No abstract

No abstract

Objective Several studies indicate that eating‐disorder (ED) psychopathology is elevated in athletes compared to non‐athletes. The assessment of excessive exercise among athletes is a challenge because, compared to non‐athletes, athletes are required to train at higher intensities and for longer periods of time. However, individuals participating in competitive sports are still susceptible to unhealthy physical‐activity patterns. Most ED assessments were developed and normed in non‐athlete samples and, therefore, do not capture the nuances of athletes’ training experiences. The purpose of the current study was to develop and validate a clinically useful, self‐report measure of unhealthy training behaviors and beliefs in athletes, the Athletes’ Relationships with Training Scale (ART). Method The initial item pool was administered to N = 267 women collegiate athletes who were participating in an ED prevention program study and N = 65 women athletes who were in ED treatment. Results Factor analyses indicated the ART had a four‐factor structure. Factorial and construct validity of the ART were demonstrated. ART scores significantly predicted health care utilization and differed between athletes with an ED versus athletes without an ED. For athletes in ED treatment, ART scores significantly decreased from treatment admission to discharge. Discussion The ART showed evidence of strong psychometric properties and clinical utility. The ART could be helpful for clinicians and athletic trainers to help gauge whether athletes are engaging in unhealthy training practices that may warrant clinical attention and for tracking clinical outcomes in athletes with EDs who are receiving treatment.

Background Delivering high quality, patient- and family-centered care depends upon high quality end-of-life and palliative care (EOLPC) research. Engaging patients and families as advisors, partners, or co-investigators throughout the research lifecycle is widely regarded as critical to ensuring high quality research. Engagement is not only an ethical obligation, it also raises ethical challenges of its own. We conducted a qualitative study to understand ethical challenges and potential solutions when engaging patients and families in EOLPC research. Methods We recruited and interviewed 20 clinical investigators and 22 patients or family caregivers through the Palliative Care Research Cooperative Group (PCRC). Interview transcripts were analyzed using constructivist grounded theory methodology. Analysis sought to identify ethical challenges and potential solutions, as well as to synthesize findings into practical recommendations tailored to engaging patients and families in EOLPC research. Results Our study identified 8 ethical challenges considered unique to the EOLPC research context and 11 potential solutions to these challenges. The most frequently described ethical challenges included the need to minimize burdens of engagement for patients and caregivers, challenges of dealing with death and illness, and paternalism or “gatekeeping” (i.e., withholding the opportunity to participate from patients or caregivers). Investigators and patients or family caregivers conceptualized ethics challenges differently; several issues appeared to fall outside a traditional research ethics paradigm and more into the ethics of relationships. We synthesized these findings into 4 practical recommendations hypothesized to support authentic engagement. Conclusions Engaging patients and families in EOLPC research can raise unique ethical challenges. These challenges can be overcome to empower participation, minimize the unique burdens of EOLPC, and promote diversity. Whereas traditional research ethics tend to emphasize protecting research participants who may be vulnerable, an ethics approach based on authentic engagement that explores what it means for investigators and patients or family caregivers to be in a relationship may be needed. Future research is needed to explore this approach and test these recommendations in practice.

Neutralizing monoclonal antibody treatments for non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 have been available since November 2020. However, they have been underutilized and access has been inequitable. To understand, from the clinician perspective, the factors facilitating or hindering monoclonal antibody referrals, patient access, and equity to inform development of clinician-focused messages, materials, and processes for improving access to therapeutics for COVID-19 in Colorado. We interviewed 38 frontline clinicians with experience caring for patients with COVID-19 in outpatient settings. Clinicians were purposely sampled for diversity to understand perspectives across geography (i.e., urban versus rural), practice setting, specialty, and self-reported knowledge about monoclonal antibodies. Interviews were conducted between June and September 2021, lasted 21 to 62 minutes, and were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interview transcripts were then analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis to identify thematic content and to compare themes across practice settings and other variables. Clinicians perceived monoclonal antibodies to be highly effective and were unconcerned about their emergency use status; hence, these factors were not perceived to hinder patient referrals. However, some barriers to access – including complex and changing logistics for referring, as well as the time and facilities needed for an infusion – inhibited widespread use. Clinicians in small, independent, and rural practices experienced unique challenges, such as lack of awareness of their patients’ COVID-19 test results, disconnect from treatment distribution systems, and patients who faced long travel times to obtain treatment. Many clinicians held a persistent belief that monoclonal antibodies were in short supply; this belief hindered referrals, even when monoclonal antibody doses were not scarce. Across practice settings, the most important facilitator for access to monoclonal antibodies was linkage of COVID-19 testing and treatment within care delivery. Although clinicians viewed monoclonal antibodies as safe and effective treatments for COVID-19, individual- and system-level barriers inhibited referrals, particular in some practice settings. Subcutaneous or oral formulations may overcome certain barriers to access, but simplifying patient access by linking testing with delivery of treatments that reduce morbidity and mortality will be critical for the ongoing response to COVID-19 and in future pandemics.