Diversity in Medicine

British Columbia (BC) could eliminate cervical cancer within the next 20 years if the province shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV)–based screening before the end of the decade, data suggested. To achieve this goal, the province will also need to reach historically underscreened, equity-seeking populations (ie, Black, indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ, and disabled patients, and those with sexual trauma) through mailed self-screening HPV tests.

The adoption of both these strategies is essential, according to a modeling study that was published on June 3 in CMAJ, especially because the true impact of HPV vaccination has yet to be fully realized.

“In BC, we have a school-based program to increase vaccine coverage in boys and girls starting in grade 6,” study author Reka Pataky, PhD, a senior research health economist at the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. Dr. Pataky noted that this immunization program was launched in 2008 and that some of the initial cohorts haven›t yet reached the average age of diagnosis, which is between 30 and 59 years.

Three’s a Charm

The investigators undertook a modeling study to determine when and how BC might achieve the elimination of cervical cancer following a transition to HPV-based screening. Elimination was defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate of < 4.0 per 100,000 women.

Modeling scenarios were developed using the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s priority targets, which include increasing HPV vaccination through school-based coverage from 70% to 90%, increasing the probability of ever receiving a screening test from 90% to 95%, increasing the rate of on-time screening from 70% to 90%, and improving follow-up to 95% for colposcopy (currently 88%) and HPV testing (currently 80%). Modeling simulated HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer in the Canadian population and relied upon two reference scenarios: One using BC’s cytology-based screening at the time of analysis, and the other an HPV base-case scenario.

The researchers found that with the status quo (ie, cytology-based screening and no change to vaccination or screening participation rates), BC would not eliminate cervical cancer until 2045. Implementation of HPV-based screening at the current 70% participation rate would achieve elimination in 2034 and prevent 942 cases compared with cytology screening. Increasing the proportion of patients who were ever screened or increasing vaccination coverage would result in cervical cancer elimination by 2033. The time line would be shortened even further (to 2031) through a combination of three strategies (ie, improving recruitment, on-time screening, and follow-up compliance).

Low Incidence, Strained System

The incidence of cervical cancer in Canada is relatively low, accounting for 1.3% of all new female cancers and 1.1% of all female cancer deaths.

“The reason that we have such low rates is because we have organized screening programs,” explained Rachel Kupets, MD, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto. She was not involved in the study.

“We’re starting to see what happens when the system gets strained with lower participation rates. I am starting to see a lot more women with invasive cervical cancer. They’re younger, and their cancers are less curable and less treatable,” she said.

Difficulties with access, interest, and education have contributed to low cervical screening rates among equity-seeking populations, according to Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets.

“Self-screening is another tool that can incrementally benefit those folks who wouldn’t otherwise undergo screening or don’t want an invasive test,” said Dr. Kupets. It can also play an increasing role, while current access to primary care services in Canada is at an all-time low. Community outreach through centers, mobile coaches, and nursing stations might help ensure participation by at-risk populations. These measures also could boost follow-up for and education about positive results, said Dr. Kupets.

In a related editorial, Shannon Charlebois, MD, medical editor of CMAJ, and Sarah Kean, MD, assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, emphasized the need for mailed HPV self-screening kits to be paid for and integrated into provincial cervical cancer screening programs across Canada to support earlier cervical cancer detection and lower invasive cancer rates.

Dr. Pataky concurred. “There have been discussions about making the big transition from traditional cytology to implementing HPV self-screening,” she said. “We have really effective tools for preventing cervical cancer, and it’s important to not lose sight of that goal.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

British Columbia (BC) could eliminate cervical cancer within the next 20 years if the province shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV)–based screening before the end of the decade, data suggested. To achieve this goal, the province will also need to reach historically underscreened, equity-seeking populations (ie, Black, indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ, and disabled patients, and those with sexual trauma) through mailed self-screening HPV tests.

The adoption of both these strategies is essential, according to a modeling study that was published on June 3 in CMAJ, especially because the true impact of HPV vaccination has yet to be fully realized.

“In BC, we have a school-based program to increase vaccine coverage in boys and girls starting in grade 6,” study author Reka Pataky, PhD, a senior research health economist at the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. Dr. Pataky noted that this immunization program was launched in 2008 and that some of the initial cohorts haven›t yet reached the average age of diagnosis, which is between 30 and 59 years.

Three’s a Charm

The investigators undertook a modeling study to determine when and how BC might achieve the elimination of cervical cancer following a transition to HPV-based screening. Elimination was defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate of < 4.0 per 100,000 women.

Modeling scenarios were developed using the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s priority targets, which include increasing HPV vaccination through school-based coverage from 70% to 90%, increasing the probability of ever receiving a screening test from 90% to 95%, increasing the rate of on-time screening from 70% to 90%, and improving follow-up to 95% for colposcopy (currently 88%) and HPV testing (currently 80%). Modeling simulated HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer in the Canadian population and relied upon two reference scenarios: One using BC’s cytology-based screening at the time of analysis, and the other an HPV base-case scenario.

The researchers found that with the status quo (ie, cytology-based screening and no change to vaccination or screening participation rates), BC would not eliminate cervical cancer until 2045. Implementation of HPV-based screening at the current 70% participation rate would achieve elimination in 2034 and prevent 942 cases compared with cytology screening. Increasing the proportion of patients who were ever screened or increasing vaccination coverage would result in cervical cancer elimination by 2033. The time line would be shortened even further (to 2031) through a combination of three strategies (ie, improving recruitment, on-time screening, and follow-up compliance).

Low Incidence, Strained System

The incidence of cervical cancer in Canada is relatively low, accounting for 1.3% of all new female cancers and 1.1% of all female cancer deaths.

“The reason that we have such low rates is because we have organized screening programs,” explained Rachel Kupets, MD, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto. She was not involved in the study.

“We’re starting to see what happens when the system gets strained with lower participation rates. I am starting to see a lot more women with invasive cervical cancer. They’re younger, and their cancers are less curable and less treatable,” she said.

Difficulties with access, interest, and education have contributed to low cervical screening rates among equity-seeking populations, according to Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets.

“Self-screening is another tool that can incrementally benefit those folks who wouldn’t otherwise undergo screening or don’t want an invasive test,” said Dr. Kupets. It can also play an increasing role, while current access to primary care services in Canada is at an all-time low. Community outreach through centers, mobile coaches, and nursing stations might help ensure participation by at-risk populations. These measures also could boost follow-up for and education about positive results, said Dr. Kupets.

In a related editorial, Shannon Charlebois, MD, medical editor of CMAJ, and Sarah Kean, MD, assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, emphasized the need for mailed HPV self-screening kits to be paid for and integrated into provincial cervical cancer screening programs across Canada to support earlier cervical cancer detection and lower invasive cancer rates.

Dr. Pataky concurred. “There have been discussions about making the big transition from traditional cytology to implementing HPV self-screening,” she said. “We have really effective tools for preventing cervical cancer, and it’s important to not lose sight of that goal.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

British Columbia (BC) could eliminate cervical cancer within the next 20 years if the province shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV)–based screening before the end of the decade, data suggested. To achieve this goal, the province will also need to reach historically underscreened, equity-seeking populations (ie, Black, indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ, and disabled patients, and those with sexual trauma) through mailed self-screening HPV tests.

The adoption of both these strategies is essential, according to a modeling study that was published on June 3 in CMAJ, especially because the true impact of HPV vaccination has yet to be fully realized.

“In BC, we have a school-based program to increase vaccine coverage in boys and girls starting in grade 6,” study author Reka Pataky, PhD, a senior research health economist at the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. Dr. Pataky noted that this immunization program was launched in 2008 and that some of the initial cohorts haven›t yet reached the average age of diagnosis, which is between 30 and 59 years.

Three’s a Charm

The investigators undertook a modeling study to determine when and how BC might achieve the elimination of cervical cancer following a transition to HPV-based screening. Elimination was defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate of < 4.0 per 100,000 women.

Modeling scenarios were developed using the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s priority targets, which include increasing HPV vaccination through school-based coverage from 70% to 90%, increasing the probability of ever receiving a screening test from 90% to 95%, increasing the rate of on-time screening from 70% to 90%, and improving follow-up to 95% for colposcopy (currently 88%) and HPV testing (currently 80%). Modeling simulated HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer in the Canadian population and relied upon two reference scenarios: One using BC’s cytology-based screening at the time of analysis, and the other an HPV base-case scenario.

The researchers found that with the status quo (ie, cytology-based screening and no change to vaccination or screening participation rates), BC would not eliminate cervical cancer until 2045. Implementation of HPV-based screening at the current 70% participation rate would achieve elimination in 2034 and prevent 942 cases compared with cytology screening. Increasing the proportion of patients who were ever screened or increasing vaccination coverage would result in cervical cancer elimination by 2033. The time line would be shortened even further (to 2031) through a combination of three strategies (ie, improving recruitment, on-time screening, and follow-up compliance).

Low Incidence, Strained System

The incidence of cervical cancer in Canada is relatively low, accounting for 1.3% of all new female cancers and 1.1% of all female cancer deaths.

“The reason that we have such low rates is because we have organized screening programs,” explained Rachel Kupets, MD, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto. She was not involved in the study.

“We’re starting to see what happens when the system gets strained with lower participation rates. I am starting to see a lot more women with invasive cervical cancer. They’re younger, and their cancers are less curable and less treatable,” she said.

Difficulties with access, interest, and education have contributed to low cervical screening rates among equity-seeking populations, according to Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets.

“Self-screening is another tool that can incrementally benefit those folks who wouldn’t otherwise undergo screening or don’t want an invasive test,” said Dr. Kupets. It can also play an increasing role, while current access to primary care services in Canada is at an all-time low. Community outreach through centers, mobile coaches, and nursing stations might help ensure participation by at-risk populations. These measures also could boost follow-up for and education about positive results, said Dr. Kupets.

In a related editorial, Shannon Charlebois, MD, medical editor of CMAJ, and Sarah Kean, MD, assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, emphasized the need for mailed HPV self-screening kits to be paid for and integrated into provincial cervical cancer screening programs across Canada to support earlier cervical cancer detection and lower invasive cancer rates.

Dr. Pataky concurred. “There have been discussions about making the big transition from traditional cytology to implementing HPV self-screening,” she said. “We have really effective tools for preventing cervical cancer, and it’s important to not lose sight of that goal.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Compared with White patients with Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), non-White Hispanic patients more commonly presented younger than 70 years of age and were more often female. In addition, the most affected site was the upper limb/shoulder, which differs from what has been reported in previous studies.

Those are key findings from a retrospective study of national cancer data that was presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

“Merkel cell carcinoma is an infrequent and aggressive form of neuroendocrine skin cancer that mainly impacts individuals of White ethnicity, with a general occurrence rate of 0.7 instances per 100,000 person-years,” one of the study authors, Luis J. Borda, MD, chief dermatology resident at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, told this news organization. The incidence of MCC is increasing among all racial groups, especially in the Hispanic population, he added.

To determine how age, sex, and primary site of MCC differ in White vs non-White Hispanic patients, the researchers evaluated the 22 population-based cancer registries of the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program from 2000 through 2020. They reported categorical variables as counts and percentages and used chi-square test with Yates’s correction to assess the association between categorical variables.

Of the 17,920 MCCs identified by the researchers, 40 (0.22%) were in non-White Hispanic patients. Compared with the White patients with MCC, significantly fewer non-White Hispanic patients were age 70 years or older (50% vs 72.1%, respectively; P < .001), and MCC was more common in female non-White Hispanic patients (23, or 57.5%), while White patients with MCC were predominantly male (11,309, or 63.2%; P < .05). “This suggests that MCC in non-White Hispanic patients may involve different risk factors related to age beyond just cumulative UV exposure and aging-related immunosenescence, which may additionally account for the higher prevalence of females in this cohort, as historically male outdoor occupation has resulted in increased lifetime cumulative UV exposure,” Dr. Borda said.

