OBJECTIVE: To investigate the approach taken by clinicians involved in the diagnosis and management of individuals with Differences of Sex Development (DSD), particularly with regard to genomic testing, and identify perceived gaps/strengths/barriers in current practice.
METHODS: An anonymous online survey was developed, with questions exploring demographics, perceptions of genomic testing, availability of genetics services and opinions on the role and utility of genomic testing in DSD. All responses were anonymous. Clinicians involved in the diagnosis and management of individuals with DSD were recruited from relevant societies and departments across Australia and New Zealand.
RESULTS: 79 eligible clinicians commenced the survey, with 63 completing it and 16 providing a partial response. The perceived benefit of having a genetic diagnosis for DSD was almost unanimous (97%). Almost half (48%) of respondents reported barriers in genomic testing. 81% of respondents reported they order genomic tests currently. Approaches to genomic testing when faced with four different clinical scenarios varied across respondents. Clinicians perceived genomic testing to be underutilised (median 36 on sliding scale from 0 to 100).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite 97% of respondents reporting benefit of a genetic diagnosis for individuals with DSD, this was not reflected throughout the survey with regard to clinical implementation. When faced with clinical scenarios, the recommendations for genomic testing from respondents was much lower, indicating the discrepancy between perception and clinical practice. Genomic testing in the context of DSD is seen as both beneficial and desired, yet there are multiple barriers impacting its integration into standard clinical care.

We draw on ethnographic fieldwork conducted in Brussels (Belgium) on the health care experiences of undocumented migrants. We explore the implications of the double position of the ethnographer, who is both a researcher and a practicing doctor. We describe how the intimate knowledge the ethnographer-cum-clinician holds about the health care system influenced and shaped the data collection, analysis and subsequent policy recommendations. We examine the ethical dilemmas in conducting research from an engaged position about care practices toward vulnerable populations in one\'s own professional field. We conclude with recommendations on how to challenge and interrupt complexities faced by multi-positioned ethnographers.

BACKGROUND:  Telemedicine expanded rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic, as key policy changes, financial support, and pandemic fears tipped the balance toward internet-based care. Despite this increased support and benefits to patients and clinicians, telemedicine uptake was variable across clinicians and practices. Little is known regarding physician and institutional characteristics underlying this variability.
OBJECTIVE:  This study aimed to evaluate factors influencing telemedicine uptake among frontline physicians in the early pandemic response.
METHODS:  We surveyed a national stratified sample of frontline clinicians drawn from the American Medical Association Physician Professional Data in June or July 2020. The survey inquired about the first month and most recent month (June 2020) of pandemic telemedicine use; sample data included clinician gender, specialty, census region, and years in practice. Local pandemic conditions were estimated from county-level data on COVID-19 rates at the time of survey response. Data were analyzed in a weighted logistic regression, controlling for county-specific pandemic data, and weighted to account for survey data stratification and nonresponse.
RESULTS:  Over the first 3-4 months of the pandemic, the proportion of physicians reporting use of telemedicine in >30% of visits increased from 29.2% (70/239) to 35.7% (85/238). Relative to primary care, odds of substantial telemedicine use (>30%) both during the first month of the pandemic and in June 2020 were increased among infectious disease and critical care physicians and decreased among hospitalists and emergency medicine physicians. At least minimal prepandemic telemedicine use (odds ratio [OR] 11.41, 95% CI 1.34-97.04) and a high 2-week moving average of local COVID-19 cases (OR 10.16, 95% CI 2.07-49.97) were also associated with substantial telemedicine use in June 2020. There were no significant differences according to clinician gender, census region, or years in practice.
CONCLUSIONS:  Prepandemic telemedicine use, high local COVID-19 case counts, and clinician specialty were associated with higher levels of substantial telemedicine use during the early pandemic response. These results suggest that telemedicine uptake in the face of the pandemic may have been heavily influenced by the level of perceived threat and the resources available for implementation. Such understanding has important implications for reducing burnout and preparation for future public health emergencies.

BACKGROUND: Although virtual care (VC) has become an integral part of oncology care and healthcare delivery, clinicians\' perspectives on and satisfaction with this modality are not well understood.
