Shelby Reed

OBJECTIVES: Reporting of United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 results will transition from a numerical score to a pass or fail result. We sought an objective analysis to determine changes in the relative importance of resident application attributes when numerical Step 1 results are replaced. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was designed to model radiology resident selection and determine the relative weights of various application factors when paired with a numerical or pass or fail Step 1 result. Faculty involved in resident selection at 14 US radiology programs chose between hypothetical pairs of applicant profiles between August and November 2020. A conditional logistic regression model assessed the relative weights of the attributes, and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated. RESULTS: There were 212 participants. When a numerical Step 1 score was provided, the most influential attributes were medical school (OR: 2.35, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.07-2.67), Black or Hispanic race or ethnicity (OR: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.79-2.38), and Step 1 score (OR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.69-1.95). When Step 1 was reported as pass, the applicant's medical school grew in influence (OR: 2.78, 95% CI: 2.42-3.18), and there was a significant increase in influence of Step 2 scores (OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.23-1.40 versus OR 1.57, 95% CI: 1.46-1.69). There was little change in the relative influence of race or ethnicity, gender, class rank, or clerkship honors. DISCUSSION: When Step 1 reporting transitions to pass or fail, medical school prestige gains outsized influence and Step 2 scores partly fill the gap left by Step 1 examination as a single metric of decisive importance in application decisions.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed for treatment interactions by ejection fraction (EF) subgroup (≥45% [heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF); vs <45% [heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)]). BACKGROUND: The REHAB-HF trial showed that an early multidomain rehabilitation intervention improved physical function, frailty, quality-of-life, and depression in older patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). METHODS: Three-month outcomes were: Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), 6-min walk distance (6MWD), and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). Six-month end points included all-cause rehospitalization and death and a global rank of death, all-cause rehospitalization, and SPPB. Prespecified significance level for interaction was P ≤ 0.1. RESULTS: Among 349 total participants, 185 (53%) had HFpEF and 164 (47%) had HFrEF. Compared with HFrEF, HFpEF participants were more often women (61% vs 43%) and had significantly worse baseline physical function, frailty, quality of life, and depression. Although interaction P values for 3-month outcomes were not significant, effect sizes were larger for HFpEF vs HFrEF: SPPB +1.9 (95% CI: 1.1-2.6) vs +1.1 (95% CI: 0.3-1.9); 6MWD +40 meters (95% CI: 9 meters-72 meters) vs +27 (95% CI: -6 meters to 59 meters); KCCQ +9 (2-16) vs +6 (-2 to 14). All-cause rehospitalization rate was nominally lower with intervention in HFpEF but not HFrEF [effect size 0.83 (95% CI: 0.64-1.09) vs 0.99 (95% CI: 0.74-1.33); interaction P = 0.40]. There were significantly greater treatment benefits in HFpEF vs HFrEF for all-cause death [interaction P = 0.08; intervention rate ratio 0.63 (95% CI: 0.25-1.61) vs 2.21 (95% CI: 0.78-6.25)], and the global rank end point (interaction P = 0.098) with benefit seen in HFpEF [probability index 0.59 (95% CI: 0.50-0.68)] but not HFrEF. CONCLUSIONS: Among older patients hospitalized with ADHF, compared with HFrEF those with HFpEF had significantly worse impairments at baseline and may derive greater benefit from the intervention. (A Trial of Rehabilitation Therapy in Older Acute Heart Failure Patients [REHAB-HF]; NCT02196038).

BACKGROUND: 'Hope' is a construct in patient-centered value frameworks, but few studies have attempted to measure the value of hope separately from treatment-related gains in quality of life and survival to support its application in economic evaluation. OBJECTIVE: To generate quantitative information on the "value of hope". METHODS: We designed a discrete-choice experiment in which treatment alternatives varied the probability of achieving 10-year survival, expected survival as the weighted sum of short-term and long-term survival, health status, and out-of-pocket cost. Two-hundred patients with cancer or history of cancer recruited by Cancer Support Community each completed 10 choice questions. We used mixed-logit and latent-class models to analyze the choice data. RESULTS: Relative to fixed survival periods of two, three or five years with 0% chance of 10-year survival, participants positively valued treatments with 5% and 10% chances of 10-year survival. However, participants negatively valued a 20% chance of 10-year survival that required an offsetting 80% chance of shorter survival. This finding was particularly strong when expected survival was two years. Compared to a 0% chance, dollar-equivalent values of 5% and 10% chances of long-term survival were $5,975 and $12,421, respectively, independent of health status or expected survival. The corresponding value for 20% versus 0% chance of long-term survival was negative. Latent-class analysis revealed 4 groups with distinct preference patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings affirm positive value for hope independent of expected survival and health status. However, this finding does not universally hold in all situations nor across all groups.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the largest integrated health care system in the United States (US). Among VHA patients, the rate of use of concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT) among those with unresectable, stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is unknown. The objective was to report recent CCRT treatment patterns in VHA patients and identify characteristics associated with receipt of CCRT. METHODS: Using Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Cancer Registry System data linked to VA electronic medical records, we determined rates of CCRT, sequential CRT (SCRT), radiation therapy (RT) only, chemotherapy (CT) only, and neither treatment. RESULTS: Among 4054 VHA patients who met study criteria, CCRT rates slightly increased from 44 to 50% between 2013 and 2017. Factors associated with decreased odds of CCRT receipt compared to any other treatment included increasing age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per 10 years = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.60-0.76) and Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score (aOR = 0.94; 95% CI: 0.91-0.97). White race was associated with increased odds of CCRT receipt (aOR = 1.24; 95% CI: 1.004-1.53). In a chart review sample of 200 patients, less than half (n = 85) had a documented reason for not receiving CCRT. Among these, 29% declined treatment, and 71% did not receive CCRT due to "not being a candidate" for reasons related to frailty or lung nodules being too far apart for radiation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: CCRT rates among VHA patients with unresectable, stage III NSCLC slightly increased from 2013 to 2017; however in 2017, only half were receiving CCRT. Older patients and those with multiple comorbidities were less likely to receive CCRT and even when controlling for these factors, non-white patients were less likely to receive CCRT.