The head and neck were the most common sites of disease involvement in White patients (41.9% vs 27.5% in non-White Hispanic patients; P = .09), while the upper limb and shoulder were the most common sites of disease involvement in non-White Hispanic patients (37.5% vs 23.8% in White patients; P = .06). This finding “differs from previous studies showing head/neck being the most common site in Hispanics,” Dr. Borda said, adding that this could be a result of White patients not being included in the Hispanic cohort in this study. “Because non-White Hispanic patients have darker skin, they may have proportionally more cases on sun-protected skin, as is described by the present data, suggesting that they are less likely to have UV-driven MCC.”

The study “highlights distinct demographic and clinical characteristics of MCC among non-White Hispanic patients compared to their White counterparts, emphasizing the importance of considering race/ethnicity in understanding the epidemiology of this rare but increasingly prevalent cancer,” Dr. Borda said. He and his co-authors are planning to do further research on the increasing incidence of MCC in non-White Hispanic patients and on staging at diagnosis compared to White patients.

Dr. Borda acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the small sample size in the non-White Hispanic group, the retrospective nature of SEER data, selection bias, and the potential for underreporting. He and his co-authors reported having no financial disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Compared with White patients with Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), non-White Hispanic patients more commonly presented younger than 70 years of age and were more often female. In addition, the most affected site was the upper limb/shoulder, which differs from what has been reported in previous studies.

Those are key findings from a retrospective study of national cancer data that was presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

“Merkel cell carcinoma is an infrequent and aggressive form of neuroendocrine skin cancer that mainly impacts individuals of White ethnicity, with a general occurrence rate of 0.7 instances per 100,000 person-years,” one of the study authors, Luis J. Borda, MD, chief dermatology resident at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, told this news organization. The incidence of MCC is increasing among all racial groups, especially in the Hispanic population, he added.

To determine how age, sex, and primary site of MCC differ in White vs non-White Hispanic patients, the researchers evaluated the 22 population-based cancer registries of the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program from 2000 through 2020. They reported categorical variables as counts and percentages and used chi-square test with Yates’s correction to assess the association between categorical variables.

Of the 17,920 MCCs identified by the researchers, 40 (0.22%) were in non-White Hispanic patients. Compared with the White patients with MCC, significantly fewer non-White Hispanic patients were age 70 years or older (50% vs 72.1%, respectively; P < .001), and MCC was more common in female non-White Hispanic patients (23, or 57.5%), while White patients with MCC were predominantly male (11,309, or 63.2%; P < .05). “This suggests that MCC in non-White Hispanic patients may involve different risk factors related to age beyond just cumulative UV exposure and aging-related immunosenescence, which may additionally account for the higher prevalence of females in this cohort, as historically male outdoor occupation has resulted in increased lifetime cumulative UV exposure,” Dr. Borda said.

The head and neck were the most common sites of disease involvement in White patients (41.9% vs 27.5% in non-White Hispanic patients; P = .09), while the upper limb and shoulder were the most common sites of disease involvement in non-White Hispanic patients (37.5% vs 23.8% in White patients; P = .06). This finding “differs from previous studies showing head/neck being the most common site in Hispanics,” Dr. Borda said, adding that this could be a result of White patients not being included in the Hispanic cohort in this study. “Because non-White Hispanic patients have darker skin, they may have proportionally more cases on sun-protected skin, as is described by the present data, suggesting that they are less likely to have UV-driven MCC.”

The study “highlights distinct demographic and clinical characteristics of MCC among non-White Hispanic patients compared to their White counterparts, emphasizing the importance of considering race/ethnicity in understanding the epidemiology of this rare but increasingly prevalent cancer,” Dr. Borda said. He and his co-authors are planning to do further research on the increasing incidence of MCC in non-White Hispanic patients and on staging at diagnosis compared to White patients.

Dr. Borda acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the small sample size in the non-White Hispanic group, the retrospective nature of SEER data, selection bias, and the potential for underreporting. He and his co-authors reported having no financial disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Compared with White patients with Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), non-White Hispanic patients more commonly presented younger than 70 years of age and were more often female. In addition, the most affected site was the upper limb/shoulder, which differs from what has been reported in previous studies.

Those are key findings from a retrospective study of national cancer data that was presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

“Merkel cell carcinoma is an infrequent and aggressive form of neuroendocrine skin cancer that mainly impacts individuals of White ethnicity, with a general occurrence rate of 0.7 instances per 100,000 person-years,” one of the study authors, Luis J. Borda, MD, chief dermatology resident at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, told this news organization. The incidence of MCC is increasing among all racial groups, especially in the Hispanic population, he added.

To determine how age, sex, and primary site of MCC differ in White vs non-White Hispanic patients, the researchers evaluated the 22 population-based cancer registries of the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program from 2000 through 2020. They reported categorical variables as counts and percentages and used chi-square test with Yates’s correction to assess the association between categorical variables.

Of the 17,920 MCCs identified by the researchers, 40 (0.22%) were in non-White Hispanic patients. Compared with the White patients with MCC, significantly fewer non-White Hispanic patients were age 70 years or older (50% vs 72.1%, respectively; P < .001), and MCC was more common in female non-White Hispanic patients (23, or 57.5%), while White patients with MCC were predominantly male (11,309, or 63.2%; P < .05). “This suggests that MCC in non-White Hispanic patients may involve different risk factors related to age beyond just cumulative UV exposure and aging-related immunosenescence, which may additionally account for the higher prevalence of females in this cohort, as historically male outdoor occupation has resulted in increased lifetime cumulative UV exposure,” Dr. Borda said.

The head and neck were the most common sites of disease involvement in White patients (41.9% vs 27.5% in non-White Hispanic patients; P = .09), while the upper limb and shoulder were the most common sites of disease involvement in non-White Hispanic patients (37.5% vs 23.8% in White patients; P = .06). This finding “differs from previous studies showing head/neck being the most common site in Hispanics,” Dr. Borda said, adding that this could be a result of White patients not being included in the Hispanic cohort in this study. “Because non-White Hispanic patients have darker skin, they may have proportionally more cases on sun-protected skin, as is described by the present data, suggesting that they are less likely to have UV-driven MCC.”

The study “highlights distinct demographic and clinical characteristics of MCC among non-White Hispanic patients compared to their White counterparts, emphasizing the importance of considering race/ethnicity in understanding the epidemiology of this rare but increasingly prevalent cancer,” Dr. Borda said. He and his co-authors are planning to do further research on the increasing incidence of MCC in non-White Hispanic patients and on staging at diagnosis compared to White patients.

Dr. Borda acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the small sample size in the non-White Hispanic group, the retrospective nature of SEER data, selection bias, and the potential for underreporting. He and his co-authors reported having no financial disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Practice Gap

The Wood lamp commonly is used as a diagnostic tool for pigmentary skin conditions (eg, vitiligo) or skin conditions that exhibit fluorescence (eg, erythrasma).¹ Recently, its diagnostic efficacy has extended to scabies, in which it unveils a distinctive wavy, bluish-white, linear fluorescence upon illumination.²

Functionally, the Wood lamp operates by subjecting phosphors to UV light within the wavelength range of 320 to 400 nm, inducing fluorescence in substances such as collagen and elastin. In the context of vitiligo, this process manifests as a preferential chalk white fluorescence in areas lacking melanin.¹

Despite its demonstrated effectiveness, the Wood lamp is not without limitations. It comes with a notable financial investment ranging from $70 to $500, requires periodic maintenance such as light bulb replacements, and can be unwieldy.³ Furthermore, its reliance on a power source poses a challenge in settings where immediate access to convenient power outlets is limited, such as inpatient and rural dermatology clinics. These limitations underscore the need for alternative solutions and innovations to address challenges and ensure accessibility in diverse health care environments.

The Tools

Free smartphone applications (apps), such as Ultraviolet Light-UV Lamp by AppBrain or Blacklight UV Light Simulator by That Smile, can simulate UV light and functionally serve as a Wood lamp.

The Technique

UV light apps use LED or organic LED screen pixels to emit a blue light equivalent at 467 nm.⁴ Although these apps are not designed specifically for dermatologic uses, they are mostly free, widely available for Android and iPhone users, and portable. Importantly, they can demonstrate good performance in visualizing vitiligo, as shown in Figure 1—albeit perhaps not reaching the same level as the Wood lamp (Figure 2).

Because these UV light apps are not regulated and their efficacy for medical use has not been firmly established, the Wood lamp remains the gold standard. Therefore, we propose the use of UV light apps in situations when a Wood lamp is not available or convenient, such as in rural, inpatient, or international health care settings.

Practice Implications

Exploring and adopting these free alternatives can contribute to improved accessibility and diagnostic capabilities in diverse health care environments, particularly for communities facing financial constraints. Continued research and validation of these apps in clinical settings will be essential to establish their reliability and effectiveness in enhancing diagnostic practices.

Practice Gap

The Wood lamp commonly is used as a diagnostic tool for pigmentary skin conditions (eg, vitiligo) or skin conditions that exhibit fluorescence (eg, erythrasma).¹ Recently, its diagnostic efficacy has extended to scabies, in which it unveils a distinctive wavy, bluish-white, linear fluorescence upon illumination.²

Functionally, the Wood lamp operates by subjecting phosphors to UV light within the wavelength range of 320 to 400 nm, inducing fluorescence in substances such as collagen and elastin. In the context of vitiligo, this process manifests as a preferential chalk white fluorescence in areas lacking melanin.¹

Despite its demonstrated effectiveness, the Wood lamp is not without limitations. It comes with a notable financial investment ranging from $70 to $500, requires periodic maintenance such as light bulb replacements, and can be unwieldy.³ Furthermore, its reliance on a power source poses a challenge in settings where immediate access to convenient power outlets is limited, such as inpatient and rural dermatology clinics. These limitations underscore the need for alternative solutions and innovations to address challenges and ensure accessibility in diverse health care environments.

The Tools

Free smartphone applications (apps), such as Ultraviolet Light-UV Lamp by AppBrain or Blacklight UV Light Simulator by That Smile, can simulate UV light and functionally serve as a Wood lamp.

The Technique

UV light apps use LED or organic LED screen pixels to emit a blue light equivalent at 467 nm.⁴ Although these apps are not designed specifically for dermatologic uses, they are mostly free, widely available for Android and iPhone users, and portable. Importantly, they can demonstrate good performance in visualizing vitiligo, as shown in Figure 1—albeit perhaps not reaching the same level as the Wood lamp (Figure 2).

Because these UV light apps are not regulated and their efficacy for medical use has not been firmly established, the Wood lamp remains the gold standard. Therefore, we propose the use of UV light apps in situations when a Wood lamp is not available or convenient, such as in rural, inpatient, or international health care settings.

Practice Implications

Exploring and adopting these free alternatives can contribute to improved accessibility and diagnostic capabilities in diverse health care environments, particularly for communities facing financial constraints. Continued research and validation of these apps in clinical settings will be essential to establish their reliability and effectiveness in enhancing diagnostic practices.

