PURPOSE: Chemotherapy for pediatric acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is very intensive and many, but not all centers, require extended hospitalization until neutrophil recovery. Child and family preferences, beliefs, and experiences around hospitalization have not been systematically assessed.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: We recruited children with AML and their parents from nine pediatric cancer centers across the United States for a qualitative interview about their experiences of neutropenia management. Interviews were analyzed using a conventional content analysis approach.

RESULTS: Of 116 eligible individuals, 86 (74.1%) agreed to participate. Interviews were conducted with 32 children and 54 parents from 57 families. Of these 57 families, 39 were cared for as inpatients and 18 were managed as outpatients. A very high proportion of respondents in both groups reported satisfaction with the discharge management strategy recommended by the treating institution: 86% (57 individuals) of respondents who experienced inpatient management and 85% (17 individuals) of respondents who experienced outpatient management expressed satisfaction. Respondent perceptions associated with satisfaction related to safety (access to emergency interventions, infection risk, close monitoring) and psychosocial concerns (family separation, low morale, social support). Respondents believed it could not be assumed that all children would have the same experience due to varied life circumstances.

CONCLUSION: Children with AML and their parents express a very high degree of satisfaction with the discharge strategy recommended by their treating institution. Respondents saw a nuanced tradeoff between patient safety and psychosocial concerns that was mediated by a child's life circumstances.

BACKGROUND: Higher levels of physical activity are associated with improvements in cardiovascular health, and consensus guidelines recommend that individuals with or at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) participate in regular physical activity. However, most adults do not achieve recommended levels of physical activity. Concepts from behavioral economics have been used to design scalable interventions that increase physical activity over short time periods, but the longer-term efficacy of these strategies is uncertain.

STUDY DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES: BE ACTIVE (NCT03911141) is a pragmatic, virtual, randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the effectiveness of 3 strategies informed by behavioral economic concepts to increase daily physical activity in patients with established ASCVD or 10-year ASCVD risk > 7.5% who are seen in primary care and cardiology clinics affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania Health System. Patients are contacted by email or text message, and complete enrollment and informed consent on the Penn Way to Health online platform. Patients are then provided with a wearable fitness tracker, establish a baseline daily step count, set a goal to increase daily step count by 33% to 50%, and are randomized 1:2:2:2 to control, gamification, financial incentives, or both gamification and financial incentives. Interventions continue for 12 months, with follow-up for an additional 6 months to evaluate the durability of behavior change. The trial has met its enrollment goal of 1050 participants, with a primary endpoint of change from baseline in daily steps over the 12-month intervention period. Key secondary endpoints include change from baseline in daily steps over the 6-month post-intervention follow-up period and change in moderate to vigorous physical activity over the intervention and follow-up periods. If the interventions prove effective, their effects on life expectancy will be compared with their costs in cost-effectiveness analysis.

CONCLUSIONS: BE ACTIVE is a virtual, pragmatic randomized clinical trial powered to demonstrate whether gamification, financial incentives, or both are superior to attention control in increasing physical activity. Its results will have important implications for strategies to promote physical activity in patients with or at risk for ASCVD, as well as for the design and implementation of pragmatic virtual clinical trials within health systems.

In the United States, donor lungs are allocated to transplant candidates on the basis of lung allocation scores (LAS). However, additional factors beyond the LAS can impact who is transplanted, including listing and donor-organ acceptance practices. These factors can result in differential selection, undermining the objectivity of lung allocation. Yet their impact on the lung transplant pathway has been underexplored. We sought to systematically examine sources of differential selection in lung transplantation via qualitative methods. We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with lung transplant surgeons and pulmonologists in the United States between June 2019 and June 2020 to understand clinician perspectives on differential selection in lung transplantation and the LAS. A total of 51 respondents (30 surgeons and 21 pulmonologists) identified many sources of differential selection arising throughout the pathway from referral to transplantation. We synthesized these sources into a conceptual model with five themes: ) transplant center's degree of risk tolerance and accountability; ) successfulness and fairness of the LAS; ) donor-organ availability and regional competition; ) patient health versus program health; and ) access to care versus responsible stewardship of organs. Our conceptual model demonstrates how differential selection can arise throughout lung transplantation and facilitates the further study of such selection. As new organ allocation models are developed, differential selection should be considered carefully to ensure that these models are more equitable.

