Farr A. Curlin

Prescribing “Placebo Treatments”: Results of National Survey of US Internists and Rheumatologists

Objective To describe the attitudes and behaviours regarding placebo treatments, defined as a treatment whose benefits derive from positive patient expectations and not from the physiological mechanism of the treatment itself. Design Cross sectional mailed survey. Setting Physicians’ clinical practices. Participants 1200 practising internists and rheumatologists in the United States. Main outcome measures Investigators measured physicians’ self reported behaviours and attitudes concerning the use of placebo treatments, including measures of whether they would use or had recommended a “placebo treatment,” their ethical judgments about the practice, what they recommended as placebo treatments, and how they typically communicate with patients about the practice. Results 679 physicians (57%) responded to the survey. About half of the surveyed internists and rheumatologists reported prescribing placebo treatments on a regular basis (46-58%, depending on how the question was phrased). Most physicians (399, 62%) believed the practice to be ethically permissible. Few reported using saline (18, 3%) or sugar pills (12, 2%) as placebo treatments, while large proportions reported using over the counter analgesics (267, 41%) and vitamins (243, 38%) as placebo treatments within the past year. A small but notable proportion of physicians reported using antibiotics (86, 13%) and sedatives (86, 13%) as placebo treatments during the same period. Furthermore, physicians who use placebo treatments most commonly describe them to patients as a potentially beneficial medicine or treatment not typically used for their condition (241, 68%); only rarely do they explicitly describe them as placebos (18, 5%). Conclusions Prescribing placebo treatments seems to be common and is viewed as ethically permissible among the surveyed US internists and rheumatologists. Vitamins and over the counter analgesics are the most commonly used treatments. Physicians might not be fully transparent with their patients about the use of placebos and might have mixed motivations for recommending such treatments.

Religious Characteristics of U.S. Physicians: A National Survey

AbstractBACKGROUND: Patients’ religious commitments and religious communities are known to influence their experiences of illness and their medical decisions. Physicians are also dynamic partners in the doctorpatient relationship, yet little is known about the religious characteristics of physicians or how physicians’ religious commitments shape the clinical encounter. OBJECTIVE: To provide a baseline description of physicians’ religious characteristics, and to compare physicians’ characteristics with those of the general U.S. population. DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS: Mailed survey of a stratified random sample of 2,000 practicing U.S. physicians. Comparable U.S. population data are derived from the 1998 General Social Survey. MEASUREMENTS/RESULTS: The response rate was 63%. Fifty-five percent of physicians say their religious beliefs influence their practice of medicine. Compared with the general population, physicians are more likely to be affiliated with religions that are underrepresented in the United States, less likely to say they try to carry their religious beliefs over into all other dealings in life (58% vs 73%), twice as likely to consider themselves spiritual but not religious (20% vs 9%), and twice as likely to cope with major problems in life without relying on God (61% vs 29%). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians’ religious characteristics are diverse and they differ in many ways from those of the general population. Researchers, medical educators, and policy makers should further examine the ways in which physicians’ religious commitments shape their clinical engagements.

The association of physicians' religious characteristics with their attitudes and self-reported behaviors regarding religion and spirituality in the clinical encounter