Practice Gap

The Wood lamp commonly is used as a diagnostic tool for pigmentary skin conditions (eg, vitiligo) or skin conditions that exhibit fluorescence (eg, erythrasma).¹ Recently, its diagnostic efficacy has extended to scabies, in which it unveils a distinctive wavy, bluish-white, linear fluorescence upon illumination.²

Functionally, the Wood lamp operates by subjecting phosphors to UV light within the wavelength range of 320 to 400 nm, inducing fluorescence in substances such as collagen and elastin. In the context of vitiligo, this process manifests as a preferential chalk white fluorescence in areas lacking melanin.¹

Despite its demonstrated effectiveness, the Wood lamp is not without limitations. It comes with a notable financial investment ranging from $70 to $500, requires periodic maintenance such as light bulb replacements, and can be unwieldy.³ Furthermore, its reliance on a power source poses a challenge in settings where immediate access to convenient power outlets is limited, such as inpatient and rural dermatology clinics. These limitations underscore the need for alternative solutions and innovations to address challenges and ensure accessibility in diverse health care environments.

The Tools

Free smartphone applications (apps), such as Ultraviolet Light-UV Lamp by AppBrain or Blacklight UV Light Simulator by That Smile, can simulate UV light and functionally serve as a Wood lamp.

The Technique

UV light apps use LED or organic LED screen pixels to emit a blue light equivalent at 467 nm.⁴ Although these apps are not designed specifically for dermatologic uses, they are mostly free, widely available for Android and iPhone users, and portable. Importantly, they can demonstrate good performance in visualizing vitiligo, as shown in Figure 1—albeit perhaps not reaching the same level as the Wood lamp (Figure 2).

Because these UV light apps are not regulated and their efficacy for medical use has not been firmly established, the Wood lamp remains the gold standard. Therefore, we propose the use of UV light apps in situations when a Wood lamp is not available or convenient, such as in rural, inpatient, or international health care settings.

Practice Implications

Exploring and adopting these free alternatives can contribute to improved accessibility and diagnostic capabilities in diverse health care environments, particularly for communities facing financial constraints. Continued research and validation of these apps in clinical settings will be essential to establish their reliability and effectiveness in enhancing diagnostic practices.

Early education is right up there with motherhood and apple pie as unarguable positive concepts. How could exposing young children to a school-like atmosphere not be a benefit, particularly in communities dominated by socioeconomic challenges? While there are some questions about the value of playing Mozart to infants, early education in the traditional sense continues to be viewed as a key strategy for providing young children a preschool foundation on which a successful academic career can be built. Several oft-cited randomized controlled trials have fueled both private and public interest and funding.

However, a recent commentary published in Science suggests that all programs are “not unequivocally positive and much more research is needed.” “Worrisome results in Tennessee,” “Success in Boston,” and “Largely null results for Headstart” are just a few of the article’s section titles and convey a sense of the inconsistency the investigators found as they reviewed early education systems around the country.

While there may be some politicians who may attempt to use the results of this investigation as a reason to cancel public funding of underperforming early education programs, the authors avoid this baby-and-the-bathwater conclusion. Instead, they urge more rigorous research “to understand how effective programs can be designed and implemented.”

The kind of re-thinking and brainstorming these investigators suggest takes time. While we’re waiting for this process to gain traction, this might be a good time to consider some of the benefits of early education that we don’t usually consider when our focus is on academic metrics.

A recent paper in Children’s Health Care by investigators at the Boston University Medical Center and School of Medicine considered the diet of children attending preschool. Looking at the dietary records of more than 300 children attending 30 childcare centers, the researchers found that the children’s diets before arrival at daycare was less healthy than while they were in daycare. “The hour after pickup appeared to be the least healthful” of any of the time periods surveyed. Of course, we will all conjure up images of what this chaotic post-daycare pickup may look like and cut the harried parents and grandparents some slack when it comes to nutritional choices. However, the bottom line is that for the group of children surveyed being in preschool or daycare protected them from a less healthy diet they were being provided outside of school hours.

Our recent experience with pandemic-related school closures provides more evidence that being in school was superior to any remote experience academically. School-age children and adolescents gained weight when school closures were the norm. Play patterns for children shifted from outdoor play to indoor play — often dominated by more sedentary video games. Both fatal and non-fatal gun-related injuries surged during the pandemic and, by far, the majority of these occur in the home and not at school.

Stepping back to look at this broader picture that includes diet, physical activity, and safety — not to mention the benefits of socialization — leads one to arrive at the unfortunate conclusion that for many children in this country, being at home is considerably less healthy than being in school. Of course there will be those who point to the belief that schools are petri dishes putting children at greater risk for respiratory infections. On the other hand, we must accept that schools haven’t proved to be a major factor in the spread of COVID that many had feared.

The authors of the study in Science are certainly correct in recommending a more thorough investigation into the academic benefits of preschool education. However, we must keep in mind that preschool offers an environment that can be a positive influence on young children.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Early education is right up there with motherhood and apple pie as unarguable positive concepts. How could exposing young children to a school-like atmosphere not be a benefit, particularly in communities dominated by socioeconomic challenges? While there are some questions about the value of playing Mozart to infants, early education in the traditional sense continues to be viewed as a key strategy for providing young children a preschool foundation on which a successful academic career can be built. Several oft-cited randomized controlled trials have fueled both private and public interest and funding.

However, a recent commentary published in Science suggests that all programs are “not unequivocally positive and much more research is needed.” “Worrisome results in Tennessee,” “Success in Boston,” and “Largely null results for Headstart” are just a few of the article’s section titles and convey a sense of the inconsistency the investigators found as they reviewed early education systems around the country.

While there may be some politicians who may attempt to use the results of this investigation as a reason to cancel public funding of underperforming early education programs, the authors avoid this baby-and-the-bathwater conclusion. Instead, they urge more rigorous research “to understand how effective programs can be designed and implemented.”

The kind of re-thinking and brainstorming these investigators suggest takes time. While we’re waiting for this process to gain traction, this might be a good time to consider some of the benefits of early education that we don’t usually consider when our focus is on academic metrics.

A recent paper in Children’s Health Care by investigators at the Boston University Medical Center and School of Medicine considered the diet of children attending preschool. Looking at the dietary records of more than 300 children attending 30 childcare centers, the researchers found that the children’s diets before arrival at daycare was less healthy than while they were in daycare. “The hour after pickup appeared to be the least healthful” of any of the time periods surveyed. Of course, we will all conjure up images of what this chaotic post-daycare pickup may look like and cut the harried parents and grandparents some slack when it comes to nutritional choices. However, the bottom line is that for the group of children surveyed being in preschool or daycare protected them from a less healthy diet they were being provided outside of school hours.

Our recent experience with pandemic-related school closures provides more evidence that being in school was superior to any remote experience academically. School-age children and adolescents gained weight when school closures were the norm. Play patterns for children shifted from outdoor play to indoor play — often dominated by more sedentary video games. Both fatal and non-fatal gun-related injuries surged during the pandemic and, by far, the majority of these occur in the home and not at school.

Stepping back to look at this broader picture that includes diet, physical activity, and safety — not to mention the benefits of socialization — leads one to arrive at the unfortunate conclusion that for many children in this country, being at home is considerably less healthy than being in school. Of course there will be those who point to the belief that schools are petri dishes putting children at greater risk for respiratory infections. On the other hand, we must accept that schools haven’t proved to be a major factor in the spread of COVID that many had feared.

The authors of the study in Science are certainly correct in recommending a more thorough investigation into the academic benefits of preschool education. However, we must keep in mind that preschool offers an environment that can be a positive influence on young children.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Early education is right up there with motherhood and apple pie as unarguable positive concepts. How could exposing young children to a school-like atmosphere not be a benefit, particularly in communities dominated by socioeconomic challenges? While there are some questions about the value of playing Mozart to infants, early education in the traditional sense continues to be viewed as a key strategy for providing young children a preschool foundation on which a successful academic career can be built. Several oft-cited randomized controlled trials have fueled both private and public interest and funding.

However, a recent commentary published in Science suggests that all programs are “not unequivocally positive and much more research is needed.” “Worrisome results in Tennessee,” “Success in Boston,” and “Largely null results for Headstart” are just a few of the article’s section titles and convey a sense of the inconsistency the investigators found as they reviewed early education systems around the country.

While there may be some politicians who may attempt to use the results of this investigation as a reason to cancel public funding of underperforming early education programs, the authors avoid this baby-and-the-bathwater conclusion. Instead, they urge more rigorous research “to understand how effective programs can be designed and implemented.”

The kind of re-thinking and brainstorming these investigators suggest takes time. While we’re waiting for this process to gain traction, this might be a good time to consider some of the benefits of early education that we don’t usually consider when our focus is on academic metrics.

A recent paper in Children’s Health Care by investigators at the Boston University Medical Center and School of Medicine considered the diet of children attending preschool. Looking at the dietary records of more than 300 children attending 30 childcare centers, the researchers found that the children’s diets before arrival at daycare was less healthy than while they were in daycare. “The hour after pickup appeared to be the least healthful” of any of the time periods surveyed. Of course, we will all conjure up images of what this chaotic post-daycare pickup may look like and cut the harried parents and grandparents some slack when it comes to nutritional choices. However, the bottom line is that for the group of children surveyed being in preschool or daycare protected them from a less healthy diet they were being provided outside of school hours.

Our recent experience with pandemic-related school closures provides more evidence that being in school was superior to any remote experience academically. School-age children and adolescents gained weight when school closures were the norm. Play patterns for children shifted from outdoor play to indoor play — often dominated by more sedentary video games. Both fatal and non-fatal gun-related injuries surged during the pandemic and, by far, the majority of these occur in the home and not at school.

Stepping back to look at this broader picture that includes diet, physical activity, and safety — not to mention the benefits of socialization — leads one to arrive at the unfortunate conclusion that for many children in this country, being at home is considerably less healthy than being in school. Of course there will be those who point to the belief that schools are petri dishes putting children at greater risk for respiratory infections. On the other hand, we must accept that schools haven’t proved to be a major factor in the spread of COVID that many had feared.

The authors of the study in Science are certainly correct in recommending a more thorough investigation into the academic benefits of preschool education. However, we must keep in mind that preschool offers an environment that can be a positive influence on young children.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

WASHINGTON ­— Mailing outreach notices for colonoscopies or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits may be a great way to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in younger adults, according to a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

In a comparison of four outreach approaches, sending a FIT kit to people between the ages of 45 and 49 via mail garnered better response rates than opt-in strategies to participate in FIT, inviting them to undergo colonoscopy, or asking them to choose between FIT or colonoscopy. At the same time, when given a choice between colonoscopy and FIT, colonoscopy was preferred across all racial and ethnic groups.

“It is well known that colorectal cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. The good news is that for the past several decades, we’ve seen a decline in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in ages 50 and above. However, there has been a recent rise in incidence and mortality in people younger than 50,” said lead author Rebecca Ekeanyanwu, a third-year medical student at Meharry Medical College School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee. She was awarded the 2024 AGA Institute Council Healthcare Disparities Research Award for the top oral presentation for research in racial and ethnic health care disparities.

WASHINGTON ­— Mailing outreach notices for colonoscopies or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits may be a great way to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in younger adults, according to a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

In a comparison of four outreach approaches, sending a FIT kit to people between the ages of 45 and 49 via mail garnered better response rates than opt-in strategies to participate in FIT, inviting them to undergo colonoscopy, or asking them to choose between FIT or colonoscopy. At the same time, when given a choice between colonoscopy and FIT, colonoscopy was preferred across all racial and ethnic groups.

“It is well known that colorectal cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. The good news is that for the past several decades, we’ve seen a decline in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in ages 50 and above. However, there has been a recent rise in incidence and mortality in people younger than 50,” said lead author Rebecca Ekeanyanwu, a third-year medical student at Meharry Medical College School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee. She was awarded the 2024 AGA Institute Council Healthcare Disparities Research Award for the top oral presentation for research in racial and ethnic health care disparities.