METHODS: Using a National Network Forum framework and expert panel review, we developed a questionnaire to measure oncologists\' satisfaction with VC. The questionnaire was distributed to Canadian oncologists through medical society email lists (n = 1541). We used a 5-point Likert scale to capture their responses, which included strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), undecided (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5).
RESULTS: A total of 61 oncologists and/or oncology trainees, of 768 (7.9%) who opened their email, completed questionnaires between October 2022 and January 2023. Every questionnaire item had a response rate greater than 98%. Seventy-two percent of the respondents were satisfied with VC. Oncologists who were less comfortable with technology were more likely to report lower levels of satisfaction (p < 0.001, Wilcoxon rank-sum). The questionnaire items that received the highest levels of agreement were related to VC reducing costs and improving access for patients and concerns about missing a diagnosis and assessing patients\' functional status. The questionnaire items that received the greatest disagreement were related to VC improving access for patients with language barriers, VC being associated with time-savings for clinicians, improvements in clinical efficacy, and more readily available lab tests.
CONCLUSIONS: Most of the oncologists surveyed are satisfied with VC; however, there are some concerns with VC that need to be addressed. Future research on optimizing VC should address clinicians\' concerns, in addition to addressing the patient experience.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals are vital in preparing people living with and beyond cancer about the risks of chronic pain after cancer treatment. To do so, healthcare professionals need to be knowledgeable and confident about chronic pain after cancer treatment, yet little is known about their understanding or confidence of this common long-term and late side effect of cancer treatment.
OBJECTIVE: To identify healthcare professionals\' knowledge and understanding of chronic pain after cancer treatment and consider how confident they are to inform, listen and signpost people living with and beyond cancer to appropriate information and support.
METHODS: A cross sectional online survey was distributed to healthcare professionals in the UK via cancer and primary care networks, cancer alliances and social media. The survey consisted of four domains: 1) knowledge and understanding, 2) information and support, 3) confidence and 4) barriers. Quantitative data were analysed with descriptive statistics and free text comments were analysed using qualitative content analysis.
RESULTS: Healthcare professionals reported limited knowledge and understanding of chronic pain after cancer treatment. Healthcare professionals lacked confidence to talk to people about chronic pain after cancer treatment and viewed their lack of knowledge as a barrier. Additional barriers included \'Limited service provision\', \'Conflict between services\', \'Not my role\' and \'Challenges in diagnosing chronic pain in cancer survivors\'.
CONCLUSIONS: Chronic pain after cancer can be a significant issue for those living with and beyond cancer, yet healthcare professionals report limited knowledge of it or understanding of the impact. More education is needed to increase healthcare professionals\' knowledge and confidence in chronic pain after cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: Physicians and patient-facing caregivers have increasingly used mobile health (mHealth) technologies in the past several years, accelerating during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, barriers and feedback surrounding adoption remain relatively understudied and varied across health systems, particularly in rural areas.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify provider adoption, attitudes, and barriers toward mHealth in a large, multisite, rural US health care system. We investigated (1) mHealth apps that providers use for their own benefit and (2) mHealth apps that a provider uses in conjunction with a patient.
METHODS: We surveyed all patient-seeing providers within the Marshfield Clinic Health System with a brief, 16-item, web-based survey assessing attitudes toward mHealth, adoption of these technologies, and perceived barriers faced by providers, their peers, and the institution. Survey results were summarized via descriptive statistics, with log-binomial regression and accompanying pairwise analyses, using Kruskal-Wallis and Jonckheere-Terpstra tests for significance, respectively. Respondents were grouped by reported clinical role and specialty.
