Dataset Information

US public opinion regarding proposed limits on resident physician work hours.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In both Europe and the US, resident physician work hour reduction has been a source of controversy within academic medicine. In 2008, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommended a reduction in resident physician work hours. We sought to assess the American public perspective on this issue.

Methods

We conducted a national survey of 1,200 representative members of the public via random digit telephone dialing in order to describe US public opinion on resident physician work hour regulation, particularly with reference to the IOM recommendations.

Results

Respondents estimated that resident physicians currently work 12.9-h shifts (95% CI 12.5 to 13.3 h) and 58.3-h work weeks (95% CI 57.3 to 59.3 h). They believed the maximum shift duration should be 10.9 h (95% CI 10.6 to 11.3 h) and the maximum work week should be 50 h (95% CI 49.4 to 50.8 h), with 1% approving of shifts lasting >24 h (95% CI 0.6% to 2%). A total of 81% (95% CI 79% to 84%) believed reducing resident physician work hours would be very or somewhat effective in reducing medical errors, and 68% (95% CI 65% to 71%) favored the IOM proposal that resident physicians not work more than 16 h over an alternative IOM proposal permitting 30-h shifts with > or =5 h protected sleep time. In all, 81% believed patients should be informed if a treating resident physician had been working for >24 h and 80% (95% CI 78% to 83%) would then want a different doctor.

Conclusions

The American public overwhelmingly favors discontinuation of the 30-h shifts without protected sleep routinely worked by US resident physicians and strongly supports implementation of restrictions on resident physician work hours that are as strict, or stricter, than those proposed by the IOM. Strong support exists to restrict resident physicians' work to 16 or fewer consecutive hours, similar to current limits in New Zealand, the UK and the rest of Europe.

SUBMITTER: Blum AB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2901227 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

US public opinion regarding proposed limits on resident physician work hours.

Blum Alexander B AB Raiszadeh Farbod F Shea Sandra S Mermin David D Lurie Peter P Landrigan Christopher P CP Czeisler Charles A CA

BMC medicine 20100601

<h4>Background</h4>In both Europe and the US, resident physician work hour reduction has been a source of controversy within academic medicine. In 2008, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommended a reduction in resident physician work hours. We sought to assess the American public perspective on this issue.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a national survey of 1,200 representative members of the public via random digit telephone dialing in order to describe US public opinion on resident physician wo ...[more]

PMID: 20515479

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceDespite broad public support for gun safety policies, minimal policy implementation has occurred.ObjectiveTo investigate factors that encourage greater private support for and public action on gun safety policy.Design, setting, and participantsThree studies were conducted: a public opinion survey (Study 1) was conducted from January 8 to 22, 2019, and 2 experiments (Studies 2 and 3) were conducted from August 27 to October 17, 2019, and April 15 to 21, 2020, respectively. Adults living in the US were eligible to participate in Studies 1 and 3. Students 18 years and older participating in a research experience program were eligible to participate in Study 2. Study 1 was administered online by Ipsos, a market research company. A nationally representative sample of 1000 US adults was obtained from Ipsos' online KnowledgePanel, of whom 508 completed the public opinion survey. For Study 2, which was conducted in a university laboratory, 354 participants were recruited from a university research pool, all of whom completed the study. Study 3 was administered online by the market research company YouGov, which identified 727 US gun owners from its opt-in panel, from which it constructed a census-matched sample of 400 participants.ExposuresParticipants read a statement about the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Content was manipulated as a 2 (corrective information vs no corrective information) × 2 (system changeable vs system not changeable) between-subjects factorial design with random assignment. The corrective information included polling data highlighting widespread support among gun owners for several gun safety policies. System changeable described gun safety policies passed by Florida's legislature.Main outcomes and measuresMain outcomes were support for gun safety policies and public disclosure of support.ResultsThe 3 studies included a total of 1262 participants (Study 1: 508 participants; weighted mean [SD] age, 47.7 [17.5] years; 261.9 women [51.6%]; 82.5 Hispanic [16.2%] and 60.3 Black [11.9%]; Study 2: 354 participants; mean [SD] age, 20.0 [2.3] years; 232 women [65.9%]; 100 Asian [28.3%] and 37 Black [10.5%]; Study 3: 400 participants; weighted mean [SD] age, 52.1 [16.4] years; 187.3 women [46.8%]; 295.5 White [73.9%], 44.5 Hispanic [11.1%], and 32.4 Black [8.1%]). Study 1 found that 63% to 91% of gun owners and 83% to 93% of non-gun owners supported key gun safety policies, yet both groups significantly underestimated gun owners' support for these policies by between 12% and 31%. Studies 2 and 3 found that exposure to corrective information was associated with a small increase in support for 2 gun safety policies of between 4% and 15%, both in terms of participants' privately held beliefs and the beliefs they would be willing to share publicly.Conclusions and relevanceThis survey study found that many US adults failed to recognize that most gun owners support key gun safety policies. Correcting this misperception was associated with greater private and public support for gun safety policy.

