To determine the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of older adults with pre-existing major depressive disorder (MDD). Participants: Participants were 73 community-living older adults with pre-existing MDD (mean age 69 [SD 6]) in Los Angeles, New York, Pittsburgh, and St Louis. Design and Measurements: During the first 2 months of the pandemic, the authors interviewed participants with a semistructured qualitative interview evaluating access to care, mental health, quality of life, and coping. The authors also assessed depression, anxiety, and suicidality with validated scales and compared scores before and during the pandemic. Results: Five themes from the interviews highlight the experience of older adults with MDD: 1) They are more concerned about the risk of contracting the virus than the risks of isolation. 2) They exhibit resilience to the stress and isolation of physical distancing. 3) Most are not isolated socially, with virtual contact with friends and family. 4) Their quality of life is lower, and they worry their mental health will suffer with continued physical distancing. 5) They are outraged by an inadequate governmental response to the pandemic. Depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation symptom scores did not differ

Limited research has been done among pregnant people participating in investigational drug trials. To enhance the ethical understanding of pregnant people’s perspectives on research participation, we sought to describe motives and risk perceptions of participants in a phase 1 trial of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF) treatment for chronic Hepatitis C virus (HCV) during pregnancy. Pregnant people with chronic HCV infection enrolled in an open-label, phase 1 study of LDV/SOF participated in semi-structured, in-depth interviews to explore their reasons for participation and experiences within the study. Pregnant people took 12 weeks of LDV/SOF and were interviewed at enrollment and at the end of study. We recorded the interviews, transcribed them verbatim, coded them using NVivo software, and performed inductive thematic analysis. Nine women completed the study yielding 18 interview transcripts. We identified two themes regarding motives and one regarding risk perception. Motives—(1) Women conceptualized study participation as part of the caregiving role they associate with motherhood; participating was viewed as an act of caregiving for their infants, their families, themselves, and other pregnant women with chronic HCV. (2) Women also noted that they faced multiple barriers to treatment prior to pregnancy that created a desire to receive therapy through trial participation. Risk perception—(3) Women acknowledged personal and fetal risk associated with participation. Acceptance of risk was influenced by women’s concepts of motherhood, preexisting knowledge of HCV and medical research, family members, intimate partners, or by the study design. Women enrolled in a phase 1 trial for chronic HCV therapy during pregnancy acknowledged risks of participation and were motivated by hopes for fetal and personal benefit and by lack of prenatal access to treatment. Ethical inclusion of pregnant people in research should acknowledge structural factors that contribute to vulnerability and data deficiencies for treatment in pregnancy.

IMPORTANCEBlack faculty and trainees remain underrepresented in academic medicine because of systemic racism. Years of diversity and inclusion efforts have not succeeded in eliminating the unique challenges faced by Black faculty in academic medicine. OBJECTIVES To elicit expert faculty perspectives on anti-Black racism in academic medicine based on lived and/or professional experience and to solicit recommendations for an intervention for faculty to dismantle anti-Black racism within academic medical centers. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This qualitative study included semistructured interviews with experts in understanding and dismantling anti-Black racism within academic medical centers. Participants had expertise in anti-Black racism through their lived experience as a Black faculty member and/or professional experience in diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. Participants were recruited from academic medical centers from around the United States. Interviews were conducted through an online meeting platform, audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and subsequently coded following an inductive qualitative description approach. Interviews were completed between October 2020 and March 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Outcomes include the experiences of Black faculty and trainees in academic medicine and recommendations for developing an intervention to dismantle anti-Black racism within academic medicine. RESULTS A total of 16 participants completed this study; most identified as Black or African American (9 [56%]) and female (10 [63%]). Results were sorted into 2 content domains, with several themes within those domains: (1) barriers faced by Black faculty and trainees and potential solutions and (2) recommendations for an intervention directed at faculty to dismantle anti-Black racism in academic medicine. Barriers faced by Black faculty and trainees included lack of representation; challenges with the recruitment, retention, and promotion of Black faculty; and experiences of microaggressions and overt racism. Participants suggested that an intervention should have a comprehensive learning objective; be mandatory for all faculty, with the exception of Black faculty; draw from outside expertise; and receive allocation of resources and funding equal to other important training modules. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The findings of this study affirm prior work about the unique challenges faced by Black faculty and trainees in academic medicine because of interpersonal and institutional racism and build on this prior work by soliciting recommendations to guide intervention development. An intervention to dismantle anti-Black racism within academic medicine is urgently needed and will require leadership buy-in and financial commitments from institutions for effective development and implementation.

BACKGROUND: Mutual support groups (MSGs) are support systems for patients with substance use disorders (SUDs), yet medical residents lack awareness in the role MSGs play in addiction treatment. AIM: We developed an educational intervention to expose residents to MSGs and improve attitudes toward patients with SUD. SETTING: The study took place from October 2017 to March 2018 within a large academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: First-to third-year internal medicine residents participated. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Residents attended a MSG meeting. They completed surveys pre-and post-meeting and attended a focus group debrief session. Focus group transcripts were coded and thematically analyzed. PROGRAM EVALUATION: Sixty-eight residents participated in the curriculum, 54 attended the focus group and 47 completed the pre-and post-survey. Qualitative themes included (1) appreciation for the sense of community at meetings, (2) improved perspective taking of patients with SUDs, (3) concern regarding religion, and (4) improved confidence in MSG referrals. Post-intervention, residents had more positive attitudes toward patients with SUD (p < 0.05 for 9 of 14 questions) and toward MSGs (p < 0.05 for 2 of 4 questions). DISCUSSION: Implementing an educational intervention on MSGs gives residents an experience that impacts attitudes toward patients with SUD and confidence with MSG referrals.

PURPOSE: Stigma surrounding prescription opioids, or opioid stigma, is increasingly recognized as a barrier to effective and guideline-concordant cancer pain management. Patients with advanced cancer report high rates of pain and prescription opioid exposure, yet little is known about how opioid stigma may manifest in this population. METHODS: We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 20 patients with advanced cancer and 11 support providers between March 2020, and May 2021. We took a rigorous inductive, qualitative descriptive approach to characterize how opioid stigma manifests in the lives of patients with advanced cancer. RESULTS: Patients and their support providers described three primary manifestations of opioid stigma: (1) direct experiences with opioid stigma and discrimination in health care settings (eg, negative, stigmatizing interactions in pharmacies or a pain clinic); (2) concerns about opioid stigma affecting patient care in the future, or anticipated stigma; and (3) opioid-restricting attitudes and behaviors that may reflect internalized stigma and fear of addiction (eg, feelings of guilt). CONCLUSION: This qualitative study advances our understanding of opioid stigma manifestations in patients with advanced cancer, as well as coping strategies that patients may use to alleviate their unease (eg, minimizing prescription opioid use, changing clinicians, and distancing from perceptions of addiction). In recognition of the costs of undermanaged cancer pain, it is important to consider innovative treatment strategies to address opioid stigma and improve pain management for patients with advanced cancer. Future research should examine opportunities to build an effective, multilevel opioid stigma intervention targeting patients, clinicians, and health care systems.