RESULTS: We received a 38% (n/N=916/2410) response rate, with 60.7% (n=556) of those sufficiently complete for analyses. Roughly 54.1% (n=301) of respondents reported mHealth use, primarily around decision-making and supplemental information, with use differing based on provider role and years of experience. Self-reported barriers to using mHealth included a lack of knowledge and time to study mHealth technologies. Providers also reported concerns about patients\' internet access and the complexity of mHealth apps to adequately use mHealth technologies. Providers believed the health system\'s barriers were largely privacy, confidentiality, and legal review concerns.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings echo similar studies in other health systems, surrounding providers\' lack of time and concerns over privacy and confidentiality of patient data. Providers emphasized concerns over the complexity of these technologies for their patients and concerns over patients\' internet access to fully use mHealth in their delivery of care.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers (PUs) are a common and serious complication in patients who are immobile in health care settings. Nurses play a fundamental role in the prevention of PUs; however, novice nurses lack experience in clinical situations. Virtual reality (VR) is highly conducive to clinical- and procedure-focused training because it facilitates simulations.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore the feasibility of a novel PU management VR simulation (PU-VRSim) program using a head-mounted display for novice nurses and to investigate how different types of learning materials (ie, VR or a video-based lecture) impact learning outcomes and experiences.
METHODS: PU-VRSim was created in the Unity 3D platform. This mixed methods pilot quasi-experimental study included 35 novice nurses categorized into the experimental (n=18) and control (n=17) groups. The PU-VRSim program was applied using VR in the experimental group, whereas the control group received a video-based lecture. The PU knowledge test, critical thinking disposition measurement tool, and Korean version of the General Self-Efficacy Scale were assessed before and after the intervention in both groups. After the intervention, the experimental group was further assessed using the Clinical Judgment Rubric and interviewed to evaluate their experience with PU-VRSim.
RESULTS: The results compared before and after the intervention showed significant improvements in PU knowledge in both the experimental group (P=.001) and control group (P=.005). There were no significant differences in self-efficacy and critical thinking in either group. The experimental group scored a mean of 3.23 (SD 0.44) points (accomplished) on clinical judgment, assessed using a 4-point scale. The experimental group interviews revealed that the VR simulation was realistic and helpful for learning about PU management.
CONCLUSIONS: The results revealed that PU-VRSim could improve novice nurses\' learning of PU management in realistic environments. Further studies using VR for clinical training are recommended for novice nurses.

UNASSIGNED: Massive open online courses (MOOCs) are increasingly used to educate health care workers during public health emergencies. In early 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed a series of MOOCs for COVID-19, introducing the disease and strategies to control its outbreak, with 6 courses specifically targeting health care workers as learners. In 2020, Stanford University also launched a MOOC designed to deliver accurate and timely education on COVID-19, equipping health care workers across the globe to provide health care safely and effectively to patients with the novel infectious disease. Although the use of MOOCs for just-in-time training has expanded during the pandemic, evidence is limited regarding the factors motivating health care workers to enroll in and complete courses, particularly in low-income countries (LICs) and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs).
UNASSIGNED: This study seeks to gain insights on the characteristics and motivations of learners turning to MOOCs for just-in-time training, to provide evidence that can better inform MOOC design to meet the needs of health care workers. We examine data from learners in 1 Stanford University and 6 WHO COVID-19 courses to identify (1) the characteristics of health care workers completing the courses and (2) the factors motivating them to enroll.
UNASSIGNED: We analyze (1) course registration data of the 49,098 health care workers who completed the 7 focal courses and (2) survey responses from 6272 course completers. The survey asked respondents to rank their motivations for enrollment and share feedback about their learning experience. We use descriptive statistics to compare responses by health care profession and by World Bank country income classification.
UNASSIGNED: Health care workers completed the focal courses from all regions of the world, with nearly one-third (14,159/49,098, 28.84%) practicing in LICs and LMICs. Survey data revealed a diverse range of professional roles among the learners, including physicians (2171/6272, 34.61%); nurses (1599/6272, 25.49%); and other health care professionals such as allied health professionals, community health workers, paramedics, and pharmacists (2502/6272, 39.89%). Across all health care professions, the primary motivation to enroll was for personal learning to improve clinical practice. Continuing education credit was also an important motivator, particularly for nonphysicians and learners in LICs and LMICs. Course cost (3423/6272, 54.58%) and certification (4238/6272, 67.57%) were also important to a majority of learners.
UNASSIGNED: Our results demonstrate that a diverse range of health care professionals accessed MOOCs for just-in-time training during a public health emergency. Although all health care workers were motivated to improve their clinical practice, different factors were influential across professions and locations. These factors should be considered in MOOC design to meet the needs of health care workers, particularly those in lower-resource settings where alternative avenues for training may be limited.