Context:Controversy exists regarding whether and how physicians should address religion/spirituality (R/S) with patients. Objective:This study examines the relationship between physicians’ religious characteristics and their attitudes and self-reported behaviors regarding R/S in the clinical encounter. Methods:A cross-sectional mailed survey of a stratified random sample of 2000 practicing U.S. physicians from all specialties. Main criterion variables were self-reported practices of R/S inquiry, dialogue regarding R/S issues, and prayer with patients. Main predictor variables were intrinsic religiosity, spirituality, and religious affiliation. Results:Response rate was 63%. Almost all physicians (91%) say it is appropriate to discuss R/S issues if the patient brings them up, and 73% say that when R/S issues comes up they often or always encourage patients’ own R/S beliefs and practices. Doctors are more divided about when it is appropriate for physicians to inquire regarding R/S (45% believe it is usually or always inappropriate), talk about their own religious beliefs or experiences (14% say never, 43% say only when the patient asks), and pray with patients (17% say never, 53% say only when the patient asks). Physicians who identify themselves as more religious and more spiritual, particularly those who are Protestants, are significantly more likely to endorse and report each of the different ways of addressing R/S in the clinical encounter. Conclusions:Differences in physicians’ religious and spiritual characteristics are associated with differing attitudes and behaviors regarding R/S in the clinical encounter. Discussions of the appropriateness of addressing R/S matters in the clinical encounter will need to grapple with these deeply rooted differences among physicians.

Attention to Inpatients’ Religious and Spiritual Concerns: Predictors and Association with Patient Satisfaction

BackgroundLittle is known about how often patients desire and experience discussions with hospital personnel regarding R/S (religion and spirituality) or what effects such discussions have on patient satisfaction.Objective, Design and ParticipantsWe examined data from the University of Chicago Hospitalist Study, which gathers sociodemographic and clinical information from all consenting general internal medicine patients at the University of Chicago Medical Center.Main MeasuresPrimary outcomes were whether or not patients desired to have their religious or spiritual concerns addressed while hospitalized, whether or not anyone talked to them about religious and spiritual issues, and which member of the health care team spoke with them about these issues. Primary predictors were patients’ ratings of their religious attendance, their efforts to carry their religious beliefs over into other dealings in life, and their spirituality.Key ResultsForty-one percent of inpatients desired a discussion of R/S concerns while hospitalized, but only half of those reported having such a discussion. Overall, 32% of inpatients reported having a discussion of their R/S concerns. Religious patients and those experiencing more severe pain were more likely both to desire and to have discussions of spiritual concerns. Patients who had discussions of R/S concerns were more likely to rate their care at the highest level on four different measures of patient satisfaction, regardless of whether or not they said they had desired such a discussion (odds ratios 1.4–2.2, 95% confidence intervals 1.1–3.0).ConclusionsThese data suggest that many more inpatients desire conversations about R/S than have them. Health care professionals might improve patients’ overall experience with being hospitalized and patient satisfaction by addressing this unmet patient need.

The prevalence of medical student mistreatment and its association with burnout.

Purpose Medical student mistreatment has been recognized for decades and is known to adversely impact students personally and professionally. Similarly, burnout has been shown to negatively impact students. This study assesses the prevalence of student mistreatment across multiple medical schools and characterizes the association between mistreatment and burnout. Method In 2011, the authors surveyed a nation ally representative sample of third-year medical students. Students reported the frequency of experiencing mistreatment by attending faculty and residents since the beginning of their clinical rotations. Burnout was measured using a validated two-item version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Results Of 960 potential respondents from 24 different medical schools, 605 (63%) completed the survey, but 41 were excluded because they were not currently in their third year of medical school. Of the eligible students, the majority reported experiencing at least one incident of mistreatment by faculty (64% [361/562]) and by residents (76% [426/562]). A minority of students reported experiencing recurrent mistreatment, defined as occurring “several” or “numerous” times: 10% [59/562] by faculty and 13% [71/562] by residents. Recurrent mistreatment (compared with no or infrequent mistreatment) was associated with high burnout: 57% versus 33% (P < .01) for recurrent mistreatment by faculty and 49% versus 32% (P < .01) for recurrent mistreatment by residents. Conclusions Medical student mistreatment remains prevalent. Recurrent mistreatment by faculty and residents is associated with medical student burnout. Although further investigation is needed to assess causality, these data provide impetus for medical schools to address student mistreatment to mitigate its adverse consequences.

Religion and disparities: considering the influences of Islam on the health of American Muslims.