WASHINGTON ­— Mailing outreach notices for colonoscopies or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits may be a great way to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in younger adults, according to a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

In a comparison of four outreach approaches, sending a FIT kit to people between the ages of 45 and 49 via mail garnered better response rates than opt-in strategies to participate in FIT, inviting them to undergo colonoscopy, or asking them to choose between FIT or colonoscopy. At the same time, when given a choice between colonoscopy and FIT, colonoscopy was preferred across all racial and ethnic groups.

“It is well known that colorectal cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. The good news is that for the past several decades, we’ve seen a decline in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in ages 50 and above. However, there has been a recent rise in incidence and mortality in people younger than 50,” said lead author Rebecca Ekeanyanwu, a third-year medical student at Meharry Medical College School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee. She was awarded the 2024 AGA Institute Council Healthcare Disparities Research Award for the top oral presentation for research in racial and ethnic health care disparities.

Welcome everyone. I’m Dr. John White. I’m the chief medical officer at WebMD. Does your biologic sex impact your health? Does it have any play in how you’re diagnosed, how you’re treated in terms of what symptoms you have? Of course it does. We all know that. But that’s not something that many people believed 5, 10 years ago, certainly not 20 years ago. And it was only because of leaders like my guest today, Phyllis Greenberger, who really championed the need for research on women’s health. She has a new book out, which I love. It’s called Sex Cells: the Fight to Overcome Bias and Discrimination in Women’s Healthcare. Please welcome my very good friend, Phyllis Greenberger.

Thank you.

Phyllis, It’s great to see you today.

It’s great to see you as well.

Now, you and I have been talking about this for easily 2 decades.

At least.

And some people think, oh, of course it makes sense. Although I saw you disagreeing that not everyone still believes that. But what has been that journey? Why has it been so hard to make people understand, as you point out early on in your book, women are not smaller men?

I think the basic reason was that it was just believed that men and women were the same except for their reproductive organs. So minus the reproductive organs, whether it was a device, a diagnostic, or therapeutic, if it was used and successful on a male, that it would be successful on a female. We’re really very far from understanding the differences, and there’s still a lot of distrust and disbelief and ignorance about it. And so there’s still a long way to go.

But you talk about that in the book, that there’s still a long way to go. Why is that? What’s the biggest obstacle? Is it just misinformation, lack of information? People don’t understand the science? There’s still resistance in some areas. Why is that?

I think it’s misinformation, and I gave a presentation, I don’t know how many years ago, at least 20 years ago, about the curriculum. And at the time, there was no women’s health in the curriculum. It was health. So if it was on cardiovascular issues or on osteoporosis, it was sort of the basic. And at the time, there would maybe be one woman whose job was women’s health, and she’d have an office, and otherwise there was nothing. And maybe they talked about breast cancer, who knows. But I spoke to someone just the other day, in view of all the attention that the book is getting now, whether that’s changed, whether it’s necessary and required. And she said it’s not. So, it’s not necessarily on the curriculum of all research and medical institutions, and even if women’s health, quote unquote, is on the curriculum, it doesn’t mean that they’re really looking at sex differences. And the difference is obvious. I mean, gender is really, it’s a social construct, but biological sex is how disease occurs and develops. And so if you’re not looking, and because there’s so little research now on sex differences that I don’t even know, I mean, how much you could actually teach.

So what needs to change? This book is a manifesto in many ways in how we need to include women; we need to make research more inclusive of everyone. But we’re not there yet. So what needs to change, Phyllis?

During this whole saga of trying to get people to listen to me and to the society, we really started out just looking at clinical trials and that, as you mentioned, I mean, there are issues in rural communities. There’s travel issues for women and child care. There’s a lot of disbelief or fear of clinical trials in some ethnicities. I do think, going to the future, that technology can help that. I mean, if people have broadband, which of course is also an issue in rural areas.

What could women do today? What should women listeners hear and then be doing? Should they be saying something to their doctor? Should they be asking specific questions? When they interact with the health care system, how can they make sure they’re getting the best care that’s appropriate for them when we know that sex cells matter?

Well, that’s a good question. It depends on, frankly, if your doctor is aware of this, if he or she has learned anything about this in school, which, I had already said, we’re not sure about that because research is still ongoing and there’s so much we don’t know. So I mean, you used to think, or I used to think, that you go to, you want a physician who’s older and more experienced. But now I think you should be going to a physician who’s younger and hopefully has learned about this, because the physicians that were educated years ago and have been practicing for 20, 30 years, I don’t know how much they know about this, whether they’re even aware of it.

Phyllis, you are a woman of action. You’ve lived in the DC area. You have championed legislative reforms, executive agendas. What do you want done now? What needs to be changed today? The curriculum is going to take time, but what else needs to change?

That’s a good question. I mean, if curriculum is going to take a while and you can ask your doctor if he prescribes the medication, whether it’s been tested on women, but then if it hasn’t been tested on women, but it’s the only thing that there is for your condition, I mean, so it’s very difficult. The Biden administration, as you know, just allocated a hundred million dollars for women’s health research.

What do you hope to accomplish with this book?

Well, what I’m hoping is that I spoke to someone at AMWA and I’m hoping — and AMWA is an association for women medical students. And I’m hoping that’s the audience. The audience needs to be. I mean, obviously everybody that I know that’s not a doctor that’s read it, found it fascinating and didn’t know a lot of the stuff that was in it. So I think it’s an interesting book anyway, and I think women should be aware of it. But really I think it needs to be for medical students.

And to your credit, you built the Society for Women’s Health Research into a powerful force in Washington under your tenure in really promoting the need for Office of Women’s Health and Research in general. The book is entitled Sex Cells, the Fight to Overcome Bias and Discrimination in Women’s Healthcare. Phyllis Greenberger, thank you so much for all that you’ve done for women’s health, for women’s research. We wouldn’t be where we are today if it wasn’t for you. So thanks.

Thank you very much, John. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity.

Dr. Whyte, is chief medical officer, WebMD, New York, NY. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Ms. Greenberger is a women’s health advocate and author of “Sex Cells: The Fight to Overcome Bias and Discrimination in Women’s Healthcare”

This interview originally appeared on WebMD on May 23, 2024. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Welcome everyone. I’m Dr. John White. I’m the chief medical officer at WebMD. Does your biologic sex impact your health? Does it have any play in how you’re diagnosed, how you’re treated in terms of what symptoms you have? Of course it does. We all know that. But that’s not something that many people believed 5, 10 years ago, certainly not 20 years ago. And it was only because of leaders like my guest today, Phyllis Greenberger, who really championed the need for research on women’s health. She has a new book out, which I love. It’s called Sex Cells: the Fight to Overcome Bias and Discrimination in Women’s Healthcare. Please welcome my very good friend, Phyllis Greenberger.

Thank you.

Phyllis, It’s great to see you today.

It’s great to see you as well.

Now, you and I have been talking about this for easily 2 decades.

At least.

And some people think, oh, of course it makes sense. Although I saw you disagreeing that not everyone still believes that. But what has been that journey? Why has it been so hard to make people understand, as you point out early on in your book, women are not smaller men?

I think the basic reason was that it was just believed that men and women were the same except for their reproductive organs. So minus the reproductive organs, whether it was a device, a diagnostic, or therapeutic, if it was used and successful on a male, that it would be successful on a female. We’re really very far from understanding the differences, and there’s still a lot of distrust and disbelief and ignorance about it. And so there’s still a long way to go.

But you talk about that in the book, that there’s still a long way to go. Why is that? What’s the biggest obstacle? Is it just misinformation, lack of information? People don’t understand the science? There’s still resistance in some areas. Why is that?

I think it’s misinformation, and I gave a presentation, I don’t know how many years ago, at least 20 years ago, about the curriculum. And at the time, there was no women’s health in the curriculum. It was health. So if it was on cardiovascular issues or on osteoporosis, it was sort of the basic. And at the time, there would maybe be one woman whose job was women’s health, and she’d have an office, and otherwise there was nothing. And maybe they talked about breast cancer, who knows. But I spoke to someone just the other day, in view of all the attention that the book is getting now, whether that’s changed, whether it’s necessary and required. And she said it’s not. So, it’s not necessarily on the curriculum of all research and medical institutions, and even if women’s health, quote unquote, is on the curriculum, it doesn’t mean that they’re really looking at sex differences. And the difference is obvious. I mean, gender is really, it’s a social construct, but biological sex is how disease occurs and develops. And so if you’re not looking, and because there’s so little research now on sex differences that I don’t even know, I mean, how much you could actually teach.

So what needs to change? This book is a manifesto in many ways in how we need to include women; we need to make research more inclusive of everyone. But we’re not there yet. So what needs to change, Phyllis?

During this whole saga of trying to get people to listen to me and to the society, we really started out just looking at clinical trials and that, as you mentioned, I mean, there are issues in rural communities. There’s travel issues for women and child care. There’s a lot of disbelief or fear of clinical trials in some ethnicities. I do think, going to the future, that technology can help that. I mean, if people have broadband, which of course is also an issue in rural areas.

What could women do today? What should women listeners hear and then be doing? Should they be saying something to their doctor? Should they be asking specific questions? When they interact with the health care system, how can they make sure they’re getting the best care that’s appropriate for them when we know that sex cells matter?

Well, that’s a good question. It depends on, frankly, if your doctor is aware of this, if he or she has learned anything about this in school, which, I had already said, we’re not sure about that because research is still ongoing and there’s so much we don’t know. So I mean, you used to think, or I used to think, that you go to, you want a physician who’s older and more experienced. But now I think you should be going to a physician who’s younger and hopefully has learned about this, because the physicians that were educated years ago and have been practicing for 20, 30 years, I don’t know how much they know about this, whether they’re even aware of it.

Phyllis, you are a woman of action. You’ve lived in the DC area. You have championed legislative reforms, executive agendas. What do you want done now? What needs to be changed today? The curriculum is going to take time, but what else needs to change?

That’s a good question. I mean, if curriculum is going to take a while and you can ask your doctor if he prescribes the medication, whether it’s been tested on women, but then if it hasn’t been tested on women, but it’s the only thing that there is for your condition, I mean, so it’s very difficult. The Biden administration, as you know, just allocated a hundred million dollars for women’s health research.

What do you hope to accomplish with this book?

Well, what I’m hoping is that I spoke to someone at AMWA and I’m hoping — and AMWA is an association for women medical students. And I’m hoping that’s the audience. The audience needs to be. I mean, obviously everybody that I know that’s not a doctor that’s read it, found it fascinating and didn’t know a lot of the stuff that was in it. So I think it’s an interesting book anyway, and I think women should be aware of it. But really I think it needs to be for medical students.

And to your credit, you built the Society for Women’s Health Research into a powerful force in Washington under your tenure in really promoting the need for Office of Women’s Health and Research in general. The book is entitled Sex Cells, the Fight to Overcome Bias and Discrimination in Women’s Healthcare. Phyllis Greenberger, thank you so much for all that you’ve done for women’s health, for women’s research. We wouldn’t be where we are today if it wasn’t for you. So thanks.

Thank you very much, John. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity.

Dr. Whyte, is chief medical officer, WebMD, New York, NY. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Ms. Greenberger is a women’s health advocate and author of “Sex Cells: The Fight to Overcome Bias and Discrimination in Women’s Healthcare”

This interview originally appeared on WebMD on May 23, 2024. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Welcome everyone. I’m Dr. John White. I’m the chief medical officer at WebMD. Does your biologic sex impact your health? Does it have any play in how you’re diagnosed, how you’re treated in terms of what symptoms you have? Of course it does. We all know that. But that’s not something that many people believed 5, 10 years ago, certainly not 20 years ago. And it was only because of leaders like my guest today, Phyllis Greenberger, who really championed the need for research on women’s health. She has a new book out, which I love. It’s called Sex Cells: the Fight to Overcome Bias and Discrimination in Women’s Healthcare. Please welcome my very good friend, Phyllis Greenberger.

