internships, labs, and face-to-face teaching. Some students weren’t able to demonstrate their ability to practice during the exam as in previous years, OIIQ reported.
Mr. Oujeil agreed. “I’m sure the pandemic has an impact on the situation as well as some students did less training in hospitals” because of restrictions caused by the pandemic, he said. But students also told Mr. Oujeil some questions seemed ambiguous.
OIIQ stated in its release that it doesn’t want to lower the standard. The goal is to protect the public “by and with nurses,” to “ensure the competence and integrity of nurses in Quebec,” and “promote quality nursing practice,” the release noted.
Similarly in the United States, the National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN) announced Dec. 8 that it would uphold the current passing standards for its entry-level NCLEX tests for registered nurses and practical nurses. NCSBN analyzes the passing standard every 3 years “to keep the test plan and passing standard current,” a press release explains.
NCLEX pass rates have dropped from about 73% for all candidates and 88% for first-time U.S.-educated candidates to 69% and 82% respectively in 2021, the last full year for which results are available, NCSBN spokesperson Dawn Kappel told this news organization.
Over the past 3 years, including during the pandemic, the board decided “that the current passing standard is appropriate as a measure of safe and effective entry-level nurse practice,” after reviewing national nurse surveys and the findings of panels of nurses representing NCSBN’s geographic areas in the United States and Canada, board president Jay Douglas, MSM, RN, CSAC, said in a press release.
Still, NCSBN is not blind to the larger issues facing nursing, Ms. Kappel told this news organization. “There is a huge nursing shortage in the U.S. and Canada. We want as many nurses in the workforce as possible, but we want to ensure safe practice,” she said.
“Everyone has access to the same test, regardless of which state, province, or country they take it in,” she said. Some international students may not perform as well as U.S.-educated students because of their command of English and the nursing education standards in their home countries, Ms. Kappel added.
“Obviously COVID and the challenge of education in general” affected the results, she said.
Mr. Oujeil, the nursing school professor, said he is frustrated by the test results because the majority of students who failed maintained good grades and passed all of their trainings. Yet they scored just below the passing rate of 55%. He said students are proposing the passing rate be lowered to 50%. The current test doesn’t reflect what students are learning in the classroom or during clinical trainings, Mr. Oujeil added. “I don’t know of any students who scored more than 60%.”
He said he understands that the mission of the OIIQ is protecting the population, but he doesn’t believe lowering the passing rate to 50% will put the population at risk – and it will help offset the staffing shortage.
“I’m especially frustrated by those who were doing integration programs – mothers and fathers with children with family lives and financial responsibilities. Many of them are good, hard workers and were shocked they should have to pass the exam another time.”
Since 2018, the pass rate on the first attempt at the Quebec test has generally been between 71% and 96%, compared with 51.4% during the exam in September, according to the OIIQ press release. Meanwhile, graduates from 30 of the 55 schools and universities in Quebec teaching nurses performed above the average on the recent professional exam, OIIQ reported.
The professional licensing organization pointed out that nursing candidates have three attempts to pass their exam. “In order to better prepare for their next attempt, all those who failed received an individual response detailing the difficulties encountered. The OIIQ offers all the tools necessary to pass the exam; a detailed guide and preparatory workshops are available online.
“In the run up to the next exams, we will continue to support students by working with educational institutions to provide the optimal conditions for passing the exam. This exam is usually successful and we are convinced that the return to face-to-face teaching, as well as support for students, will be factors of success,” OIIQ President Luc Mathieu said in a press release.
Nursing candidates “who have not passed the exam will be put to work in the network, with the possibility of practicing under the supervision of a nurse. ... In addition, we will contact health establishments in order to support them in their supervision activities” of the candidates, he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Nursing oversight groups in the United States and Canada are holding the line on testing standards as more would-be nurses fail entry exams. As a result, pressure is growing to make tests easier to pass given widespread nursing shortages, and some critics wonder whether the exams accurately assess students’ true abilities.