Achieving health equity (where every person has the opportunity to attain their full health potential) requires the removal of obstacles to health, including barriers to high-quality medical care. Innovations in service delivery can inadvertently maintain, worsen, or introduce inequities. As such, implementation of innovations must be accompanied by a dual commitment to evaluate impact on marginalized groups and to restructure systems that obstruct people from health and healthcare. Understanding the impact innovations have on access to high-quality care is central to this effort. In this Perspective, we join conceptual models of healthcare access and quality with health equity frameworks to conceptualize healthcare receipt as a series of interactions between people and systems unfolding over time. This synthesized model is applied to illustrate the effects of telemedicine on patient, population, and system outcomes. Telemedicine may improve or worsen health equity by altering access to care and by altering quality of care once it is accessed. Teasing out these varied effects is complex and requires considering multilevel influences on the outcome of a care-seeking episode. This synthesized model can be used to inform research, practice, and policy surrounding the equity implications of care delivery innovations more broadly.

BACKGROUND: Racial and ethnic disparities in outcomes for Black and Hispanic children with acute leukemia have been well documented, however little is known about the determinants of diagnostic delays in pediatric leukemia in the United States. The primary objective of this study is to identify factors contributing to delays preceding a pediatric leukemia diagnosis.

METHODS: This qualitative study utilized in-depth semi-structured interviews. Parents and/or patients within two years of receiving a new acute leukemia diagnosis were asked to reflect upon their family's experiences preceding the patient's diagnosis. Subjects were purposively sampled for maximum variation in race, ethnicity, income, and language. Interviews were analyzed using inductive theory-building and the constant comparative method to understand the process of diagnosis. Chart review was conducted to complement qualitative data.

RESULTS: Thirty-two interviews were conducted with a diverse population of English and Spanish speaking participants from two tertiary care pediatric cancer centers. Parents reported feeling frustrated when their intuition conflicted with providers' management decisions. Many felt laboratory testing was not performed soon enough. Additional contributors to delays included misattribution of vague symptoms to more common diagnoses, difficulties in obtaining appointments, and financial disincentives to seek urgent or emergent care. Reports of difficulty obtaining timely appointments and financial concerns were disproportionately raised among low-income Black and Hispanic participants. Comparatively, parents with prior healthcare experiences felt better able to navigate the system and advocate for additional testing at symptom onset.

CONCLUSIONS: While there are disease-related factors contributing to delays in diagnosis, it is important to recognize there are multiple non-disease-related factors that also contribute to delays. Evidence-based approaches to reduce outcome disparities in pediatric cancer likely need to start in the primary care setting where timeliness of diagnosis can be addressed.

OBJECTIVE: To assess association of pharmacist gender with acceptance of antibiotic stewardship recommendations.

DESIGN: A retrospective evaluation of the Reducing Overuse of Antibiotics at Discharge (ROAD) Home intervention.

SETTING: The study was conducted from May to October 2019 in a single academic medical center.

PARTICIPANTS: The study included patients receiving antibiotics on a hospitalist service who were nearing discharge.

METHODS: During the intervention, clinical pharmacists (none who had specialist postgraduate infectious disease residency training) reviewed patients on antibiotics and led an antibiotic timeout (ie, structured conversation) prior to discharge to improve discharge antibiotic prescribing. We assessed the association of pharmacist gender with acceptance of timeout recommendations by hospitalists using logistic regression controlling for patient characteristics.