Thank you.

Phyllis, It’s great to see you today.

It’s great to see you as well.

Now, you and I have been talking about this for easily 2 decades.

At least.

And some people think, oh, of course it makes sense. Although I saw you disagreeing that not everyone still believes that. But what has been that journey? Why has it been so hard to make people understand, as you point out early on in your book, women are not smaller men?

I think the basic reason was that it was just believed that men and women were the same except for their reproductive organs. So minus the reproductive organs, whether it was a device, a diagnostic, or therapeutic, if it was used and successful on a male, that it would be successful on a female. We’re really very far from understanding the differences, and there’s still a lot of distrust and disbelief and ignorance about it. And so there’s still a long way to go.

But you talk about that in the book, that there’s still a long way to go. Why is that? What’s the biggest obstacle? Is it just misinformation, lack of information? People don’t understand the science? There’s still resistance in some areas. Why is that?

I think it’s misinformation, and I gave a presentation, I don’t know how many years ago, at least 20 years ago, about the curriculum. And at the time, there was no women’s health in the curriculum. It was health. So if it was on cardiovascular issues or on osteoporosis, it was sort of the basic. And at the time, there would maybe be one woman whose job was women’s health, and she’d have an office, and otherwise there was nothing. And maybe they talked about breast cancer, who knows. But I spoke to someone just the other day, in view of all the attention that the book is getting now, whether that’s changed, whether it’s necessary and required. And she said it’s not. So, it’s not necessarily on the curriculum of all research and medical institutions, and even if women’s health, quote unquote, is on the curriculum, it doesn’t mean that they’re really looking at sex differences. And the difference is obvious. I mean, gender is really, it’s a social construct, but biological sex is how disease occurs and develops. And so if you’re not looking, and because there’s so little research now on sex differences that I don’t even know, I mean, how much you could actually teach.

So what needs to change? This book is a manifesto in many ways in how we need to include women; we need to make research more inclusive of everyone. But we’re not there yet. So what needs to change, Phyllis?

During this whole saga of trying to get people to listen to me and to the society, we really started out just looking at clinical trials and that, as you mentioned, I mean, there are issues in rural communities. There’s travel issues for women and child care. There’s a lot of disbelief or fear of clinical trials in some ethnicities. I do think, going to the future, that technology can help that. I mean, if people have broadband, which of course is also an issue in rural areas.

What could women do today? What should women listeners hear and then be doing? Should they be saying something to their doctor? Should they be asking specific questions? When they interact with the health care system, how can they make sure they’re getting the best care that’s appropriate for them when we know that sex cells matter?

Well, that’s a good question. It depends on, frankly, if your doctor is aware of this, if he or she has learned anything about this in school, which, I had already said, we’re not sure about that because research is still ongoing and there’s so much we don’t know. So I mean, you used to think, or I used to think, that you go to, you want a physician who’s older and more experienced. But now I think you should be going to a physician who’s younger and hopefully has learned about this, because the physicians that were educated years ago and have been practicing for 20, 30 years, I don’t know how much they know about this, whether they’re even aware of it.

Phyllis, you are a woman of action. You’ve lived in the DC area. You have championed legislative reforms, executive agendas. What do you want done now? What needs to be changed today? The curriculum is going to take time, but what else needs to change?

That’s a good question. I mean, if curriculum is going to take a while and you can ask your doctor if he prescribes the medication, whether it’s been tested on women, but then if it hasn’t been tested on women, but it’s the only thing that there is for your condition, I mean, so it’s very difficult. The Biden administration, as you know, just allocated a hundred million dollars for women’s health research.

What do you hope to accomplish with this book?

Well, what I’m hoping is that I spoke to someone at AMWA and I’m hoping — and AMWA is an association for women medical students. And I’m hoping that’s the audience. The audience needs to be. I mean, obviously everybody that I know that’s not a doctor that’s read it, found it fascinating and didn’t know a lot of the stuff that was in it. So I think it’s an interesting book anyway, and I think women should be aware of it. But really I think it needs to be for medical students.

And to your credit, you built the Society for Women’s Health Research into a powerful force in Washington under your tenure in really promoting the need for Office of Women’s Health and Research in general. The book is entitled Sex Cells, the Fight to Overcome Bias and Discrimination in Women’s Healthcare. Phyllis Greenberger, thank you so much for all that you’ve done for women’s health, for women’s research. We wouldn’t be where we are today if it wasn’t for you. So thanks.

Thank you very much, John. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity.

Dr. Whyte, is chief medical officer, WebMD, New York, NY. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Ms. Greenberger is a women’s health advocate and author of “Sex Cells: The Fight to Overcome Bias and Discrimination in Women’s Healthcare”

This interview originally appeared on WebMD on May 23, 2024. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Sexual harassment, bullying, and gender bias are still very real occupational hazards for ob.gyn. trainees and practitioners alike — even in this female-dominated field, a systematic evidence review found.

Published in JAMA Network Open, by Ankita Gupta, MD, MPH, a urogynecology and reconstructive pelvic surgery specialist at the University of Louisville in Kentucky, and colleagues, the analysis found rates as high as 71% for sexual harassment, coercion, or unwanted advances. It also noted high rates of bullying, gender bias, and microaggressions. “We were struck by the continued high rates of harassment,” Dr. Gupta said in an interview. “Much of the literature within academic medicine has suggested the unequal distribution of women among medical specialties is the cause of sexual and gender harassment, but despite ob.gyns. being overwhelmingly female, we found that gender bias continues to occur at alarmingly high rates.”

Furthermore, among studies where this was reported, almost 25% of respondents had experienced sexual coercion. Not unexpectedly, this mistreatment often went unreported to institutional leadership out of fear of retaliation.

“We were also surprised to find a high rate of 51% for sexual harassment among male respondents as well, suggesting that both gender and power dynamics play a role in harassment,” Dr. Gupta said.

The primary perpetrators of unwanted behaviors were other doctors, overwhelmingly attending physicians, although residents and fellows were also identified as perpetrators, especially when harassment was reported by medical students, she added. “This once again points to the underreported abuse of professional power.” Women were rarely the perpetrators — just 10% — although they were the perpetrators in 57.7% of cases when the victim was male.

“Another interesting aspect of this is gender bias and microaggressions in the operating room,” she continued. While female surgeons often experience bias coming from OR staff, the review found that 94.4% of female ob.gyns. had been mistaken for non-physicians, 88.9% had pre-apologized for asking for something from a surgical technician or nurse, and 83.3% needed to make such requests multiple times. “These instances demonstrate gender bias in both male and female operating room staff toward female ob.gyns.”

Undermining and bullying behaviors are common in surgical specialties, Dr. Gupta explained, and the tantrums, swearing, and humiliation of trainees may be considered as much a rite of passage as the long hours. “As a trainee, you are taught to ignore such behavior as reporting it comes with fear of repercussions.”

This review bore this out, with only 8%-12% of respondents across studies reporting harassment and then predominantly to another trainee. “Sexual harassment and microaggressions can further lead to loss of career opportunities and burnout and I have come across many ob.gyns. who have chosen alternate paths owing to negative experiences,” Dr. Gupta said.

The Analysis

A joint effort by the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons and the and Society of Gynecologic Oncology, the analysis looked at existing literature from inception through June 2023.

A total of 10 eligible studies with 5852 participants addressed prevalence and 12 eligible studies in 2906 participants addressed interventions. Among the findings across different studies:

• Sexual harassment was noted by 250 of 907 physicians (27.6%) and 181 of 255 female gynecologic oncologists (70.9%).
• Workplace discrimination ranged from 142 of 249 female gynecologic oncologists (57.0%) to 354 of 527 female gynecologic oncologists (67.2%); among male gynecologic oncologists 138 of 358 (38.5%) reported discrimination.
• Bullying was reported by 131 of 248 female gynecologic oncologists (52.8%).
• Ob.gyn. trainees commonly experienced sexual harassment: 253 of 366 respondents (69.1%); this included gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion.
• Mistreatment of medical students during ob.gyn. rotation was indicated by 168 of 668 (25.1%).
• Perpetrators of harassment included physicians (30.1%), other trainees (13.1%), and OR staff (7.7%).

These findings are consistent with those of other recent investigations. A systematic review from 2022 found that 25% of ob.gyn., 32% of general surgery, and 21% of medical interns and students reported bullying .

In another 2022 review, in which ob.gyn. program directors were mainly women and department chairs mainly men, the prevalence of sexual harassment did not differ based on the gender of program directors and chairs.

A study from 2021 reported that 27% of academic surgical trainees, including ob.gyns., reported sexual harassment.

Going back to 2004, a study across multiple medical specialties found that ob.gyn. was second only to general surgery as the specialty associated with the highest rates of sexual harassment.

Despite institutional anti-discrimination policies, real-life interventions seem ineffective. “Disappointingly, we found that most interventions to address harassment had not been appropriately evaluated and did not show a decrease in sexual harassment,” Dr. Gupta said. “Interventions that were successful in reducing mistreatment of trainees required institutional buy-in at multiple levels, including leadership, management, and administration,” she said.

Multi-pronged strategies might include providing tools to educate healthcare staff about harassment and empowering bystanders to intervene when encountering such situations. “Further, independent offices where all complaints are evaluated by an intermediary third party and requiring professionalism to be a criterion for promotion criterion can be useful strategies,” she said.

She noted that residents may model harassing behavior perpetrated by senior attending physicians, thereby creating a cycle of mistreatment. “Equipping clinicians to be better surgical educators, providing clinical support, and modeling positive behavior may help disrupt the culture of harassment.” While the best solutions may be unclear, it is clear that much work remains to be done before the ob.gyn. working environment catches up to official institutional anti-discrimination policies.

This study was supported by the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons. Dr. Gupta disclosed no competing interests. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical or biomedical companies.

Sexual harassment, bullying, and gender bias are still very real occupational hazards for ob.gyn. trainees and practitioners alike — even in this female-dominated field, a systematic evidence review found.

Published in JAMA Network Open, by Ankita Gupta, MD, MPH, a urogynecology and reconstructive pelvic surgery specialist at the University of Louisville in Kentucky, and colleagues, the analysis found rates as high as 71% for sexual harassment, coercion, or unwanted advances. It also noted high rates of bullying, gender bias, and microaggressions. “We were struck by the continued high rates of harassment,” Dr. Gupta said in an interview. “Much of the literature within academic medicine has suggested the unequal distribution of women among medical specialties is the cause of sexual and gender harassment, but despite ob.gyns. being overwhelmingly female, we found that gender bias continues to occur at alarmingly high rates.”

Furthermore, among studies where this was reported, almost 25% of respondents had experienced sexual coercion. Not unexpectedly, this mistreatment often went unreported to institutional leadership out of fear of retaliation.

“We were also surprised to find a high rate of 51% for sexual harassment among male respondents as well, suggesting that both gender and power dynamics play a role in harassment,” Dr. Gupta said.

The primary perpetrators of unwanted behaviors were other doctors, overwhelmingly attending physicians, although residents and fellows were also identified as perpetrators, especially when harassment was reported by medical students, she added. “This once again points to the underreported abuse of professional power.” Women were rarely the perpetrators — just 10% — although they were the perpetrators in 57.7% of cases when the victim was male.

“Another interesting aspect of this is gender bias and microaggressions in the operating room,” she continued. While female surgeons often experience bias coming from OR staff, the review found that 94.4% of female ob.gyns. had been mistaken for non-physicians, 88.9% had pre-apologized for asking for something from a surgical technician or nurse, and 83.3% needed to make such requests multiple times. “These instances demonstrate gender bias in both male and female operating room staff toward female ob.gyns.”