When it comes to training more nurses to keep up with growing demand, the U.S. organization that oversees the main licensing exams for nurses decided earlier this month not to change the passing standards for entry-level tests. Meanwhile,
A similar scenario also is unfolding in Quebec, where the agency overseeing nurse licensing exams announced last month it is holding the line on its passing rates despite an outcry from nurses after more than half of those taking the exam in September failed. Quebec’s commissioner for professional admissions is investigating dozens of complaints from nurses about the failure rate. Nurses who failed the test can sign up to retake it in March.
Joseph Oujeil, DESS, DEF, has been teaching in Canada for 4 years, now at two Quebec nursing schools. “This is surprising and very shocking to our students as well as nurses from outside Quebec who were [completing] an integration program to adjust their practice to Quebec guidelines,” Mr. Oujeil told this news organization. Students from outside the province failed the licensing exam at a higher rate than their Quebec-native peers, he explained.
Quebec’s professional Order of Nurses of Quebec (OIIQ) responded to the nurses’ outcry in a press release last month, saying that the pandemic may be partly to blame for the lower passing rate because it made it more difficult to access internships, labs, and face-to-face teaching. Some students weren’t able to demonstrate their ability to practice during the exam as in previous years, OIIQ reported.
Mr. Oujeil agreed. “I’m sure the pandemic has an impact on the situation as well as some students did less training in hospitals” because of restrictions caused by the pandemic, he said. But students also told Mr. Oujeil some questions seemed ambiguous.
OIIQ stated in its release that it doesn’t want to lower the standard. The goal is to protect the public “by and with nurses,” to “ensure the competence and integrity of nurses in Quebec,” and “promote quality nursing practice,” the release noted.
Similarly in the United States, the National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN) announced Dec. 8 that it would uphold the current passing standards for its entry-level NCLEX tests for registered nurses and practical nurses. NCSBN analyzes the passing standard every 3 years “to keep the test plan and passing standard current,” a press release explains.
NCLEX pass rates have dropped from about 73% for all candidates and 88% for first-time U.S.-educated candidates to 69% and 82% respectively in 2021, the last full year for which results are available, NCSBN spokesperson Dawn Kappel told this news organization.
Over the past 3 years, including during the pandemic, the board decided “that the current passing standard is appropriate as a measure of safe and effective entry-level nurse practice,” after reviewing national nurse surveys and the findings of panels of nurses representing NCSBN’s geographic areas in the United States and Canada, board president Jay Douglas, MSM, RN, CSAC, said in a press release.
Still, NCSBN is not blind to the larger issues facing nursing, Ms. Kappel told this news organization. “There is a huge nursing shortage in the U.S. and Canada. We want as many nurses in the workforce as possible, but we want to ensure safe practice,” she said.
“Everyone has access to the same test, regardless of which state, province, or country they take it in,” she said. Some international students may not perform as well as U.S.-educated students because of their command of English and the nursing education standards in their home countries, Ms. Kappel added.
“Obviously COVID and the challenge of education in general” affected the results, she said.
Mr. Oujeil, the nursing school professor, said he is frustrated by the test results because the majority of students who failed maintained good grades and passed all of their trainings. Yet they scored just below the passing rate of 55%. He said students are proposing the passing rate be lowered to 50%. The current test doesn’t reflect what students are learning in the classroom or during clinical trainings, Mr. Oujeil added. “I don’t know of any students who scored more than 60%.”
He said he understands that the mission of the OIIQ is protecting the population, but he doesn’t believe lowering the passing rate to 50% will put the population at risk – and it will help offset the staffing shortage.
“I’m especially frustrated by those who were doing integration programs – mothers and fathers with children with family lives and financial responsibilities. Many of them are good, hard workers and were shocked they should have to pass the exam another time.”