Both theory and data suggest that religions shape the way individuals interpret and seek help for their illnesses. Yet, health disparities research has rarely examined the influence of a shared religion on the health of individuals from distinct minority communities. In this paper, we focus on Islam and American Muslims to outline the ways in which a shared religion may impact the health of a racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse minority community. We use Kleinman’s “cultural construction of clinical reality” as a theoretical framework to interpret the extant literature on American Muslim health. We then propose a research agenda that would extend current disparities research to include measures of religiosity, particularly among populations that share a minority religious affiliation. The research we propose would provide a fuller understanding of the relationships between religion and health among Muslim Americans and other minority communities and would thereby undergird efforts to reduce unwarranted health disparities.

Paediatricians' attitudes and practices towards HPV vaccination

Aim: In June 2006, the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, Gardasil, was licensed for use in the United States. We examined whether paediatricians would recommend the vaccine, obstacles they encountered and characteristics associated with not recommending the HPV vaccine to all eligible patients.

Clash of Definitions: Controversies About Conscience in Medicine

What role should the physicians conscience play in the practice of medicine? Much controversy has surrounded the question, yet little attention has been paid to the possibility that disputants are operating with contrasting definitions of the conscience. To illustrate this divergence, we contrast definitions stemming from Abrahamic religions and those stemming from secular moral tradition. Clear differences emerge regarding what the term conscience conveys, how the conscience should be informed, and what the consequences are for violating ones conscience. Importantly, these basic disagreements underlie current controversies regarding the role of the clinicians conscience in the practice of medicine. Consequently participants in ongoing debates would do well to specify their definitions of the conscience and the reasons for and implications of those definitions. This specification would allow participants to advance a more philosophically and theologically robust conversation about the means and ends of medicine.

How are religion and spirituality related to health? A study of physicians' perspectives.

Background: Despite expansive medical literature regarding spirituality and medicine, little is known about physician beliefs regarding the influence of religion on health. Methods: Semistructured interviews with 21 physicians regarding the intersection of religion, spirituality, and medicine. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed for emergent themes through an iterative process of qualitative textual analysis. Results: All participants believed religion influences health, but they did not emphasize the influence of religion on outcomes. Instead, they focused on ways that religion provides a paradigm for understanding and making decisions related to illness and a community in which illness is experienced. Religion was described as beneficial when it enables patients to cope with illness but harmful when it leads to psychological conflict or conflict with medical recommendations. Conclusions: Empirical evidence for a “faith-health connection” may have little influence on physicians’ conceptions of and approaches to religion in the patient encounter.

Autonomy, religion and clinical decisions: findings from a national physician survey

Background: Patient autonomy has been promoted as the most important principle to guide difficult clinical decisions. To examine whether practising physicians indeed value patient autonomy above other considerations, physicians were asked to weight patient autonomy against three other criteria that often influence doctors’ decisions. Associations between physicians’ religious characteristics and their weighting of the criteria were also examined. Methods: Mailed survey in 2007 of a stratified random sample of 1000 US primary care physicians, selected from the American Medical Association masterfile. Physicians were asked how much weight should be given to the following: (1) the patient’s expressed wishes and values, (2) the physician’s own judgment about what is in the patient’s best interest, (3) standards and recommendations from professional medical bodies and (4) moral guidelines from religious traditions. Results: Response rate 51% (446/879). Half of physicians (55%) gave the patient’s expressed wishes and values “the highest possible weight”. In comparative analysis, 40% gave patient wishes more weight than the other three factors, and 13% ranked patient wishes behind some other factor. Religious doctors tended to give less weight to the patient’s expressed wishes. For example, 47% of doctors with high intrinsic religious motivation gave patient wishes the “highest possible weight”, versus 67% of those with low (OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.3 to 0.8). Conclusions: Doctors believe patient wishes and values are important, but other considerations are often equally or more important. This suggests that patient autonomy does not guide physicians’ decisions as much as is often recommended in the ethics literature.