RESUMO
The detection of pregnancy is common among those who participate in the care of reproductive-age females. This is especially true in the medical care of active-duty personnel in the armed forces. Considering the impact of a positive urine pregnancy test in this population, it is important to recognize the possibility of false-positive results and their causes. In this case, we explore a false-positive urine pregnancy test due to injectable positive beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (beta-hCG) supplementation used for weight loss. This report concludes that the use of exogenous beta-hCG by physicians and other clinicians should be avoided. Additionally, clinicians should be aware of its use in the community and its possible effect on laboratory testing used to evaluate for pregnancy.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Determine if a point-based attendance system combined with longitudinal gamification is feasible and improves didactic session attendance and learner perceptions at our internal medicine residency. METHODS: A prospective before-after cohort study. Weekly attendance was tracked from June 2022 through April 2023 at our university-affiliated internal medicine residency program. We implemented a point-based longitudinal game incentivizing residents to attend didactics with positive reinforcement in July 2022 (C: carrot). We added tiered positive reinforcement and positive punishment to the game in January 2023 (CS: carrot and stick). Attendance during these periods was compared to pre (P) and postintervention (S). Perceptions were assessed during the P, C, and CS periods with Likert scale ratings. RESULTS: CS was associated with higher attendance than other study periods (P = .002). Median attendance was P-51% (IQR 37.5-64.5), C-65% (IQR 50-74), CS-81% (IQR 78-94), and S-66% (IQR 63-71). Perceptions were similar during pre and intervention study periods, including perceptions of camaraderie (P-4.4, C-4.4, CS-4.5; P = .56), interest in attending didactic sessions (P-3.7, C-3.4, CS-3.2; P = .21), and mandate as the primary reason for attending didactics (P-3.1, C-3.1, CS-3.2; P = .96). CONCLUSIONS: A point-based attendance system combined with a longitudinal game that included tiered positive reinforcement and positive punishment was feasible and associated with higher didactic attendance but not associated with changes in resident perceptions.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Following the identification of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China, the virus has spread rapidly around the world causing severe illness and death. Several vaccines were found to be safe and effective and made available first to those most at risk and then to the general public. Despite the safety and efficacy profiles, vaccine hesitancy remains a significant barrier to widespread immunity. Within the military community at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, we provided multiple physician-led educational seminars to address vaccination concerns and decrease vaccine hesitancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors presented a PowerPoint presentation of the available vaccinations, their safety data, and efficacy, followed by a town hall-style question-and-answer period where questions were presented from the previous submission, as well as real-time submissions through Facebook Live. The questions were fielded by specialists in Internal Medicine, Infectious Disease, Pulmonary-Critical Care, Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Rheumatology. The entire presentation was streamed through Facebook Live and was freely available. Following the presentation, an online survey was provided for willing participants to complete which included demographic data and addressed their previous and current attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccinations and their opinions on the presentation. Data from the survey were then analyzed through IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0 to find any associations or risk factors for hesitancy. RESULTS: There were 73 respondents to the assessment, most of which were nonmedical. Of the 73, the majority (45) had already received a vaccine for COVID-19. Of those unvaccinated, 17 did not want a vaccination before or after the seminar. Two did change their mind about being receptive to vaccination, and one changed from receptive to hesitant. The only statistically significant risk factors for vaccine hesitancy were those with a moderate to great amount of trust in their health care provider compared to those with little to no trust (73% vs. 4%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our intervention was limited in its effectiveness to address vaccine hesitancy late in the pandemic, with our study limited by our small sample size. Regardless, it identified a peculiar discrepancy with those with the most trust in health care providers being the most likely to be vaccine-hesitant. This highlights the importance of the information that trusted health care providers are providing to their patients and may identify more effective routes to address vaccine hesitancy in the future.
