Stress from Uncertainty from Graduation to Retirement—A Population-Based Study of Swiss Physicians

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty shapes many decisions made by physicians everyday. Uncertainty and physicians’ inability to handle it may result in substandard care and unexplained variations in patterns of care. OBJECTIVE: To describe socio-demographic and professional characteristics of reactions to uncertainty among physicians from all specialties, including physicians in training. DESIGN: Cross-sectional postal survey. PARTICIPANT: All physicians practicing in Geneva, Switzerland (n = 1,994). MEASUREMENT: Reaction to medical care uncertainty was measured with the Anxiety Due to Uncertainty and Concern About Bad Outcomes scales. The questionnaire also included items about professional characteristics and work-related satisfaction scales. RESULTS: After the first mailing and two reminders, 1,184 physicians responded to the survey. In univariate analysis, women, junior physicians, surgical specialists, generalist physicians, and physicians with lower workloads had higher scores in both scales. In multivariate models, sex, medical specialty, and workload remained significantly associated with both scales, whereas clinical experience remained associated only with concern about bad outcomes. Higher levels of anxiety due to uncertainty were associated with lower scores of work-related satisfaction, while higher levels of concern about bad outcomes were associated with lower satisfaction scores for patient care, personal rewards, professional relations, and general satisfaction, but not for work-related burden or satisfaction with income-prestige. The negative effect of anxiety due to uncertainty on work-related satisfaction was more important for physicians in training. CONCLUSION: Physicians’ reactions to uncertainty in medical care were associated with several dimensions of work-related satisfaction. Physicians in training experienced the greatest impact of anxiety due to uncertainty on their work-related satisfaction. Incorporating strategies to deal with uncertainty into residency training may be useful

Cost-consciousness among Swiss doctors: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND: Knowing what influences physicians attitudes toward health care costs is an important matter, because most health care expenditures are the results of doctors' decisions. Many decisions regarding medical tests and treatments are influenced by factors other than the expected benefit to the patient, including the doctor's demographic characteristics and concerns about cost and income. METHODS: Doctors (n = 1184) in Geneva, Switzerland, answered questions about their cost-consciousness, practice patterns (medical specialty, public.vs. private sector, number of patients per week, time spent with a new patient), work satisfaction, and stress from uncertainty. General linear models were used to identify independent risk factors of higher cost-consciousness. RESULTS: Most doctors agreed that trying to contain costs was their responsibility ("agree" or "totally agree": 90%) and that they should take a more prominent role in limiting the use of unnecessary tests (92%); most disagreed that doctors are too busy to worry about costs (69%) and that the cost of health care is only important if the patient has to pay for it out-of-pocket (88%). In multivariate analyses, cost-consciousness was higher among doctors in the public sector, those who saw fewer patients per week, who were most tolerant of uncertainty, and who were most satisfied with their work. CONCLUSION: Thus even in a setting with very high health care expenditures, doctors' stated cost-consciousness appeared to be generally high, even though it was not uniformly distributed among them

Instruments to assess the perception of physicians in the decision-making process of specific clinical encounters: a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The measurement of processes and outcomes that reflect the complexity of the decision-making process within specific clinical encounters is an important area of research to pursue. A systematic review was conducted to identify instruments that assess the perception physicians have of the decision-making process within specific clinical encounters.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>For every year available up until April 2007, PubMed, PsycINFO, Current Contents, Dissertation Abstracts and Sociological Abstracts were searched for original studies in English or French. Reference lists from retrieved studies were also consulted. Studies were included if they reported a self-administered instrument evaluating physicians' perceptions of the decision-making process within specific clinical encounters, contained sufficient description to permit critical appraisal and presented quantitative results based on administering the instrument. Two individuals independently assessed the eligibility of the instruments and abstracted information on their conceptual underpinnings, main evaluation domain, development, format, reliability, validity and responsiveness. They also assessed the quality of the studies that reported on the development of the instruments with a modified version of STARD.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Out of 3431 records identified and screened for evaluation, 26 potentially relevant instruments were assessed; 11 met the inclusion criteria. Five instruments were published before 1995. Among those published after 1995, five offered a corresponding patient version. Overall, the main evaluation domains were: satisfaction with the clinical encounter (n = 2), mutual understanding between health professional and patient (n = 2), mental workload (n = 1), frustration with the clinical encounter (n = 1), nurse-physician collaboration (n = 1), perceptions of communication competence (n = 2), degree of comfort with a decision (n = 1) and information on medication (n = 1). For most instruments (n = 10), some reliability and validity criteria were reported in French or English. Overall, the mean number of items on the modified version of STARD was 12.4 (range: 2 to 18).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This systematic review provides a critical appraisal and repository of instruments that assess the perception physicians have of the decision-making process within specific clinical encounters. More research is needed to pursue the validation of the existing instruments and the development of patient versions. This will help researchers capture the complexity of the decision-making process within specific clinical encounters.</p

Immunologic aspects of chronic fatigue syndrome. Report on a Research Symposium convened by The CFIDS Association of America and co-sponsored by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health.

Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a serious health concern affecting over 800,000 Americans of all ages, races, socioeconomic groups and genders. The etiology and pathophysiology of CFS are unknown, yet studies have suggested an involvement of the immune system. A symposium was organized in October 2001 to explore the possibility of an association between immune dysfunction and CFS, with special emphasis on the interactions between immune dysfunction and other abnormalities noted in the neuroendocrine and autonomic nervous systems of individuals with CFS. This paper represents the consensus of the panel of experts who participated in this meeting. Data suggest that persons with CFS manifest changes in immune responses that fall outside normative ranges, but current research does not provide definitive evidence on whether these immune abnormalities are a cause or result of the illness. It has become clear that CFS cannot be understood based on single measurements of immune, endocrine, cardiovascular, or autonomic nervous system dysfunction. This panel encourages a new emphasis on multidisciplinary research into CFS