The Silent Epidemic: Causes and Consequences of Medical Learner Burnout.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Clinician burnout has significant socioeconomic, health, and quality of life implications. However, there has been little attention directed at medical students and house officers (i.e., medical learners). This review provides pertinent evidence regarding burnout as it relates to medical learners including risk factors and potential interventions. We conclude with recommendations on future research directions and potential approaches to address this epidemic of medical learner burnout. RECENT FINDINGS: Burnout is a significant issue among medical learners that is impacted both by interpersonal and environmental factors. There are points of heightened vulnerability for medical learners throughout their training. However, studies are unable to reach consensus regarding effective interventions to mitigate the impact of burnout. Furthermore, some elements of burnout are not readily reversible even after removing risk factors. Burnout is a significant concern for medical learners with wide-ranging physical, emotional, and psychosocial consequences. However, the current body of literature is sparse and does not provide consistent guidance on how to address burnout in medical learners. It is clear additional attention is needed in understanding burnout among learners and establishing proactive approaches to minimize its negative impact.

Considering Stigma in the Provision of HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis: Reflections from Current Prescribers.

Efforts to identify and address social inequities in HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) access are urgently needed. We investigated early-adopting PrEP prescribers' beliefs about how stigma contributes to PrEP access disparities in health care and explored potential intervention strategies within the context of PrEP service delivery. US-based PrEP prescribers were recruited through professional networks and participant referrals. Qualitative interviews were conducted, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. Participants (n = 18) were primarily male (72%); white (39%) or Asian (33%); and heterosexual (56%). Most practiced in the Northeastern (67%) or Southern (22%) United States; were physicians (94%); and specialized in HIV/infectious disease (89%). Participants described multiple forms of structural and interpersonal stigma impeding PrEP access. The requirement that PrEP be prescribed was a perceived deterrent for populations with medical mistrust and/or low health literacy. Practice norms such as discussing PrEP only in response to patient requests were seen as favoring more privileged groups. When probed about personally held biases, age-related stereotypes were the most readily acknowledged, including assumptions about older adults being sexually inactive and uncomfortable discussing sex. Participants criticized providers who chose not to prescribe PrEP within their clinical practice, particularly those whose decision reflected personal values related to condomless sex or discomfort communicating about sex with their patients. Suggested solutions included standardizing PrEP service delivery across patients and increasing cultural competence training. These early insights from a select sample of early-adopting providers illuminate mechanisms through which stigma could compromise PrEP access for key populations and corresponding points of intervention within the health care system.

Putting PrEP into Practice: Lessons Learned from Early-Adopting U.S. Providers' Firsthand Experiences Providing HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis and Associated Care.

Optimizing access to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), an evidence-based HIV prevention resource, requires expanding healthcare providers' adoption of PrEP into clinical practice. This qualitative study explored PrEP providers' firsthand experiences relative to six commonly-cited barriers to prescription-financial coverage, implementation logistics, eligibility determination, adherence concerns, side effects, and anticipated behavior change (risk compensation)-as well as their recommendations for training PrEP-inexperienced providers. U.S.-based PrEP providers were recruited via direct outreach and referral from colleagues and other participants (2014-2015). One-on-one interviews were conducted in person or by phone, transcribed, and analyzed. The sample (n = 18) primarily practiced in the Northeastern (67%) or Southern (22%) U.S. Nearly all (94%) were medical doctors (MDs), most of whom self-identified as infectious disease specialists. Prior experience prescribing PrEP ranged from 2 to 325 patients. Overall, providers reported favorable experiences with PrEP implementation and indicated that commonly anticipated problems were minimal or manageable. PrEP was covered via insurance or other programs for most patients; however, pre-authorization requirements, laboratory/service provision costs, and high deductibles sometimes presented challenges. Various models of PrEP care and coordination with other providers were utilized, with several providers highlighting the value of clinical staff support. Eligibility was determined through joint decision-making with patients; CDC guidelines were commonly referenced but not considered absolute. Patient adherence was variable, with particularly strong adherence noted among patients who had actively sought PrEP (self-referred). Providers observed minimal adverse effects or increases in risk behavior. However, they identified several barriers with respect to accessing and engaging PrEP candidates. Providers offered a wide range of suggestions regarding content, strategy, and logistics surrounding PrEP training, highlighting sexual history-taking and sexual minority competence as areas to prioritize. These insights from early-adopting PrEP providers may facilitate adoption of PrEP into clinical practice by PrEP-inexperienced providers, thereby improving access for individuals at risk for HIV.