PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

John Hickner

Publications and source records attributed to John Hickner.

12 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Protecting participants in family medicine research: a consensus statement on improving research integrity and participants' safety in educational research, community-based participatory research, and practice network research.

Recent events that include the deaths of research subjects and the falsification of data have drawn greater scrutiny on assuring research data integrity and protecting participants. Several organizations have created guidelines to help guide researchers working in the area of clinical trials and ensure that their research is safe and valid. However, family medicine researchers often engage in research that differs from a typical clinical trial. Investigators working in the areas of educational research, community-based participatory research, and practice-based network research would benefit from similar recommendations to guide their own research. With funding from the US Office of Research Integrity and the Association of American Medical Colleges, we convened a panel to review issues of data integrity and participant protection in educational research, community-based participatory research, and research conducted by practice-based networks. The panel generated 11 recommendations for researchers working in these areas. Three key recommendations include the need for (1) all educational research to undergo review and approval by an institutional review board (IRB), (2) community-based participatory research to be approved not just by an IRB but also by appropriate community representatives, and (3) practice-based researchers to undertake only valid and meaningful studies that can be reviewed by a central IRB, rather than separate IRBs for each participating practice.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMed2005

Hepatitis C identification and management by family physicians.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Many people with hepatitis C receive all or most of their care from primary care physicians, yet little information exists about the practice patterns, knowledge, and beliefs and attitudes of family physicians related to hepatitis C. METHODS: We mailed a written survey to a random sample of active members of the American Academy of Family Physicians. RESULTS: Nearly all respondents (94%) reported at least one patient with hepatitis C in their practice, and 66% had diagnosed at least one new case of hepatitis C in the past year. While most respondents (85%) correctly identified common hepatitis C risk factors, only 63% reported routinely asking patients about those risk factors. Respondents (74%) preferred to involve specialists in the care of hepatitis C patients, but half (50%) reported barriers to referral. A small number (5%) of respondents have prescribed antiviral medication within the past year. Most respondents think family physicians should screen (94%), diagnose (98%), and provide general care (69%) for hepatitis C patients. CONCLUSIONS: Family physicians know how to identify high-risk people and test for hepatitis C. Most prefer to refer patients with hepatitis C to specialists for workup and treatment but report frequent barriers to those referrals.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

On the front lines: family physicians' preparedness for bioterrorism.

OBJECTIVE: The events of September 11, 2001, and the nation's recent experience with anthrax assaults made bioterrorism preparedness a national priority. Because primary care physicians are among the sentinel responders to bioterrorist attacks, we sought to determine family physicians' beliefs about their preparedness for such an attack. STUDY DESIGN: In October 2001 we conducted a national survey of 976 family physicians randomly selected from the American Academy of Family Physicians' active membership directory. POPULATION: 614 (63%) family physicians responded to the survey. OUTCOMES MEASURED: Physicians' self-reported ability to "know what to do as a doctor in the event of a suspected bioterrorist attack, recognize signs and symptoms of an illness due to bioterrorism, and know where to call to report a suspected bioterrorist attack." RESULTS: Ninety-five percent of physicians agreed that a bioterrorist attack is a real threat within the United States. However, only 27% of family physicians believed that the US health care system could respond effectively to a bioterrorist attack; fewer (17%) thought that their local medical communities could respond effectively. Twenty-six percent of physicians reported that they would know what to do as a doctor in the event of a bioterrorist attack. Only 18% had previous training in bioterrorism preparedness. In a multivariate analysis, physicians reported that preparedness for a bioterrorist attack was significantly associated with previous bioterrorism preparedness training (OR 3.9 [95% CI 2.4-6.3]) and knowing how to obtain information in the event of a bioterrorist attack (OR 6.4 [95% CI 3.9-10.6]). CONCLUSIONS: Only one quarter of family physicians felt prepared to respond to a bioterrorist event. However, training in bioterrorism preparedness was significantly associated with physicians' perceived ability to respond effectively to an attack. Primary care physicians need more training in bioterrorism preparedness and easy access to public health and medical information in the event of a bioterrorist attack.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Calling acute bronchitis a chest cold may improve patient satisfaction with appropriate antibiotic use.

BACKGROUND: Overuse of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections is an important public health problem and occurs in part because of pressure on physicians by patients to prescribe them. We hypothesized that if acute respiratory infections are called "chest colds" or "viral infections" rather than "bronchitis," patients will be satisfied with the diagnosis and more satisfied with not receiving antibiotics. METHODS: Family medicine patients were presented with a written scenario describing a typical acute respiratory infection where they were given one of 3 different diagnostic labels: chest cold, viral upper respiratory infection, and bronchitis, followed by a treatment plan that excluded antibiotic treatment. Data was analyzed for satisfaction with the diagnosis and treatment plan based on the diagnostic label. A total of 459 questionnaires were collected. RESULTS: Satisfaction (70%, 63%, and 68%) and dissatisfaction (11% 13%, and 13%) with the diagnostic labels of cold, viral upper respiratory infection, and bronchitis, respectively, showed no difference (chi(2) = 0.368, P = .832). However, more patients were dissatisfied with not receiving an antibiotic when the diagnosis label was bronchitis. A total of 26% of those that were told they had bronchitis were dissatisfied with their treatment, compared with 13% and 17% for colds and viral illness, respectively, (chi(2) = 9.380, P = .009). Binary logistic regression showed no difference in satisfaction with diagnosis for educational attainment, age, and sex (odds ratio (OR) = 1.09, 1.00, 0.98, respectively), or for satisfaction with treatment (OR = 1.1, 1.02, 1.00, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Provider use of benign-sounding labels such as chest cold when a patient presents for care for an acute respiratory infection may not affect patient satisfaction but may improve satisfaction with not being prescribed an antibiotic.

Acute Disease↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Family physician's knowledge, beliefs, and self-reported practice patterns regarding hyperlipidemia: a National Research Network (NRN) survey.

OBJECTIVE: Family physicians have the potential to make a major impact on reducing the burden of cardiovascular disease through the optimal assessment and management of hyperlipidemia. We were interested in assessing the knowledge, beliefs, and self-reported practice patterns of a representative sample of family physicians regarding the assessment and management of hyperlipidemia 2 years after the release of the evidence-based National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III guidelines. METHODS: A 33-item survey was mailed to a random sample (N = 1200) of members of the American Academy of Family Physicians in April of 2004, with 2 follow-up mailings to nonresponders. Physicians were queried about sociodemographic characteristics, their knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported practice patterns regarding the assessment and management of hyperlipidemia. Four case scenarios also were presented. RESULTS: Response rate was 58%. Over 90% of surveyed family physicians screened adults for hyperlipidemia as part of a cardiovascular disease prevention strategy. Most (89%) did this screening by themselves without the support of office staff, and 36% reported routine use of a flow sheet. Most had heard of the ATP III guidelines (85%), but only 13% had read them carefully. Only 17% of respondents used a coronary heart disease (CHD) risk calculator usually or always. Over 90% of those responding reported using low-density lipoprotein (LDL) as the treatment goal but only 76% reported using non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol as a secondary goal of therapy. CONCLUSION: We found a large variability in knowledge, beliefs, and practice patterns among practicing family physicians. We found general agreement on universal screening of adults for hyperlipidemia as part of cardiovascular disease prevention strategy and use of LDL cholesterol as a treatment goal. Many other aspects of the NCEP ATP III guidelines, such as use of a systematic, multidisciplinary approach, using non-HDL cholesterol as a secondary goal, routinely using a CHD risk calculator for risk assessment to guide cholesterol management, have not yet penetrated into self-reported clinical practice.

Adult↗