Since 2018, the pass rate on the first attempt at the Quebec test has generally been between 71% and 96%, compared with 51.4% during the exam in September, according to the OIIQ press release. Meanwhile, graduates from 30 of the 55 schools and universities in Quebec teaching nurses performed above the average on the recent professional exam, OIIQ reported.
The professional licensing organization pointed out that nursing candidates have three attempts to pass their exam. “In order to better prepare for their next attempt, all those who failed received an individual response detailing the difficulties encountered. The OIIQ offers all the tools necessary to pass the exam; a detailed guide and preparatory workshops are available online.
“In the run up to the next exams, we will continue to support students by working with educational institutions to provide the optimal conditions for passing the exam. This exam is usually successful and we are convinced that the return to face-to-face teaching, as well as support for students, will be factors of success,” OIIQ President Luc Mathieu said in a press release.
Nursing candidates “who have not passed the exam will be put to work in the network, with the possibility of practicing under the supervision of a nurse. ... In addition, we will contact health establishments in order to support them in their supervision activities” of the candidates, he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sexual assault allegations lead to arrest of Ohio gastroenterologist
According to Cleveland Municipal Court records, Omar Massoud, MD, PhD, of Westlake, Ohio, has been charged with three counts of kidnapping, all first-degree felonies, and three counts of gross sexual imposition, all third-degree felonies.
The assaults are alleged to have happened during liver examinations on March 25, Nov. 11, and Nov. 28, 2022 at Cleveland Clinic’s main campus located at 9500 Euclid Avenue.
No further details were provided.
Dr. Massoud is the former chief of hepatology at the Cleveland Clinic.
In a statement, the Cleveland Clinic said it “immediately reported the accusations to the appropriate law enforcement agencies and are fully cooperating with the investigations.”
“Following a thorough internal investigation,” Dr. Massoud was fired, the Cleveland Clinic said.
“Cleveland Clinic is strongly committed to protecting the rights and safety of our patients, visitors, and caregivers from any type of inappropriate behavior. We care deeply about patient safety and any form of misconduct is not tolerated,” the statement said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
According to Cleveland Municipal Court records, Omar Massoud, MD, PhD, of Westlake, Ohio, has been charged with three counts of kidnapping, all first-degree felonies, and three counts of gross sexual imposition, all third-degree felonies.
The assaults are alleged to have happened during liver examinations on March 25, Nov. 11, and Nov. 28, 2022 at Cleveland Clinic’s main campus located at 9500 Euclid Avenue.
No further details were provided.
Dr. Massoud is the former chief of hepatology at the Cleveland Clinic.
In a statement, the Cleveland Clinic said it “immediately reported the accusations to the appropriate law enforcement agencies and are fully cooperating with the investigations.”
“Following a thorough internal investigation,” Dr. Massoud was fired, the Cleveland Clinic said.
“Cleveland Clinic is strongly committed to protecting the rights and safety of our patients, visitors, and caregivers from any type of inappropriate behavior. We care deeply about patient safety and any form of misconduct is not tolerated,” the statement said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
According to Cleveland Municipal Court records, Omar Massoud, MD, PhD, of Westlake, Ohio, has been charged with three counts of kidnapping, all first-degree felonies, and three counts of gross sexual imposition, all third-degree felonies.
The assaults are alleged to have happened during liver examinations on March 25, Nov. 11, and Nov. 28, 2022 at Cleveland Clinic’s main campus located at 9500 Euclid Avenue.
No further details were provided.
Dr. Massoud is the former chief of hepatology at the Cleveland Clinic.
In a statement, the Cleveland Clinic said it “immediately reported the accusations to the appropriate law enforcement agencies and are fully cooperating with the investigations.”
“Following a thorough internal investigation,” Dr. Massoud was fired, the Cleveland Clinic said.
“Cleveland Clinic is strongly committed to protecting the rights and safety of our patients, visitors, and caregivers from any type of inappropriate behavior. We care deeply about patient safety and any form of misconduct is not tolerated,” the statement said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.