Perspectives on illness-related stigma and electronically sharing psychiatric health information by people with multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Electronic medical records (EMRs) facilitate more integrated and comprehensive care. Despite this, EMRs are used less frequently in psychiatry compared to other medical disciplines, in part due to concerns regarding stigma surrounding mental health. This paper explores the willingness to share medical information among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), who experience higher rates of psychiatric comorbidities compared to the general population, and the role that stigma plays in patient preferences. METHODS: MS patients were surveyed about their co-occurring psychiatric and non-psychiatric diagnoses, willingness to share their health information electronically among their treating doctors, and levels of self and societal stigma associated with their diagnoses. RESULTS: Participants were slightly more willing to share their non-psychiatric medical information vs. psychiatric information. Despite the presence of stigma decreasing patient willingness to share medical records, those with psychiatric co-occurring disorders, compared to those without, endorsed significantly greater willingness to electronically share their health records. The majority of diagnoses for which participants experienced the greatest difference in self vs. societal stigmas were psychiatric ones, including substance use, eating and mood disorders. Societal stigma strongly correlated with decreased non-psychiatric medication sharing, while self stigma was strongly correlated with decreased psychiatric medications sharing. LIMITATIONS: Standardized scales were not used to assess patient stigma and there is a potential lack of generalizability of results beyond patients with MS. CONCLUSIONS: These insights into patient preferences toward sharing their medical information should inform decisions to implement EMRs, particularly for patient populations experiencing higher than average levels of psychiatric comorbidities.

Consumers' Association of Hospital Reputation With Healthcare Quality.

Why consumers consistently rank hospital reputation as one of the most important factors when selecting health care services remains unknown. We hypothesized that this is explained by consumers associating reputation with objective quality. We performed a cross-sectional, US population-based survey of consumers (N = 23,410) exploring this association. A Spearman rank order correlation was used to measure the strength of this relationship. Subgroups of consumers more likely to associate the two was explored with multivariable logistic regression. Consumers commonly agree (56%) that a hospital's reputation is the same as its quality of health care. Consumers also associate hospital reputation with the belief that they will be less like to suffer a complication (ρ = 0.509) or die (ρ = 0.441), although the strength of these relationships were modest (all p < 0.01). Consumers who were male (OR: 0.84), Hispanic (OR: 0.82), African American (OR: 0.86), married (OR: 0.85), self-reported as healthy (OR: 0.67), and had a recent hospitalization (OR: 0.70) were less likely to believe that reputation and quality were equivalent (all p < 0.01). This data suggests that consumers link the construct of hospital reputation with objective health care quality, but this pattern of behavior is of concern, particularly when reputation does not align with objective data.

Recruitment and Retention of Community Preceptors.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting and retaining community-based pediatricians for teaching medical students has been explored through the lens of preceptors and educational leaders. The purpose of this study was to explore the perspective of pediatric department chairs, a key stakeholder group charged with maintaining teaching capacity among a faculty. METHODS: In 2015, members of the Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs and Council on Medical Student Education in Pediatrics joint task force disseminated a 20-item survey to pediatric department chairs in the United States and Canada. Topics included demographics, incentives offered to community pediatricians, and the perceived value and feasibility of such incentives. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and χ2 to compare categorical variables. RESULTS: Pediatric department chairs from 92 of 145 (63% response rate) medical schools returned the survey. Sixty-seven percent reported difficulty recruiting or retaining preceptors, and 51% reported high-reliance on preceptors for the ambulatory portion of the pediatrics clerkship. Almost all (92%) cited competition from other programs for the services of community preceptors. The provision of incentives was correlated with perceived feasibility (R2 = 0.65) but not their perceived value (R2 = 0.12). Few (21%) chairs reported providing financial compensation to preceptors. The provision of compensation was not related to reliance but did vary significantly by geographical region (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric departments rely heavily on community-based pediatricians but face competition from internal and external training programs. The perspective of department chairs is valuable in weighing interventions to facilitate continued recruitment and retention of community preceptors.