Undermining and bullying behaviors are common in surgical specialties, Dr. Gupta explained, and the tantrums, swearing, and humiliation of trainees may be considered as much a rite of passage as the long hours. “As a trainee, you are taught to ignore such behavior as reporting it comes with fear of repercussions.”

This review bore this out, with only 8%-12% of respondents across studies reporting harassment and then predominantly to another trainee. “Sexual harassment and microaggressions can further lead to loss of career opportunities and burnout and I have come across many ob.gyns. who have chosen alternate paths owing to negative experiences,” Dr. Gupta said.

The Analysis

A joint effort by the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons and the and Society of Gynecologic Oncology, the analysis looked at existing literature from inception through June 2023.

A total of 10 eligible studies with 5852 participants addressed prevalence and 12 eligible studies in 2906 participants addressed interventions. Among the findings across different studies:

• Sexual harassment was noted by 250 of 907 physicians (27.6%) and 181 of 255 female gynecologic oncologists (70.9%).
• Workplace discrimination ranged from 142 of 249 female gynecologic oncologists (57.0%) to 354 of 527 female gynecologic oncologists (67.2%); among male gynecologic oncologists 138 of 358 (38.5%) reported discrimination.
• Bullying was reported by 131 of 248 female gynecologic oncologists (52.8%).
• Ob.gyn. trainees commonly experienced sexual harassment: 253 of 366 respondents (69.1%); this included gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion.
• Mistreatment of medical students during ob.gyn. rotation was indicated by 168 of 668 (25.1%).
• Perpetrators of harassment included physicians (30.1%), other trainees (13.1%), and OR staff (7.7%).

These findings are consistent with those of other recent investigations. A systematic review from 2022 found that 25% of ob.gyn., 32% of general surgery, and 21% of medical interns and students reported bullying .

In another 2022 review, in which ob.gyn. program directors were mainly women and department chairs mainly men, the prevalence of sexual harassment did not differ based on the gender of program directors and chairs.

A study from 2021 reported that 27% of academic surgical trainees, including ob.gyns., reported sexual harassment.

Going back to 2004, a study across multiple medical specialties found that ob.gyn. was second only to general surgery as the specialty associated with the highest rates of sexual harassment.

Despite institutional anti-discrimination policies, real-life interventions seem ineffective. “Disappointingly, we found that most interventions to address harassment had not been appropriately evaluated and did not show a decrease in sexual harassment,” Dr. Gupta said. “Interventions that were successful in reducing mistreatment of trainees required institutional buy-in at multiple levels, including leadership, management, and administration,” she said.

Multi-pronged strategies might include providing tools to educate healthcare staff about harassment and empowering bystanders to intervene when encountering such situations. “Further, independent offices where all complaints are evaluated by an intermediary third party and requiring professionalism to be a criterion for promotion criterion can be useful strategies,” she said.

She noted that residents may model harassing behavior perpetrated by senior attending physicians, thereby creating a cycle of mistreatment. “Equipping clinicians to be better surgical educators, providing clinical support, and modeling positive behavior may help disrupt the culture of harassment.” While the best solutions may be unclear, it is clear that much work remains to be done before the ob.gyn. working environment catches up to official institutional anti-discrimination policies.

This study was supported by the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons. Dr. Gupta disclosed no competing interests. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical or biomedical companies.

Sexual harassment, bullying, and gender bias are still very real occupational hazards for ob.gyn. trainees and practitioners alike — even in this female-dominated field, a systematic evidence review found.

Published in JAMA Network Open, by Ankita Gupta, MD, MPH, a urogynecology and reconstructive pelvic surgery specialist at the University of Louisville in Kentucky, and colleagues, the analysis found rates as high as 71% for sexual harassment, coercion, or unwanted advances. It also noted high rates of bullying, gender bias, and microaggressions. “We were struck by the continued high rates of harassment,” Dr. Gupta said in an interview. “Much of the literature within academic medicine has suggested the unequal distribution of women among medical specialties is the cause of sexual and gender harassment, but despite ob.gyns. being overwhelmingly female, we found that gender bias continues to occur at alarmingly high rates.”

Furthermore, among studies where this was reported, almost 25% of respondents had experienced sexual coercion. Not unexpectedly, this mistreatment often went unreported to institutional leadership out of fear of retaliation.

“We were also surprised to find a high rate of 51% for sexual harassment among male respondents as well, suggesting that both gender and power dynamics play a role in harassment,” Dr. Gupta said.

The primary perpetrators of unwanted behaviors were other doctors, overwhelmingly attending physicians, although residents and fellows were also identified as perpetrators, especially when harassment was reported by medical students, she added. “This once again points to the underreported abuse of professional power.” Women were rarely the perpetrators — just 10% — although they were the perpetrators in 57.7% of cases when the victim was male.

“Another interesting aspect of this is gender bias and microaggressions in the operating room,” she continued. While female surgeons often experience bias coming from OR staff, the review found that 94.4% of female ob.gyns. had been mistaken for non-physicians, 88.9% had pre-apologized for asking for something from a surgical technician or nurse, and 83.3% needed to make such requests multiple times. “These instances demonstrate gender bias in both male and female operating room staff toward female ob.gyns.”

Undermining and bullying behaviors are common in surgical specialties, Dr. Gupta explained, and the tantrums, swearing, and humiliation of trainees may be considered as much a rite of passage as the long hours. “As a trainee, you are taught to ignore such behavior as reporting it comes with fear of repercussions.”

This review bore this out, with only 8%-12% of respondents across studies reporting harassment and then predominantly to another trainee. “Sexual harassment and microaggressions can further lead to loss of career opportunities and burnout and I have come across many ob.gyns. who have chosen alternate paths owing to negative experiences,” Dr. Gupta said.

The Analysis

A joint effort by the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons and the and Society of Gynecologic Oncology, the analysis looked at existing literature from inception through June 2023.

A total of 10 eligible studies with 5852 participants addressed prevalence and 12 eligible studies in 2906 participants addressed interventions. Among the findings across different studies:

• Sexual harassment was noted by 250 of 907 physicians (27.6%) and 181 of 255 female gynecologic oncologists (70.9%).
• Workplace discrimination ranged from 142 of 249 female gynecologic oncologists (57.0%) to 354 of 527 female gynecologic oncologists (67.2%); among male gynecologic oncologists 138 of 358 (38.5%) reported discrimination.
• Bullying was reported by 131 of 248 female gynecologic oncologists (52.8%).
• Ob.gyn. trainees commonly experienced sexual harassment: 253 of 366 respondents (69.1%); this included gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion.
• Mistreatment of medical students during ob.gyn. rotation was indicated by 168 of 668 (25.1%).
• Perpetrators of harassment included physicians (30.1%), other trainees (13.1%), and OR staff (7.7%).

These findings are consistent with those of other recent investigations. A systematic review from 2022 found that 25% of ob.gyn., 32% of general surgery, and 21% of medical interns and students reported bullying .

In another 2022 review, in which ob.gyn. program directors were mainly women and department chairs mainly men, the prevalence of sexual harassment did not differ based on the gender of program directors and chairs.

A study from 2021 reported that 27% of academic surgical trainees, including ob.gyns., reported sexual harassment.

Going back to 2004, a study across multiple medical specialties found that ob.gyn. was second only to general surgery as the specialty associated with the highest rates of sexual harassment.

Despite institutional anti-discrimination policies, real-life interventions seem ineffective. “Disappointingly, we found that most interventions to address harassment had not been appropriately evaluated and did not show a decrease in sexual harassment,” Dr. Gupta said. “Interventions that were successful in reducing mistreatment of trainees required institutional buy-in at multiple levels, including leadership, management, and administration,” she said.

Multi-pronged strategies might include providing tools to educate healthcare staff about harassment and empowering bystanders to intervene when encountering such situations. “Further, independent offices where all complaints are evaluated by an intermediary third party and requiring professionalism to be a criterion for promotion criterion can be useful strategies,” she said.

She noted that residents may model harassing behavior perpetrated by senior attending physicians, thereby creating a cycle of mistreatment. “Equipping clinicians to be better surgical educators, providing clinical support, and modeling positive behavior may help disrupt the culture of harassment.” While the best solutions may be unclear, it is clear that much work remains to be done before the ob.gyn. working environment catches up to official institutional anti-discrimination policies.

This study was supported by the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons. Dr. Gupta disclosed no competing interests. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical or biomedical companies.

BOSTON — Primary care clinicians caring for patients with intellectual and developmental disabilities often recommend guardianship, a responsibility with life-altering implications. 

But only approximately 30% of primary care residency programs in the United States provide training  on how to assess the ability of patients with disabilities to make decisions for themselves, and much of this training is optional, according to a recent study cited during a workshop at the 2024 annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

Assessing the capacity of patients with disabilities involves navigating a maze of legal, ethical, and clinical considerations, according to Mary Thomas, MD, MPH, a clinical fellow in geriatrics at Yale University School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, who co-moderated the workshop.

Guardianship, while sometimes necessary, can be overly restrictive and diminish patient autonomy, she said. The legal process — ultimately decided through the courts — gives a guardian permission to manage medical care and make decisions for someone who cannot make or communicate those decisions themselves.

Clinicians can assess patients through an evaluation of functional capacity, which allows them to observe a patient’s demeanor and administer a cognition test. Alternatives such as supported decision-making may be less restrictive and can better serve patients, she said. Supported decision-making allows for a person with disabilities to receive assistance from a supporter who can help a patient process medical conditions and treatment needs. The supporter helps empower capable patients to decide on their own.

Some states have introduced legislation that would legally recognize supported decision-making as a less restrictive alternative to guardianship or conservatorship, in which a court-appointed individual manages all aspects of a person’s life. 

Sara Mixter, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine and pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore and a co-moderator of the workshop, called the use of inclusive language in patient communication the “first step toward fostering an environment where patients feel respected and understood.”

Inclusive conversations can include person-first language and using words such as “caregiver” rather than “caretaker.” 

Dr. Thomas and Dr. Mixter also called for the directors of residency programs to provide more training on disabilities. They cited a 2023 survey of directors, many of whom said that educational boards do not require training in disability-specific care and that experts in the care of people with disabilities are few and far between.

“Education and awareness are key to overcoming the challenges we face,” Dr. Thomas said. “Improving our training programs means we can ensure that all patients receive the care and respect they deserve.”

Dr. Thomas and Dr. Mixter report no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Primary care clinicians caring for patients with intellectual and developmental disabilities often recommend guardianship, a responsibility with life-altering implications. 

But only approximately 30% of primary care residency programs in the United States provide training  on how to assess the ability of patients with disabilities to make decisions for themselves, and much of this training is optional, according to a recent study cited during a workshop at the 2024 annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

Assessing the capacity of patients with disabilities involves navigating a maze of legal, ethical, and clinical considerations, according to Mary Thomas, MD, MPH, a clinical fellow in geriatrics at Yale University School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, who co-moderated the workshop.

Guardianship, while sometimes necessary, can be overly restrictive and diminish patient autonomy, she said. The legal process — ultimately decided through the courts — gives a guardian permission to manage medical care and make decisions for someone who cannot make or communicate those decisions themselves.

Clinicians can assess patients through an evaluation of functional capacity, which allows them to observe a patient’s demeanor and administer a cognition test. Alternatives such as supported decision-making may be less restrictive and can better serve patients, she said. Supported decision-making allows for a person with disabilities to receive assistance from a supporter who can help a patient process medical conditions and treatment needs. The supporter helps empower capable patients to decide on their own.

Some states have introduced legislation that would legally recognize supported decision-making as a less restrictive alternative to guardianship or conservatorship, in which a court-appointed individual manages all aspects of a person’s life. 