UNASSIGNED: Mandating headgear for field players in girls\' lacrosse to reduce head injuries, including concussion, has been heavily debated. However, research regarding the need and effectiveness of mandated headgear use in girls\' lacrosse is still developing. Therefore, this qualitative study aimed to identify the need for and barriers to the development of mandated headgear use policies in girls\' lacrosse in Ohio.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted six virtual focus groups, three with concussion experts (clinicians and researchers) and three with girls\' lacrosse stakeholders (high school players, parents, coaches, and officials). A focus group guide was developed to explore study participants\' perceptions and opinions on concussion in girls\' lacrosse, headgear use among players, and policies and policy development related to headgear use or a headgear mandate. We developed the codebook using an inductive and iterative approach based on focus group transcripts and used ATLAS.TI to code and analyze the transcript data.
UNASSIGNED: Concussion experts and stakeholders understood the potential consequences of concussion but did not perceive concussion as a pervasive problem in girls\' lacrosse. The prevention of head and facial injuries was regarded as a potential benefit of headgear use. However, stakeholders expressed that the myriad of arguments discussed opposing mandated headgear use including increased aggressive play and/or targeting, concerns over changes in the game, and cost strongly outweighed the benefits. Finally, both concussion experts and stakeholders identified multiple organizations, including USA Lacrosse, who could act as facilitators and/or barriers to developing, enacting, and implementing headgear policies.
UNASSIGNED: Concussion experts and stakeholders identified possible reasons for headgear use related to injury prevention but also identified several important barriers to the development of a headgear mandate for girls\' lacrosse in Ohio.

BACKGROUND: Due to recent advances in artificial intelligence, large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a powerful tool for a variety of language-related tasks, including sentiment analysis, and summarization of provider-patient interactions. However, there is limited research on these models in the area of crisis prediction.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of LLMs, specifically OpenAI\'s generative pretrained transformer 4 (GPT-4), in predicting current and future mental health crisis episodes using patient-provided information at intake among users of a national telemental health platform.
METHODS: Deidentified patient-provided data were pulled from specific intake questions of the Brightside telehealth platform, including the chief complaint, for 140 patients who indicated suicidal ideation (SI), and another 120 patients who later indicated SI with a plan during the course of treatment. Similar data were pulled for 200 randomly selected patients, treated during the same time period, who never endorsed SI. In total, 6 senior Brightside clinicians (3 psychologists and 3 psychiatrists) were shown patients\' self-reported chief complaint and self-reported suicide attempt history but were blinded to the future course of treatment and other reported symptoms, including SI. They were asked a simple yes or no question regarding their prediction of endorsement of SI with plan, along with their confidence level about the prediction. GPT-4 was provided with similar information and asked to answer the same questions, enabling us to directly compare the performance of artificial intelligence and clinicians.
RESULTS: Overall, the clinicians\' average precision (0.7) was higher than that of GPT-4 (0.6) in identifying the SI with plan at intake (n=140) versus no SI (n=200) when using the chief complaint alone, while sensitivity was higher for the GPT-4 (0.62) than the clinicians\' average (0.53). The addition of suicide attempt history increased the clinicians\' average sensitivity (0.59) and precision (0.77) while increasing the GPT-4 sensitivity (0.59) but decreasing the GPT-4 precision (0.54). Performance decreased comparatively when predicting future SI with plan (n=120) versus no SI (n=200) with a chief complaint only for the clinicians (average sensitivity=0.4; average precision=0.59) and the GPT-4 (sensitivity=0.46; precision=0.48). The addition of suicide attempt history increased performance comparatively for the clinicians (average sensitivity=0.46; average precision=0.69) and the GPT-4 (sensitivity=0.74; precision=0.48).
CONCLUSIONS: GPT-4, with a simple prompt design, produced results on some metrics that approached those of a trained clinician. Additional work must be done before such a model can be piloted in a clinical setting. The model should undergo safety checks for bias, given evidence that LLMs can perpetuate the biases of the underlying data on which they are trained. We believe that LLMs hold promise for augmenting the identification of higher-risk patients at intake and potentially delivering more timely care to patients.