No abstract

No abstract

Purpose Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by functionally impairing levels of inattention and/or hyperactive-impulsive behavior. It affects 3% to 5% of adults. This perspective piece aims to highlight the occurrence of ADHD in medical learners and physicians, including its reported prevalence in these groups, why reported rates may reflect underestimates, consequences of untreated symptoms, and a potentially helpful innovative educational tool to assist these individuals with a critical aspect of medical training and practice. Results Despite recent attention being paid to concerning levels of depression, anxiety, and burnout in medical learners and physicians, comparatively little attention has been devoted to the occurrence of ADHD in these groups. Reported rates of ADHD in medical learners and physicians, though low compared to rates of other mental health conditions and compared to rates of ADHD in the general population, may represent underestimates for a variety of reasons. The consequences of untreated ADHD symptoms are likely numerous and significant for these groups. Research has shown that about half of adults with ADHD discontinue prescribed treatment (stimulant medication) over time due to lack of perceived effectiveness, highlighting the need for durable, effective interventions to help medical learners and physicians with ADHD during and after their training. An innovative educational tool to assist medical learners and physicians with ADHD with a critical facet of their training and practice – the reading of scientific articles – is proposed, including a description of the tool, rationale for its design, practical considerations around implementation, and proposed directions for future research. Conclusion Untreated ADHD in medical learners and physicians may have numerous and significant consequences that can adversely impact training, practice, and ultimately patient care. These challenges warrant proper support for medical learners and physicians with ADHD via evidence-based treatments, program-based accommodations, and innovative educational tools.

6616 Background: Survey research (SR) has been increasing as a percentage of published manuscripts in medical journals. SR plays an important role in studies of quality of life and patient preferences in treatment. Appropriate quality of methodology in SR is critical both to assure reliability and validity of survey results as well as to derive sound generalizations for larger populations from the subsets surveyed. Surveys that have deficient methodological criteria may suffer from significant flaws. A complete description and discussion of quality survey methodology, analysis, and results is essential for a thorough understanding and evaluation of published SR. Methods: Between January 2006 and December 2010, 227 articles in JCO were identified to have either “survey” or “questionnaire” in either the title or abstract. The most recent 52 consecutive articles fulfilling criteria from that time period were reviewed for reporting of survey methodology. A modification of Bennett et al.’s checklist for reporting SR was used for this analysis (Bennett C., et al. Reporting guidelines for survey research: An analysis of published guidance and reporting practices. PLoS Med 8(8): e1001069, 2011.). 35 metrics were used to analyze each survey. These metrics were grouped in the following categories: 1) title and abstract, 2) introduction, 3) methods (research tool, sample selection, survey administration and analysis), 4) results, 5) discussion, and 6) ethical quality indicators. Results: Of the 52 survey articles reviewed, the top quartile reported greater than 72% of the analyzed metrics. Half of the articles contained 63% or more of the desired metrics, and half of the articles had between 42% and 62% of the desired metrics. Some metrics were usually reported, such as ethics board review (reported in 85% of articles), but others were not consistently reported, such as calculation or justification of sample size (neither were reported in 71% of articles). Conclusions: A substantial number of articles reviewed reporting on survey research in JCO did not report critical components of survey methodology. More rigorous quality recommendations should be offered to guide authors in the report of survey research results.