Sara Mixter, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine and pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore and a co-moderator of the workshop, called the use of inclusive language in patient communication the “first step toward fostering an environment where patients feel respected and understood.”

Inclusive conversations can include person-first language and using words such as “caregiver” rather than “caretaker.” 

Dr. Thomas and Dr. Mixter also called for the directors of residency programs to provide more training on disabilities. They cited a 2023 survey of directors, many of whom said that educational boards do not require training in disability-specific care and that experts in the care of people with disabilities are few and far between.

“Education and awareness are key to overcoming the challenges we face,” Dr. Thomas said. “Improving our training programs means we can ensure that all patients receive the care and respect they deserve.”

Dr. Thomas and Dr. Mixter report no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Primary care clinicians caring for patients with intellectual and developmental disabilities often recommend guardianship, a responsibility with life-altering implications. 

But only approximately 30% of primary care residency programs in the United States provide training  on how to assess the ability of patients with disabilities to make decisions for themselves, and much of this training is optional, according to a recent study cited during a workshop at the 2024 annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

Assessing the capacity of patients with disabilities involves navigating a maze of legal, ethical, and clinical considerations, according to Mary Thomas, MD, MPH, a clinical fellow in geriatrics at Yale University School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, who co-moderated the workshop.

Guardianship, while sometimes necessary, can be overly restrictive and diminish patient autonomy, she said. The legal process — ultimately decided through the courts — gives a guardian permission to manage medical care and make decisions for someone who cannot make or communicate those decisions themselves.

Clinicians can assess patients through an evaluation of functional capacity, which allows them to observe a patient’s demeanor and administer a cognition test. Alternatives such as supported decision-making may be less restrictive and can better serve patients, she said. Supported decision-making allows for a person with disabilities to receive assistance from a supporter who can help a patient process medical conditions and treatment needs. The supporter helps empower capable patients to decide on their own.

Some states have introduced legislation that would legally recognize supported decision-making as a less restrictive alternative to guardianship or conservatorship, in which a court-appointed individual manages all aspects of a person’s life. 

Sara Mixter, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine and pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore and a co-moderator of the workshop, called the use of inclusive language in patient communication the “first step toward fostering an environment where patients feel respected and understood.”

Inclusive conversations can include person-first language and using words such as “caregiver” rather than “caretaker.” 

Dr. Thomas and Dr. Mixter also called for the directors of residency programs to provide more training on disabilities. They cited a 2023 survey of directors, many of whom said that educational boards do not require training in disability-specific care and that experts in the care of people with disabilities are few and far between.

“Education and awareness are key to overcoming the challenges we face,” Dr. Thomas said. “Improving our training programs means we can ensure that all patients receive the care and respect they deserve.”

Dr. Thomas and Dr. Mixter report no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A California jury has awarded $14 million to a former University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) oncologist who claimed she was paid thousands less than her male colleagues and wrongfully terminated after her complaints of gender-based harassment and intimidation were ignored by program leadership.

The decision comes after a lengthy 8-year legal battle in which an appellate judge reversed a previous jury decision in her favor.

Lauren Pinter-Brown, MD, a hematologic oncologist, was hired in 2005 by the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine — now called UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. As the school’s lymphoma program director, she conducted clinical research alongside other oncology doctors, including Sven de Vos, MD.

She claimed that her professional relationship with Dr. de Vos became contentious after he demonstrated “oppositional” and “disrespectful” behavior at team meetings, such as talking over her and turning his chair so Dr. Pinter-Brown faced his back. Court documents indicated that Dr. de Vos refused to use Dr. Pinter-Brown’s title in front of colleagues despite doing so for male counterparts.

Dr. Pinter-Brown argued that she was treated as the “butt of a joke” by Dr. de Vos and other male colleagues. In 2016, she sued Dr. de Vos, the university, and its governing body, the Board of Regents, for wrongful termination.

She was awarded a $13 million verdict in 2018. However, the California Court of Appeals overturned it in 2020 after concluding that several mistakes during the court proceedings impeded the school’s right to a fair and impartial trial. The case was retried, culminating in the even higher award of $14 million issued on May 9.

“Two juries have come to virtually identical findings showing multiple problems at UCLA involving gender discrimination,” Dr. Pinter-Brown’s attorney, Carney R. Shegerian, JD, told this news organization.

A spokesperson from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine said administrators are carefully reviewing the new decision.

The spokesperson told this news organization that the medical school and its health system remain “deeply committed to maintaining a workplace free from discrimination, intimidation, retaliation, or harassment of any kind” and fostering a “respectful and inclusive environment ... in research, medical education, and patient care.”
 

Gender Pay Disparities Persist in Medicine

The gender pay gap in medicine is well documented. The 2024 Medscape Physician Compensation Report found that male doctors earn about 29% more than their female counterparts, with the disparity growing larger among specialists. In addition, a recent JAMA Health Forum study found that male physicians earned 21%-24% more per hour than female physicians.

Dr. Pinter-Brown, who now works at the University of California, Irvine, alleged that she was paid $200,000 less annually, on average, than her male colleagues.

That’s not surprising, says Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles. She coauthored a commentary about gender disparities in JAMA Network Open. Dr. Gulati told this news organization that even a “small” pay disparity of $100,000 annually adds up.

“Let’s say the [male physician] invests it at 3% and adds to it yearly. Even without a raise, in 20 years, that is approximately $3 million,” Dr. Gulati explained. “Once you find out you are paid less than your male colleagues, you are upset. Your sense of value and self-worth disappears.”

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, president-elect of the American Medical Women’s Association, said that gender discrimination is likely more prevalent than research indicates. She told this news organization that self-doubt and fear of retaliation keep many from exposing the mistreatment.

Although more women are entering medicine, too few rise to the highest positions, Dr. Barrett said.

“Unfortunately, many are pulled and pushed into specialties and subspecialties that have lower compensation and are not promoted to leadership, so just having numbers isn’t enough to achieve equity,” Dr. Barrett said.

Dr. Pinter-Brown claimed she was repeatedly harassed and intimidated by Dr. de Vos from 2008 to 2015. Despite voicing concerns multiple times about the discriminatory behavior, the only resolutions offered by the male-dominated program leadership were for her to separate from the group and conduct lymphoma research independently or to avoid interacting with Dr. de Vos, court records said.

Even the school’s male Title IX officer, Jan Tillisch, MD, who handled gender-based discrimination complaints, reportedly made sexist comments. When Dr. Pinter-Brown sought his help, he allegedly told her that she had a reputation as an “angry woman” and “diva,” court records showed.

According to court documents, Dr. Pinter-Brown endured nitpicking and research audits as retaliation for speaking out, temporarily suspending her research privileges. She said she was subsequently removed from the director position and replaced by Dr. de Vos.

Female physicians who report discriminatory behavior often have unfavorable outcomes and risk future career prospects, Dr. Gulati said.

To shift this dynamic, she said institutions must increase transparency and practices that support female doctors receiving “equal pay for equal work.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A California jury has awarded $14 million to a former University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) oncologist who claimed she was paid thousands less than her male colleagues and wrongfully terminated after her complaints of gender-based harassment and intimidation were ignored by program leadership.

The decision comes after a lengthy 8-year legal battle in which an appellate judge reversed a previous jury decision in her favor.

Lauren Pinter-Brown, MD, a hematologic oncologist, was hired in 2005 by the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine — now called UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. As the school’s lymphoma program director, she conducted clinical research alongside other oncology doctors, including Sven de Vos, MD.

She claimed that her professional relationship with Dr. de Vos became contentious after he demonstrated “oppositional” and “disrespectful” behavior at team meetings, such as talking over her and turning his chair so Dr. Pinter-Brown faced his back. Court documents indicated that Dr. de Vos refused to use Dr. Pinter-Brown’s title in front of colleagues despite doing so for male counterparts.

Dr. Pinter-Brown argued that she was treated as the “butt of a joke” by Dr. de Vos and other male colleagues. In 2016, she sued Dr. de Vos, the university, and its governing body, the Board of Regents, for wrongful termination.

She was awarded a $13 million verdict in 2018. However, the California Court of Appeals overturned it in 2020 after concluding that several mistakes during the court proceedings impeded the school’s right to a fair and impartial trial. The case was retried, culminating in the even higher award of $14 million issued on May 9.

“Two juries have come to virtually identical findings showing multiple problems at UCLA involving gender discrimination,” Dr. Pinter-Brown’s attorney, Carney R. Shegerian, JD, told this news organization.

A spokesperson from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine said administrators are carefully reviewing the new decision.

The spokesperson told this news organization that the medical school and its health system remain “deeply committed to maintaining a workplace free from discrimination, intimidation, retaliation, or harassment of any kind” and fostering a “respectful and inclusive environment ... in research, medical education, and patient care.”
 

Gender Pay Disparities Persist in Medicine

The gender pay gap in medicine is well documented. The 2024 Medscape Physician Compensation Report found that male doctors earn about 29% more than their female counterparts, with the disparity growing larger among specialists. In addition, a recent JAMA Health Forum study found that male physicians earned 21%-24% more per hour than female physicians.

Dr. Pinter-Brown, who now works at the University of California, Irvine, alleged that she was paid $200,000 less annually, on average, than her male colleagues.

That’s not surprising, says Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles. She coauthored a commentary about gender disparities in JAMA Network Open. Dr. Gulati told this news organization that even a “small” pay disparity of $100,000 annually adds up.

“Let’s say the [male physician] invests it at 3% and adds to it yearly. Even without a raise, in 20 years, that is approximately $3 million,” Dr. Gulati explained. “Once you find out you are paid less than your male colleagues, you are upset. Your sense of value and self-worth disappears.”

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, president-elect of the American Medical Women’s Association, said that gender discrimination is likely more prevalent than research indicates. She told this news organization that self-doubt and fear of retaliation keep many from exposing the mistreatment.

Although more women are entering medicine, too few rise to the highest positions, Dr. Barrett said.

“Unfortunately, many are pulled and pushed into specialties and subspecialties that have lower compensation and are not promoted to leadership, so just having numbers isn’t enough to achieve equity,” Dr. Barrett said.

Dr. Pinter-Brown claimed she was repeatedly harassed and intimidated by Dr. de Vos from 2008 to 2015. Despite voicing concerns multiple times about the discriminatory behavior, the only resolutions offered by the male-dominated program leadership were for her to separate from the group and conduct lymphoma research independently or to avoid interacting with Dr. de Vos, court records said.

Even the school’s male Title IX officer, Jan Tillisch, MD, who handled gender-based discrimination complaints, reportedly made sexist comments. When Dr. Pinter-Brown sought his help, he allegedly told her that she had a reputation as an “angry woman” and “diva,” court records showed.

According to court documents, Dr. Pinter-Brown endured nitpicking and research audits as retaliation for speaking out, temporarily suspending her research privileges. She said she was subsequently removed from the director position and replaced by Dr. de Vos.

Female physicians who report discriminatory behavior often have unfavorable outcomes and risk future career prospects, Dr. Gulati said.

To shift this dynamic, she said institutions must increase transparency and practices that support female doctors receiving “equal pay for equal work.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A California jury has awarded $14 million to a former University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) oncologist who claimed she was paid thousands less than her male colleagues and wrongfully terminated after her complaints of gender-based harassment and intimidation were ignored by program leadership.

The decision comes after a lengthy 8-year legal battle in which an appellate judge reversed a previous jury decision in her favor.

Lauren Pinter-Brown, MD, a hematologic oncologist, was hired in 2005 by the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine — now called UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. As the school’s lymphoma program director, she conducted clinical research alongside other oncology doctors, including Sven de Vos, MD.

