A recent, 358-person survey conducted by researchers at Yale University (and published in the International Journal of Obesity) suggested that patients may be less likely to follow the medical advice of overweight and obese physicians. Survey respondents were 57% female, 70% Caucasian, 51% had BMIs in the normal or underweight category (31% overweight and 17% obese), and were an average age of 37 years old.
Respondents rated overweight and obese physicians as less credible than normal weight doctors, and stated that they would be less likely to follow advice (including guidance about diet, exercise, smoking cessation, preventive health screenings, and medication compliance) from such physicians. Although credibility and trust scores differed between the hypothetical overweight and obese providers and normal weight colleagues, the respondents predicted less of a difference between them in terms of empathy and bedside manner. Respondents said they’d be more likely to switch physicians based on their weight alone. There was no less bias against overweight and obese physicians found in respondents who were themselves overweight or obese.
The study authors note that this survey is the first of its kind – assessing potential weight bias against physicians by patients of different weights. Previous studies (by Puhl, Heuer, and others) have documented weight bias against patients by physicians.
While the study has some significant limitations (such as the respondents being disproportionately Caucasian, thin, and female), I think it raises some interesting questions about weight bias and physicians’ ability to influence patients to adopt healthier lifestyles.
Considering the expansion of pay-for-performance measures (where physicians receive higher compensation from Medicare/Medicaid when their patients achieve certain health goals -such as improved blood sugar levels), being overweight or obese could reduce practice profit margins. If patients are less likely to follow advice from overweight or obese doctors, then it stands to reason that patients’ health outcomes could suffer along with the doctors’ income.
I’m certainly not suggesting that CMS monitor physician waist circumferences in an attempt to improve patient compliance with healthy lifestyle choices (Oh no, did I just give the bureaucrats a new regulatory idea?), but rather that physicians redouble their efforts to practice what they preach as part of a commitment to being good clinicians.
Some will say that the problem here is not expanding provider waistlines, but bias against the overweight and obese. While I agree that weight has little to do with intellectual competence, it does have to do with disease risk. Normalizing and destigmatizing unhealthiness is not the way to solve the weight bias problem. We know instinctively that carrying around a lot of extra pounds is damaging to our health. It’s important to show grace and kindness to one another as we join together on the same health journey – a struggle to make good lifestyle choices in a challenging environment that tempts us to eat poorly and cease exercising.
To doctors I say, let’s fight the good fight and model healthy behaviors to our patients. To patients I say, show grace to your doctors who carry extra pounds – don’t assume that they are less competent or knowledgeable because of a weight problem. And to thin, female, 30-something, Caucasian survey respondents I say – Wait till you hit menopause before you judge people who are overweight! 😉
The popular proverbial saying “you cannot have your cake and eat it too” implies that one cannot consume something and preserve it at the same time–in other words, we cannot have it both ways. Well, for once, maybe we can have our cake–our whole genome sequence (WGS)–and eat it too. I believe having our WGS and consuming it in small bite sizes over a lifetime may be the only way to integrate it into medicine and public health.
Rapid advances in genomic sequencing technologies are making the possibility of reliable and affordable whole genome sequencing (WGS) a reality in the next few years. We all carry about 6 billion base pairs of DNA in each of our cells, with 5-10 million inherited variants that are different among us. This genetic variation along with environmental influences provides a blueprint for health throughout the life span, and is related to virtually every disease of public health significance. There is definite interest among the public and scientists about the personal utility of this information. In a recent survey by Nature, attitudes towards genome sequencing were explored among a sample dominated by scientists and professionals from medicine and public health. Although only 18.2% of respondents had had their genome sequenced or analyzed, 2/3 of those who had not reported they would take the opportunity should it arise. Curiosity was reported as the main single factor influencing respondents.
Can this information be useful today in improving medical care and preventing disease? Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Genomics and Health Impact Blog*
The medical app industry is a big business, but the apps are no longer the product – the physicians, nurses, and other healthcare providers who use them are. In the first part of this series, we examined some of the financial forces driving the medical app industry. Our focus then was Epocrates, the veritable founder of the industry. As is clearly stated in their recent SEC statement, Epocrates primary revenue stream has become the pharmaceutical industry and as such a key goal has become to further grow their user base by enhancing their free offerings.
Now, one might be tempted to say that this is just one company or even that it is just limited to free apps. An expected counter-example would be Skyscape, which probably has the largest cache of apps of any developer and nearly all for fee. As a private company, there isn’t much financial data available nor is the website particularly forthcoming, but it does appear that the company has been enjoying some success. A deeper look however suggests they in fact have more in common with Epocrates than you may think. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at iMedicalApps*
A new post on the Embargo Watch blog, “The power of the press release: A tale of two fish oil-chemotherapy studies,” addresses an issue that had me running around in circles for hours last week.
Some news organizations were reporting on a paper in the journal Cancer, reporting that it had been published in that day’s online edition.
But it hadn’t been – not when the stories were published.
Instead, all I could find was a study by the same authors on the same topic that had been published in the same journal two weeks prior.
What apparently happened, as Embargo Watch surmises as well, is that many journalists simply covered what was in the journal’s news release – not what had already been published two weeks prior – which was a more impressive article. And they rushed to publish before the new study had even been posted online – all over a very short-term study in a small number of people. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Gary Schwitzer's HealthNewsReview Blog*
With all the negative press, the pay cuts, and the uncertainty of healthcare reform, I am approached by people who secretly whisper in my ear, “Would you have your child go into medicine?”
On first blush I am tempted to answer, “Heck no!” given the administrative hassles, the changes in the public’s perception of our profession, the frontload of education, and the long hours involved. But those observations, while real, are superficial at best.
Drilling down with more careful analysis after a challenging weekend on call, I find it worthwhile to stop and ask myself what makes medicine special for those of us crazy enough to subject ourselves to this lifestyle. I decided to put together a list of things that were important to me and would welcome additions from others. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Dr. Wes*