It was concluded that observed differences between doctors and nurses were a function of the professional role played by each rather than differences in ethical reasoning or moral motivation. Although this was a small qualitative study on one institution, and may not be generalizable, results suggest that doctors and nurses need to engage in moral discourse to understand and support the ethical burden carried by the other. Administrators should provide opportunities for discourse to help staff reduce moral distress and generate creative strategies for dealing with this.
This study compares practicing rural Midwestern general surgeons born in urban areas to those born in rural areas to describe the association between birthplace and current practice location. Methods: The 2017 AMA MasterFile was used to study general surgeons in the Midwest Census Division. Surgeons were assigned to categories based on birthplace and current practice locations: urban-urban stayers, urban-rural movers, rural-rural stayers, and rural-urban movers. Urban and rural classifications corresponded to the metropolitan and nonmetropolitan definitions with Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (urban, RUCCs 1-3; rural, RUCCs 4-9). Bivariate tests and logistic regression were used to determine factors associated with rural practice choice. Findings: There were 3,070 general surgeons in the study population: 70.6% urban-urban stayers, 13.1% urban-rural movers, 10.7% rural-urban movers, and 5.7% rural-rural stayers. Rural areas netted 74 surgeons (327 rural-urban movers versus 401 urban-rural movers). Logistic regression results found different factors predicted rural practice among urban-born versus rural-born surgeons. Older urban-born surgeons were more likely to practice rurally, as were male surgeons, DOs, and those trained in less-urban residency programs. Among rural-born surgeons, more rural birthplaces and having trained at a less-urban residency were associated with practicing rurally. Conclusions: Recruiting urban-born surgeons to rural areas has proven successful in the Midwest; our findings show urban-born surgeons outnumber rural-born surgeons in rural communities. Given the ongoing need for surgeons in rural areas, urban-born surgeons should not be overlooked. Findings suggest educators and community leaders should expand less-urban training opportunities given their potential influence on all general surgeons.
How the Socioeconomic factors intersect for a particular patient can determine their susceptibility to financial toxicity, what costs they will encounter during treatment, the type and quality of their care, and the potential work impairments they face. The primary goal of this study was to evaluate financial factors leading to worsening health outcomes by the cancer subtype. A logistic model predicting worsening health outcomes while assessing the most influential economic factors was constructed by the University of Michigan Health and Retirement Study. A forward stepwise regression procedure was implemented to identify the social risk factors that impact health status. Stepwise regression was done on data subsets based on the cancer types of lung, breast, prostate, and colon cancer to determine whether significant predictors of worsening health status were different or the same across cancer types. Independent covariate analysis was also conducted to cross-validate our model. Based on the model fit statistics, the two-factor model has the best fit, i.e., the lowest AIC among potential models of 3270.56, percent concordance of 64.7, and a C-statistics of 0.65. The two-factor model used work impairment and out-of-pocket costs, significantly contributing to worsening health outcomes. Covariate analysis demonstrated that younger cancer patients experienced more financial burdens leading to worsening health outcomes than elderly patients aged 65 years and above. Work impairment and high out-of-pocket costs were significantly associated with worsening health outcomes among cancer patients. Matching the participants who need the most financial help with appropriate resources is essential to mitigate the financial burden.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.