Dataset Information

Smoking Prevalence among Physicians: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Smoking is a major public health problem. Although physicians have a key role in the fight against smoking, some of them are still smoking. Thus, we aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of smoking among physicians.

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched. The prevalence of smoking among physicians was estimated and stratified, where possible, by specialties, continents, and periods of time. Then, meta-regressions were performed regarding putative influencing factors such as age and sex.

Results

Among 246 studies and 497,081 physicians, the smoking prevalence among physicians was 21% (95CI 20 to 23%). Prevalence of smoking was 25% in medical students, 24% in family practitioners, 18% in surgical specialties, 17% in psychiatrists, 16% in medical specialties, 11% in anesthesiologists, 9% in radiologists, and 8% in pediatricians. Physicians in Europe and Asia had a higher smoking prevalence than in Oceania. The smoking prevalence among physicians has decreased over time. Male physicians had a higher smoking prevalence. Age did not influence smoking prevalence.

Conclusion

Prevalence of smoking among physicians is high, around 21%. Family practitioners and medical students have the highest percentage of smokers. All physicians should benefit from targeted preventive strategies.

SUBMITTER: Besson A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8705497 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Physicians in training are at high risk for depression. However, the estimated prevalence of this disorder varies substantially between studies.To provide a summary estimate of depression or depressive symptom prevalence among resident physicians.Systematic search of EMBASE, ERIC, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO for studies with information on the prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms among resident physicians published between January 1963 and September 2015. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were published in the peer-reviewed literature and used a validated method to assess for depression or depressive symptoms.Information on study characteristics and depression or depressive symptom prevalence was extracted independently by 2 trained investigators. Estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Differences by study-level characteristics were estimated using meta-regression.Point or period prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms as assessed by structured interview or validated questionnaire.Data were extracted from 31 cross-sectional studies (9447 individuals) and 23 longitudinal studies (8113 individuals). Three studies used clinical interviews and 51 used self-report instruments. The overall pooled prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms was 28.8% (4969/17,560 individuals, 95% CI, 25.3%-32.5%), with high between-study heterogeneity (Q?=?1247, ?2?=?0.39, I2?=?95.8%, P?<?.001). Prevalence estimates ranged from 20.9% for the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire with a cutoff of 10 or more (741/3577 individuals, 95% CI, 17.5%-24.7%, Q?=?14.4, ?2?=?0.04, I2?=?79.2%) to 43.2% for the 2-item PRIME-MD (1349/2891 individuals, 95% CI, 37.6%-49.0%, Q?=?45.6, ?2?=?0.09, I2?=?84.6%). There was an increased prevalence with increasing calendar year (slope?=?0.5% increase per year, adjusted for assessment modality; 95% CI, 0.03%-0.9%, P?=?.04). In a secondary analysis of 7 longitudinal studies, the median absolute increase in depressive symptoms with the onset of residency training was 15.8% (range, 0.3%-26.3%; relative risk, 4.5). No statistically significant differences were observed between cross-sectional vs longitudinal studies, studies of only interns vs only upper-level residents, or studies of nonsurgical vs both nonsurgical and surgical residents.In this systematic review, the summary estimate of the prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms among resident physicians was 28.8%, ranging from 20.9% to 43.2% depending on the instrument used, and increased with calendar year. Further research is needed to identify effective strategies for preventing and treating depression among physicians in training.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Smoking remains the leading preventable cause of premature deaths. Several pharmacological interventions now exist to aid smokers in cessation. These include Nicotine Replacement Therapy [NRT], bupropion, and varenicline. We aimed to assess their relative efficacy in smoking cessation by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched 10 electronic medical databases (inception to Sept. 2006) and bibliographies of published reviews. We selected randomized controlled trials [RCTs] evaluating interventions for smoking cessation at 1 year, through chemical confirmation. Our primary endpoint was smoking cessation at 1 year. Secondary endpoints included short-term smoking cessation (approximately 3 months) and adverse events. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression. We compared treatment effects across interventions using head-to-head trials and when these did not exist, we calculated indirect comparisons. RESULTS: We identified 70 trials of NRT versus control at 1 year, Odds Ratio [OR] 1.71, 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 1.55-1.88, P =< 0.0001). This was consistent when examining all placebo-controlled trials (49 RCTs, OR 1.78, 95% CI, 1.60-1.99), NRT gum (OR 1.60, 95% CI, 1.37-1.86) or patch (OR 1.63, 95% CI, 1.41-1.89). NRT also reduced smoking at 3 months (OR 1.98, 95% CI, 1.77-2.21). Bupropion trials were superior to controls at 1 year (12 RCTs, OR1.56, 95% CI, 1.10-2.21, P = 0.01) and at 3 months (OR 2.13, 95% CI, 1.72-2.64). Two RCTs evaluated the superiority of bupropion versus NRT at 1 year (OR 1.14, 95% CI, 0.20-6.42). Varenicline was superior to placebo at 1 year (4 RCTs, OR 2.96, 95% CI, 2.12-4.12, P =< 0.0001) and also at approximately 3 months (OR 3.75, 95% CI, 2.65-5.30). Three RCTs evaluated the effectiveness of varenicline versus bupropion at 1 year (OR 1.58, 95% CI, 1.22-2.05) and at approximately 3 months (OR 1.61, 95% CI, 1.16-2.21). Using indirect comparisons, varenicline was superior to NRT when compared to placebo controls (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.17-2.36, P = 0.004) or to all controls at 1 year (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.22-2.45, P = 0.001). This was also the case for 3-month data. Adverse events were not systematically different across studies. CONCLUSION: NRT, bupropion and varenicline all provide therapeutic effects in assisting with smoking cessation. Direct and indirect comparisons identify a hierarchy of effectiveness.

