Context.-In British Columbia, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected persons eligible for antiretroviral therapy may receive it free but the extent to which HIV-infected injection drug users access it is unknown. Objective.-To identify patient and physician characteristics associated with antiretroviral therapy utilization in HIV-infected injection drug users. Design.-Prospective cohort study with record linkage between survey data and data from a provincial HIV/AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) drug treatment program. Setting.-British Columbia, where antiretroviral therapies are offered free to all persons with HIV infection with CD4 cell counts less than 0.50ϫ10 9 /L (500/µL) and/or HIV-1 RNA levels higher than 5000 copies/mL. Subjects.-A total of 177 HIV-infected injection drug users eligible for antiretroviral therapy, recruited through the prospective cohort study since May 1996. Main Outcome Measures.-Patient use of antiretroviral drugs through the provincial drug treatment program and physician experience treating HIV infection. Results.-After a median of 11 months after first eligibility, only 71 (40%) of 177 patients had received any antiretroviral drugs, primarily double combinations (47/ 71 [66%]). Both patient and physician characteristics were associated with use of antiretroviral drugs. After adjusting for CD4 cell count and HIV-1 RNA level at eligibility, odds of not receiving antiretrovirals were increased more than 2-fold for females (odds ratio [OR], 2.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-5.93) and 3-fold for those not currently enrolled in drug or alcohol treatment programs (OR, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.45-8.40). Younger drug users were less likely to receive therapy (OR, 0.47/ 10-y increase; 95% CI, 0.28-0.80). Those with physicians having the least experience treating persons with HIV infection were more than 5 times less likely to receive therapy (OR, 5.55; 95% CI, 2.49-12.37). Conclusions.-Despite free antiretroviral therapy, many HIV-infected injection drug users are not receiving it. Public health efforts should target younger and female drug users, and physicians with less experience treating HIV infection.

Compared with female faculty without children and compared with men, female faculty with children face major obstacles in academic careers. Some of these obstacles can be easily modified (for example, by eliminating after-hours meetings and creating part-time career tracks). Medical schools should address these obstacles and provide support for faculty with children.

IMPORTANCE Seriously ill hospitalized patients have identified communication and decision making about goals of care as high priorities for quality improvement in end-of-life care. Interventions to improve care are more likely to succeed if tailored to existing barriers.OBJECTIVE To determine, from the perspective of hospital-based clinicians, (1) barriers impeding communication and decision making about goals of care with seriously ill hospitalized patients and their families and (2) their own willingness and the acceptability for other clinicians to engage in this process. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSMulticenter survey of medical teaching units of nurses, internal medicine residents, and staff physicians from participating units at 13 university-based hospitals from 5 Canadian provinces. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESImportance of 21 barriers to goals of care discussions rated on a 7-point scale (1 = extremely unimportant; 7 = extremely important). RESULTS Between September 2012 and March 2013, questionnaires were returned by 1256 of 1617 eligible clinicians, for an overall response rate of 77.7% (512 of 646 nurses [79.3%], 484 of 634 residents [76.3%], 260 of 337 staff physicians [77.2%]). The following family member-related and patient-related factors were consistently identified by all 3 clinician groups as the most important barriers to goals of care discussions: family members' or patients' difficulty accepting a poor prognosis (mean [SD] score, 5.8 [1.2] and 5.6 [1.3], respectively), family members' or patients' difficulty understanding the limitations and complications of life-sustaining treatments (5.8 [1.2] for both groups), disagreement among family members about goals of care (5.8 [1.2]), and patients' incapacity to make goals of care decisions (5.6 [1.2]). Clinicians perceived their own skills and system factors as less important barriers. Participants viewed it as acceptable for all clinician groups to engage in goals of care discussions-including a role for advance practice nurses, nurses, and social workers to initiate goals of care discussions and be a decision coach.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Hospital-based clinicians perceive family member-related and patient-related factors as the most important barriers to goals of care discussions. All health care professionals were viewed as playing important roles in addressing goals of care. These findings can inform the design of future interventions to improve communication and decision making about goals of care.

Despite substantial increases in the number of female faculty, reports of gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment remain common.

Mentoring relationships are prevalent in academic medicine and should be promoted to support the career growth of junior faculty.

Any alcohol use among HIV-infected persons with a history of alcohol problems is associated with worse HAART adherence. Addressing alcohol use in HIV-infected persons may improve antiretroviral adherence and ultimately clinical outcomes.

No abstract

Objective To assess whether the completeness of reporting of health research is related to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines. Design Systematic review.Data sources Reporting guidelines from a published systematic review and the EQUATOR Network (October 2011). Studies assessing the completeness of reporting by using an included reporting guideline (termed "evaluations") (1990 to October 2011; addendum searches in January 2012) from searches of either Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Methodology Register or Scopus, depending on reporting guideline name.Study selection English language reporting guidelines that provided explicit guidance for reporting, described the guidance development process, and indicated use of a consensus development process were included. The CONSORT statement was excluded, as evaluations of adherence to CONSORT had previously been reviewed. English or French language evaluations of included reporting guidelines were eligible if they assessed the completeness of reporting of studies as a primary intent and those included studies enabled the comparisons of interest (that is, after versus before journal endorsement and/or endorsing versus non-endorsing journals).Data extraction Potentially eligible evaluations of included guidelines were screened initially by title and abstract and then as full text reports. If eligibility was unclear, authors of evaluations were contacted; journals' websites were consulted for endorsement information where needed. The completeness of reporting of reporting guidelines was analyzed in relation to endorsement by item and, where consistent with the authors' analysis, a mean summed score.Results 101 reporting guidelines were included. Of 15 249 records retrieved from the search for evaluations, 26 evaluations that assessed completeness of reporting in relation to endorsement for nine reporting guidelines were identified. Of those, 13 evaluations assessing seven reporting guidelines (BMJ economic checklist, CONSORT for harms, PRISMA, QUOROM, STARD, STRICTA, and STROBE) could be analyzed. Reporting guideline items were assessed by few evaluations. ConclusionsThe completeness of reporting of only nine of 101 health research reporting guidelines (excluding CONSORT) has been evaluated in relation to journals' endorsement. Items from seven reporting guidelines were quantitatively analyzed, by few evaluations each. Insufficient evidence exists to determine the relation between journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines and the completeness of reporting of published health research reports. Journal editors and researchers should consider collaborative prospectively designed, controlled studies to provide more robust evidence.Systematic review registration Not registered; no known register currently accepts protocols for methodology systematic reviews.