RESULTS: Over 6 months, pharmacists conducted 295 timeouts: 158 timeouts (53.6%) were conducted by 12 women, 137 (46.4%) were conducted by 8 men. Pharmacists recommended an antibiotic change in 82 timeouts (27.8%), of which 51 (62.2%) were accepted. Compared to male pharmacists, female pharmacists were less likely to recommend a discharge antibiotic change: 30 (19.0%) of 158 versus 52 (38.0%) of 137 (P < .001). Female pharmacists were also less likely to have a recommendation accepted: 10 (33.3%) of 30 versus 41 (8.8%) of 52 (P < .001). Thus, timeouts conducted by female versus male pharmacists were less likely to result in an antibiotic change: 10 (6.3%) of 158 versus 41 (29.9%) of 137 (P < .001). After adjustments, pharmacist gender remained significantly associated with whether recommended changes were accepted (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.10; 95%confidence interval [CI], 0.03-0.36 for female versus male pharmacists).

CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic stewardship recommendations made by female clinical pharmacists were less likely to be accepted by hospitalists. Gender bias may play a role in the acceptance of clinical pharmacist recommendations, which could affect patient care and outcomes.

Importance: Medicaid work requirements seek to promote health and personal responsibility but can also jeopardize health care access. Physicians have a central function in assisting patients with exemption requests, but it is unclear how their role affects patient welfare, professionalism, and the ethical and legal justification of programs.

Objective: To understand the degree of variability in physician response to assist patients with depression in receiving a Medicaid work requirement exemption.

Design Setting and Participants: We conducted a mailed survey experiment among practicing primary care physicians in the first 4 approved states (Arkansas, Kentucky, Indiana, New Hampshire) in July and October of 2019. We report response, cooperation, refusal, and contact rates in line with American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) standards.

Exposures: In each state, we used an experimental factorial design to randomize recipients to 1 of 4 patient clinical scenarios.

Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the indicator of willingness to assist a patient reporting depression with an exemption.

Results: We received 715 responses (overall AAPOR response rate: 21%; cooperation rate: 84%; refusal rate: 4%; contact rate: 25%). Respondents' mean (SD) age was 54 (12) years; mean (SD) time since graduation, 26 (12) years; 435 (61%) identified as male; 177 as Democrat (25%); 156 as Republican (22%); 197 as Independent/other (28%); and 185 as declined/unknown (26%); the mean (SD) share of Medicaid patients was 29% (21%). We found that 97 of 387 physicians (25%) would offer assistance even when state policy would not support an exemption, and 170 of 315 (54%) would not offer assistance when regulations would require this. Moreover, 49 of 245 respondents (20%) who deemed an exemption appropriate indicated that they would not assist. State, administrative effort, political affiliation, and perceived appropriateness were statistically associated with the odds of assisting with an exemption.

Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of primary care physicians, we found substantial variation regarding willingness to assist patients qualifying for a work requirement exemption where none should exist. Insofar as work requirements are implemented again, it is critical to proactively identify measures to ensure that patients qualifying for exemptions are not put at risk due to either the burdensomeness of exemption procedures, or physicians' political or personal views.

Clinician silence in the face of known threats to patient safety is a source of growing concern. Current explanations for the difficulties clinicians have of speaking up are conceptualised at the individual or organisational level, with little attention paid to the space between - the interaction context. Drawing on 103 interviews with clinicians at one hospital in the United States this article examines how clinicians talk about speaking up or not in the face of breaches in infection prevention technique. Accounts are analysed using a microsociological lens as stories of interaction, through which respondents appeal to situational and organisational realities of medical work that serve to justify speaking up or remaining silent. Analysis of these accounts reveals three influences on the decision to speak up, shaped by background conditions in the organisation; mutual focus of attention, interactional path dependence and the presence of an audience. These findings suggest that the decision to speak up in a clinical setting is dynamic, highly context-dependent, embedded in the interaction rituals that suffuse everyday work and constrained by organisational dynamics. This article develops a more sophisticated and distinctly sociological understanding of the reasons why speaking up in healthcare is so difficult.