Project description:Importance:Burnout is a self-reported job-related syndrome increasingly recognized as a critical factor affecting physicians and their patients. An accurate estimate of burnout prevalence among physicians would have important health policy implications, but the overall prevalence is unknown. Objective:To characterize the methods used to assess burnout and provide an estimate of the prevalence of physician burnout. Data Sources and Study Selection:Systematic search of EMBASE, ERIC, MEDLINE/PubMed, psycARTICLES, and psycINFO for studies on the prevalence of burnout in practicing physicians (ie, excluding physicians in training) published before June 1, 2018. Data Extraction and Synthesis:Burnout prevalence and study characteristics were extracted independently by 3 investigators. Although meta-analytic pooling was planned, variation in study designs and burnout ascertainment methods, as well as statistical heterogeneity, made quantitative pooling inappropriate. Therefore, studies were summarized descriptively and assessed qualitatively. Main Outcomes and Measures:Point or period prevalence of burnout assessed by questionnaire. Results:Burnout prevalence data were extracted from 182 studies involving 109?628 individuals in 45 countries published between 1991 and 2018. In all, 85.7% (156/182) of studies used a version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) to assess burnout. Studies variably reported prevalence estimates of overall burnout or burnout subcomponents: 67.0% (122/182) on overall burnout, 72.0% (131/182) on emotional exhaustion, 68.1% (124/182) on depersonalization, and 63.2% (115/182) on low personal accomplishment. Studies used at least 142 unique definitions for meeting overall burnout or burnout subscale criteria, indicating substantial disagreement in the literature on what constituted burnout. Studies variably defined burnout based on predefined cutoff scores or sample quantiles and used markedly different cutoff definitions. Among studies using instruments based on the MBI, there were at least 47 distinct definitions of overall burnout prevalence and 29, 26, and 26 definitions of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and low personal accomplishment prevalence, respectively. Overall burnout prevalence ranged from 0% to 80.5%. Emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and low personal accomplishment prevalence ranged from 0% to 86.2%, 0% to 89.9%, and 0% to 87.1%, respectively. Because of inconsistencies in definitions of and assessment methods for burnout across studies, associations between burnout and sex, age, geography, time, specialty, and depressive symptoms could not be reliably determined. Conclusions and Relevance:In this systematic review, there was substantial variability in prevalence estimates of burnout among practicing physicians and marked variation in burnout definitions, assessment methods, and study quality. These findings preclude definitive conclusions about the prevalence of burnout and highlight the importance of developing a consensus definition of burnout and of standardizing measurement tools to assess the effects of chronic occupational stress on physicians.