Project description:BackgroundThe gender gap in physician pay is often attributed in part to women working fewer hours than men, but evidence to date is limited by self-report and a lack of detail regarding clinical revenue and gender differences in practice style.MethodsUsing national all-payer claims and data from electronic health records, we conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 24.4 million primary care office visits in 2017 and performed comparisons between female and male physicians in the same practices. Our primary independent variable was physician gender; outcomes included visit revenue, visit counts, days worked, and observed visit time (interval between the initiation and the termination of a visit). We created multivariable regression models at the year, day, and visit level after adjustment for characteristics of the primary care physicians (PCPs), patients, and types of visit and for practice fixed effects.ResultsIn 2017, female PCPs generated 10.9% less revenue from office visits than their male counterparts (-$39,143.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], -53,523.0 to -24,763.4) and conducted 10.8% fewer visits (-330.5 visits; 95% CI, -406.6 to -254.3) over 2.6% fewer clinical days (-5.3 days; 95% CI, -7.7 to -3.0), after adjustment for age, academic degree, specialty, and number of sessions worked per week, yet spent 2.6% more observed time in visits that year than their male counterparts (1201.3 minutes; 95% CI, 184.7 to 2218.0). Per visit, after adjustment for PCP, patient, and visit characteristics, female PCPs generated equal revenue but spent 15.7% more time with a patient (2.4 minutes; 95% CI, 2.1 to 2.6). These results were consistent in subgroup analyses according to the gender and health status of the patients and the type and complexity of the visits.ConclusionsFemale PCPs generated less visit revenue than male colleagues in the same practices owing to a lower volume of visits, yet spent more time in direct patient care per visit, per day, and per year. (Funded in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.).

Project description:ImportancePhysician work hours are an underexplored facet of the physician workforce that can inform policy for the rapidly changing health care labor market.ObjectiveTo examine trends in individual physician work hours and their contribution to clinical workforce changes over a 20-year period.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study focused on active US physicians between January 2001 and December 2021 who were included in the Current Population Survey. Outcomes for physicians, advanced practice professionals (APPs), and nonphysician holders of doctoral degrees were compared, and generalized linear models were used to estimate differences in time trends for weekly work hours across subgroups.Main outcomes and measuresPhysician and APP workforce size, defined as the number of active clinicians, 3-year moving averages of weekly work hours by individual physicians, and weekly hours contributed by the physician and APP workforce per 100 000 US residents.ResultsA total of 87 297 monthly surveys of physicians from 17 599 unique households were included in the analysis. The number of active physicians grew 32.9% from 2001 to 2021, peaking in 2019 at 989 684, then falling 6.7% to 923 419 by 2021, with disproportionate loss of physicians in rural areas. Average weekly work hours for individual physicians declined by 7.6% (95% CI, -9.1% to -6.1%), from 52.6 to 48.6 hours per week from 2001 to 2021. The downward trend was driven by decreasing hours among male physicians, particularly fathers (11.9% decline in work hours), rural physicians (-9.7%), and physicians aged 45 to 54 years (-9.8%). Physician mothers were the only examined subgroup to experience a statistically significant increase in work hours (3.0%). Total weekly hours contributed by the physician workforce per 10 000 US residents increased by 7.0%, from 13 006 hours in 2001 to 2003 to 13 920 hours in 2019 to 2021, compared with 16.6% growth in the US population over that time period. Weekly hours contributed by the APP workforce per 100 000 US residents grew 71.2% from 2010 through 2012 to 2019 through 2021.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study showed that physician work hours consistently declined in the past 20 years, such that physician workforce hours per capita lagged behind US population growth. This trend was offset by rapid growth in hours contributed by the APP workforce. The gap in physician work hours between men and women narrowed considerably, with diverging potential implications for gender equity. Increasing physician retirement combined with a drop in active physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic may further slow growth in physician workforce hours per capita in the US.