She claimed that her professional relationship with Dr. de Vos became contentious after he demonstrated “oppositional” and “disrespectful” behavior at team meetings, such as talking over her and turning his chair so Dr. Pinter-Brown faced his back. Court documents indicated that Dr. de Vos refused to use Dr. Pinter-Brown’s title in front of colleagues despite doing so for male counterparts.

Dr. Pinter-Brown argued that she was treated as the “butt of a joke” by Dr. de Vos and other male colleagues. In 2016, she sued Dr. de Vos, the university, and its governing body, the Board of Regents, for wrongful termination.

She was awarded a $13 million verdict in 2018. However, the California Court of Appeals overturned it in 2020 after concluding that several mistakes during the court proceedings impeded the school’s right to a fair and impartial trial. The case was retried, culminating in the even higher award of $14 million issued on May 9.

“Two juries have come to virtually identical findings showing multiple problems at UCLA involving gender discrimination,” Dr. Pinter-Brown’s attorney, Carney R. Shegerian, JD, told this news organization.

A spokesperson from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine said administrators are carefully reviewing the new decision.

The spokesperson told this news organization that the medical school and its health system remain “deeply committed to maintaining a workplace free from discrimination, intimidation, retaliation, or harassment of any kind” and fostering a “respectful and inclusive environment ... in research, medical education, and patient care.”
 

Gender Pay Disparities Persist in Medicine

The gender pay gap in medicine is well documented. The 2024 Medscape Physician Compensation Report found that male doctors earn about 29% more than their female counterparts, with the disparity growing larger among specialists. In addition, a recent JAMA Health Forum study found that male physicians earned 21%-24% more per hour than female physicians.

Dr. Pinter-Brown, who now works at the University of California, Irvine, alleged that she was paid $200,000 less annually, on average, than her male colleagues.

That’s not surprising, says Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles. She coauthored a commentary about gender disparities in JAMA Network Open. Dr. Gulati told this news organization that even a “small” pay disparity of $100,000 annually adds up.

“Let’s say the [male physician] invests it at 3% and adds to it yearly. Even without a raise, in 20 years, that is approximately $3 million,” Dr. Gulati explained. “Once you find out you are paid less than your male colleagues, you are upset. Your sense of value and self-worth disappears.”

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, president-elect of the American Medical Women’s Association, said that gender discrimination is likely more prevalent than research indicates. She told this news organization that self-doubt and fear of retaliation keep many from exposing the mistreatment.

Although more women are entering medicine, too few rise to the highest positions, Dr. Barrett said.

“Unfortunately, many are pulled and pushed into specialties and subspecialties that have lower compensation and are not promoted to leadership, so just having numbers isn’t enough to achieve equity,” Dr. Barrett said.

Dr. Pinter-Brown claimed she was repeatedly harassed and intimidated by Dr. de Vos from 2008 to 2015. Despite voicing concerns multiple times about the discriminatory behavior, the only resolutions offered by the male-dominated program leadership were for her to separate from the group and conduct lymphoma research independently or to avoid interacting with Dr. de Vos, court records said.

Even the school’s male Title IX officer, Jan Tillisch, MD, who handled gender-based discrimination complaints, reportedly made sexist comments. When Dr. Pinter-Brown sought his help, he allegedly told her that she had a reputation as an “angry woman” and “diva,” court records showed.

According to court documents, Dr. Pinter-Brown endured nitpicking and research audits as retaliation for speaking out, temporarily suspending her research privileges. She said she was subsequently removed from the director position and replaced by Dr. de Vos.

Female physicians who report discriminatory behavior often have unfavorable outcomes and risk future career prospects, Dr. Gulati said.

To shift this dynamic, she said institutions must increase transparency and practices that support female doctors receiving “equal pay for equal work.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Screenings may not be the way to get needed resources to children and their caregivers, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS).

Caregivers and parents who were asked if they wanted assistance in several areas of need, including transportation and childcare, were nearly twice as likely to say they wanted such help than those who received a screening on current hardships. Generally, each questionnaire is administered in front of their children in primary care or pediatric hospital settings.

“Families have a lot of concern about being seen a different way by their healthcare team, being seen as unfit, and having child protective services involved in their childcare for issues related to poverty,” said Danielle Cullen, MD, a pediatric emergency medicine specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

Dr. Cullen and her colleagues analyzed data from nearly 4000 caregivers of children up to age 21 at emergency departments or primary care clinics at CHOP between 2021 and 2023.

Caregivers were randomly assigned to one of three arms — screening with a version of WE CARE (Well Child Care, Evaluation, Community Resources, Advocacy, Referral, Education), use of an online menu of options for help in areas like housing, or neither approach.

Caregivers in all three arms received a map of resources and a follow-up text from a resource navigator to assist them as needed.

Nearly 40% of caregivers who presented with the digital menu said they wanted resources compared with 29% of those who were screened (P < .001). Non-native English speakers given the menu were 2.5 times more likely to say yes to resources compared with those who were screened.

“We need to be thoughtful about these mandates to screen for social determinants of health: It’s not that straightforward,” said Esther K. Chung, MD, a pediatrician and professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington Medicine in Seattle, who was not involved in the study. “What we’re getting from this study is that patients want choice, and the menu provides them choice.”

Dr. Cullen said the menu option allows caregivers to make choices based on their priorities and not on whether they meet the screening thresholds for need.

While some health clinics utilize tablet forms for screenings to offer more privacy with questions, asking direct questions about income, food insecurity, and housing stability can be stigmatizing, Dr. Cullen said.

“Screening positive for social risk doesn’t mean that you actually want resources, and on the flip side, the literature shows that about half of the people who screen negative want resources,” she said.

Dr. Cullen and her team also conducted follow-up interviews with caregivers and found many feared that their clinician would assume a medical condition was connected to living conditions. They also had concerns about insurance companies gaining access to the data and using it to deny coverage or raise costs.

Spanish-speaking caregivers cited fears about their immigration status, experiences of discrimination, and language barriers when trying to access resources.

Participants said a few key strategies could make screening less intimidating, such as abstaining from screening during a serious medical visit, asking for consent to record answers in medical records, and communicating in an empathetic manner.

“Some families are a bit surprised when we ask about things like housing and food insecurity, but I think as long as we contextualize it, we can minimize the stigma associated with it,” Dr. Chung said. “That takes quite a bit of nuance and skill.”

The study was funded by the William T. Grant Foundation and the Emergency Medicine Foundation. The authors reported no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Screenings may not be the way to get needed resources to children and their caregivers, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS).

Caregivers and parents who were asked if they wanted assistance in several areas of need, including transportation and childcare, were nearly twice as likely to say they wanted such help than those who received a screening on current hardships. Generally, each questionnaire is administered in front of their children in primary care or pediatric hospital settings.

“Families have a lot of concern about being seen a different way by their healthcare team, being seen as unfit, and having child protective services involved in their childcare for issues related to poverty,” said Danielle Cullen, MD, a pediatric emergency medicine specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

Dr. Cullen and her colleagues analyzed data from nearly 4000 caregivers of children up to age 21 at emergency departments or primary care clinics at CHOP between 2021 and 2023.

Caregivers were randomly assigned to one of three arms — screening with a version of WE CARE (Well Child Care, Evaluation, Community Resources, Advocacy, Referral, Education), use of an online menu of options for help in areas like housing, or neither approach.

Caregivers in all three arms received a map of resources and a follow-up text from a resource navigator to assist them as needed.

Nearly 40% of caregivers who presented with the digital menu said they wanted resources compared with 29% of those who were screened (P < .001). Non-native English speakers given the menu were 2.5 times more likely to say yes to resources compared with those who were screened.

“We need to be thoughtful about these mandates to screen for social determinants of health: It’s not that straightforward,” said Esther K. Chung, MD, a pediatrician and professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington Medicine in Seattle, who was not involved in the study. “What we’re getting from this study is that patients want choice, and the menu provides them choice.”

Dr. Cullen said the menu option allows caregivers to make choices based on their priorities and not on whether they meet the screening thresholds for need.

While some health clinics utilize tablet forms for screenings to offer more privacy with questions, asking direct questions about income, food insecurity, and housing stability can be stigmatizing, Dr. Cullen said.

“Screening positive for social risk doesn’t mean that you actually want resources, and on the flip side, the literature shows that about half of the people who screen negative want resources,” she said.

Dr. Cullen and her team also conducted follow-up interviews with caregivers and found many feared that their clinician would assume a medical condition was connected to living conditions. They also had concerns about insurance companies gaining access to the data and using it to deny coverage or raise costs.

Spanish-speaking caregivers cited fears about their immigration status, experiences of discrimination, and language barriers when trying to access resources.

Participants said a few key strategies could make screening less intimidating, such as abstaining from screening during a serious medical visit, asking for consent to record answers in medical records, and communicating in an empathetic manner.

“Some families are a bit surprised when we ask about things like housing and food insecurity, but I think as long as we contextualize it, we can minimize the stigma associated with it,” Dr. Chung said. “That takes quite a bit of nuance and skill.”

The study was funded by the William T. Grant Foundation and the Emergency Medicine Foundation. The authors reported no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Screenings may not be the way to get needed resources to children and their caregivers, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS).

Caregivers and parents who were asked if they wanted assistance in several areas of need, including transportation and childcare, were nearly twice as likely to say they wanted such help than those who received a screening on current hardships. Generally, each questionnaire is administered in front of their children in primary care or pediatric hospital settings.

“Families have a lot of concern about being seen a different way by their healthcare team, being seen as unfit, and having child protective services involved in their childcare for issues related to poverty,” said Danielle Cullen, MD, a pediatric emergency medicine specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

Dr. Cullen and her colleagues analyzed data from nearly 4000 caregivers of children up to age 21 at emergency departments or primary care clinics at CHOP between 2021 and 2023.

Caregivers were randomly assigned to one of three arms — screening with a version of WE CARE (Well Child Care, Evaluation, Community Resources, Advocacy, Referral, Education), use of an online menu of options for help in areas like housing, or neither approach.

Caregivers in all three arms received a map of resources and a follow-up text from a resource navigator to assist them as needed.

Nearly 40% of caregivers who presented with the digital menu said they wanted resources compared with 29% of those who were screened (P < .001). Non-native English speakers given the menu were 2.5 times more likely to say yes to resources compared with those who were screened.

“We need to be thoughtful about these mandates to screen for social determinants of health: It’s not that straightforward,” said Esther K. Chung, MD, a pediatrician and professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington Medicine in Seattle, who was not involved in the study. “What we’re getting from this study is that patients want choice, and the menu provides them choice.”

Dr. Cullen said the menu option allows caregivers to make choices based on their priorities and not on whether they meet the screening thresholds for need.

While some health clinics utilize tablet forms for screenings to offer more privacy with questions, asking direct questions about income, food insecurity, and housing stability can be stigmatizing, Dr. Cullen said.

“Screening positive for social risk doesn’t mean that you actually want resources, and on the flip side, the literature shows that about half of the people who screen negative want resources,” she said.

Dr. Cullen and her team also conducted follow-up interviews with caregivers and found many feared that their clinician would assume a medical condition was connected to living conditions. They also had concerns about insurance companies gaining access to the data and using it to deny coverage or raise costs.

Spanish-speaking caregivers cited fears about their immigration status, experiences of discrimination, and language barriers when trying to access resources.

Participants said a few key strategies could make screening less intimidating, such as abstaining from screening during a serious medical visit, asking for consent to record answers in medical records, and communicating in an empathetic manner.

“Some families are a bit surprised when we ask about things like housing and food insecurity, but I think as long as we contextualize it, we can minimize the stigma associated with it,” Dr. Chung said. “That takes quite a bit of nuance and skill.”

The study was funded by the William T. Grant Foundation and the Emergency Medicine Foundation. The authors reported no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.