Project description:IntroductionDuring the last two decades, several studies have been published regarding the prevalence of tobacco smoking among college students in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). This systematic review and meta-analysis is intended to determine and examine the smoking prevalence in Saudi college students from 2010-2018.MethodsPubMed, Science Direct, APA PsycNET, Web of Science, and CINAHL were used to search for published articles reporting the smoking prevalence among Saudi college students. After eliminating irrelevant articles, investigators independently assessed the quality of each article, based on Russell & Gregory guidelines. MetaXL software was used to calculate the pooled prevalence among included studies, using the IVhert model. Heterogeneity among the included studies was evaluated, using I2 statistic. Sensitivity analyses were conducted between male and female genders.ResultsOf the 295 published articles, 29 articles used a cross-sectional design to determine smoking prevalence among Saudi college students. Most of the studies were conducted in Riyadh at health-science-related colleges; the rest were performed in different cities and colleges. The meta-analysis showed that the pooled estimate of smoking prevalence among college students in the KSA was 17% (95% CI: 11-23%). Saudi male students had a prevalence rate of 26% (95% CI: 24-29%), whereas for Saudi female students the prevalence was 5% (95% CI: 3-7%).ConclusionsSmoking among Saudi college students was higher than in the majority of regional countries (e.g. Iran). Saudi male students had a higher smoking prevalence than Saudi female college students. Additionally, studies that reported a high prevalence targeted students in specific disciplines. Public health authorities in the KSA should develop a surveillance system that monitors the prevalence of tobacco smoking on campuses. A surveillance system of monitoring tobacco use among Saudi college students could be beneficial in determining the degree of the tobacco problem and in improving current tobacco control programs.

Project description:ImportanceThe electrocardiogram (ECG) is the most common cardiovascular diagnostic test. Physicians' skill in ECG interpretation is incompletely understood.ObjectivesTo identify and summarize published research on the accuracy of physicians' ECG interpretations.Data sourcesA search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL (Central Register of Controlled Trials), PsycINFO, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health), ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), and Web of Science was conducted for articles published from database inception to February 21, 2020.Study selectionOf 1138 articles initially identified, 78 studies that assessed the accuracy of physicians' or medical students' ECG interpretations in a test setting were selected.Data extraction and synthesisData on study purpose, participants, assessment features, and outcomes were abstracted, and methodological quality was appraised with the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument. Results were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.Main outcomes and measuresAccuracy of ECG interpretation.ResultsOf 1138 studies initially identified, 78 assessed the accuracy of ECG interpretation. Across all training levels, the median accuracy was 54% (interquartile range [IQR], 40%-66%; n = 62 studies) on pretraining assessments and 67% (IQR, 55%-77%; n = 47 studies) on posttraining assessments. Accuracy varied widely across studies. The pooled accuracy for pretraining assessments was 42.0% (95% CI, 34.3%-49.6%; n = 24 studies; I2 = 99%) for medical students, 55.8% (95% CI, 48.1%-63.6%; n = 37 studies; I2 = 96%) for residents, 68.5% (95% CI, 57.6%-79.5%; n = 10 studies; I2 = 86%) for practicing physicians, and 74.9% (95% CI, 63.2%-86.7%; n = 8 studies; I2 = 22%) for cardiologists.Conclusions and relevancePhysicians at all training levels had deficiencies in ECG interpretation, even after educational interventions. Improved education across the practice continuum appears warranted. Wide variation in outcomes could reflect real differences in training or skill or differences in assessment design.