Project description:ImportanceThe share of the population covered by accountable care organizations (ACOs) is growing, but the association between this increase and physician employment is unknown.ObjectiveTo investigate the association between the growth of ACOs and changes in physician work hours, probability of being self-employed, and probability of working in a hospital.Design, setting, and participantsA fixed-effects design was used in this cross-sectional study to compare changes in physician employment in hospital referral regions with high vs low ACO growth. A nationally representative 1% sample of all working US physicians obtained annually from 2011 through 2015 from the American Community Survey (N = 49 582) was included. Data analysis was conducted from March 28, 2017, to April 10, 2018.Main outcomes and measuresPhysician hours worked per week, probability of being self-employed, and probability of working in a hospital.ResultsOf the 49 582 physicians included in the study, 63.5% were men; the mean (SD) age of sampled physicians was 46.01 (11.59) years. In 2011, sampled physicians worked a mean (SD) of 52.2 (16.1) hours per week, 24.43% were self-employed, and 42.03% worked in a hospital. A 10-percentage point increase in ACO enrollment in a hospital referral region was associated with a statistically significant reduction of 0.82 (95% CI, -1.52 to -0.13; P = .02) work hours in men and a decrease of 2% (95% CI, -3.8% to -0.1%; P = .04) in the probability of all physicians being self-employed. The association with self-employment was strongest (-5.0%; 95% CI, -8.7% to -1.4%; P = .006) in physicians aged 50 to 69 years, who were also more likely (4.0%; 95% CI, 1.0% to 6.9%; P = .009) to work in a hospital.Conclusions and relevanceThe growth of ACOs within hospital referral regions appears to be associated with a reduction in hours of work and self-employment among physicians. These results suggest that ACOs may affect physician employment patterns.

Project description:BackgroundDespite controversy among experts regarding aducanumab's approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, little is known about public opinion on this matter.MethodsWe conducted a representative survey of U.S. adults ages 35 and older to (1) determine opinions regarding aducanumab's approval, (2) identify any evidence of reputational injury to the Food and Drug Administration, and (3) explore opinions regarding policy responses available to policymakers, such as those relating to a national coverage determination by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The survey was administered online and in English and Spanish using a probability-based sample derived from the National Opinion Research Center's AmeriSpeak® panel. Selection probabilities in the panel and survey design account for differences in population distribution and expected response rates by demographic. The survey was analyzed using survey weights to adjust for selection probabilities and non-response.ResultsA total of 1025 respondents completed the survey. While approximately three-quarters of respondents were initially unfamiliar with aducanumab, respondents were less supportive of the drug's approval once given information about the drug's potential clinical and economic impact. Sixty-three percent of respondents support restricting aducanumab access to patients most likely to benefit. Seventy-one percent indicated a willingness to enroll a family member with mild Alzheimer's disease in a "waitlist"-style trial to further study aducanumab; sixty percent indicated a willingness to enroll a family member in a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Eighty-one percent agree aducanumab should be withdrawn from the market if confirmatory trials fail. The median respondent was willing to pay $1-5 in higher Part B premiums to cover aducanumab.ConclusionThese findings demonstrate support for a range of proposed policies in response to aducanumab's approval. The opinions of an informed public ought to be considered when developing policies in response to aducanumab's approval.

Dataset Information

US public opinion regarding proposed limits on resident physician work hours.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

US public opinion regarding proposed limits on resident physician work hours.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets