Academic E-Mail Overload and the Burden of "Academic Spam"

Practical Strategies to Retain Radiologists

Since the great resignation associated with the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, radiology practices are now challenged with maintaining adequate radiology staffing requirements to cope with increasing clinical workload requirements. The authors describe practical strategies for radiology practice leaders to retain radiologists in the current challenging job market, while mitigating their burnout.

Research on Predatory Publishing in Health Care: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Predatory publishers and their associated journals have been identified as a threat to the integrity of the scientific literature. Research on the phenomenon of predatory publishing in health care remains unquantified.

PURPOSE

To identify the characteristics of empirical studies on predatory publishing in the health care literature.

METHODS

A scoping review was done using PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Scopus databases. A total of 4967 articles were initially screened; 77 articles reporting empirical findings were ultimately reviewed.

RESULTS

The 77 articles were predominantly bibliometric analyses/document analyses (n = 56). The majority were in medicine (n = 31, 40%) or were multidisciplinary (n = 26, 34%); 11 studies were in nursing. Most studies reported that articles published in predatory journals were of lower quality than those published in more reputable journals. In nursing, the research confirmed that articles in predatory journals were being cited in legitimate nursing journals, thereby spreading information that may not be credible through the literature.

CONCLUSION

The purposes of the evaluated studies were similar: to understand the characteristics and extent of the problem of predatory publishing. Although literature about predatory publishing is abundant, empirical studies in health care are limited. The findings suggest that individual vigilance alone will not be enough to address this problem in the scholarly literature. Institutional policy and technical protections are also necessary to mitigate erosion of the scientific literature in health care.

Which Outreach Modes Improve Response Rates to Physician Surveys? Lessons from an Experiment at the American Board of Internal Medicine

Physicians are a notoriously difficult group to survey due to a low propensity to respond. We investigate the relative effectiveness of reminder phone calls, pre-notification postcards, mailed paper surveys, and $1 upfront incentives for boosting survey response rate by embedding a randomized experiment into a mixed-mode operational survey at the American Board of Internal Medicine in 2019. Expected response rates and average marginal effects for each follow-up method were computed from a logistic regression model. The control group which only received email reminders achieved a response rate of 18.2%, 95% CI: (15.0%, 21.9%). The intervention group which included reminder emails, pre-notification postcards, and mailed paper surveys with $1 incentives achieved a response rate of 43.1%, 95% CI: (38.8%, 47.5%). Mailed paper surveys yielded the largest percentage point increase in response rate of 11.2%, 95% CI: (7.3%, 15.2%), while $1 upfront monetary incentives and phone call reminders increased survey response rate by 5.9%, 95% CI: (1.6%, 10.2%) and 5.5%, 95% CI: (2.6%, 8.3%) respectively. Pre-notification postcards are associated with a 2.0%, 95% CI: (-1.7%, 5.6%) increase in survey response rate. Cost-effectiveness for each method is discussed. This research supports optimal decision making for researchers when planning a physician survey study.

Referring patients with suspected lung cancer: a qualitative study with primary healthcare professionals in Ireland

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death globally. Most cases are diagnosed late. Primary healthcare professionals are often the first point of contact for symptoms of concern. This study explored primary healthcare professionals’ experience of referring individuals with signs and symptoms suggestive of lung cancer along the appropriate healthcare pathway and explored strategies to help primary healthcare professionals detect lung cancer early. Focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with 36 general practitioners, community pharmacists, practice nurses, and public health nurses. Data were analysed thematically. Participants identified typical lung cancer signs and symptoms such as cough and coughing up blood (i.e., haemoptysis) as triggers for referral. Atypical/non-specific signs and symptoms such as back pain, pallor, and abnormal blood tests were perceived as difficult to interpret. Participants often refrained from using the word ‘cancer’ during conversations with patients. Ireland’s Rapid Access Lung Clinics were perceived as underused, with some general practitioners referring patients to these clinics only when clear and definitive lung cancer signs and symptoms are noted. Lack of communication and the resulting disruption in continuity of care for patients with suspected lung cancer were highlighted as healthcare system flaws. Education on early referral can be in the form of communications from professional organizations, webinars, interdisciplinary meetings, education by lung specialists, and patient testimonials. Lung cancer referral checklists and algorithms should be simple, clear, and visually appealing, either developed as standalone tools or embedded into existing primary care software/programmes.

Hospitalists' perspectives on challenging patient encounters and physician well-being: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

Challenging patient encounters contribute to physician burnout, though little is known about how these impact hospitalists specifically. This study explores how hospitalists characterize challenging patient encounters and their impact on hospitalist well-being to inform organizational efforts.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative, descriptive study with 15 physician hospitalist faculty at two locations, a tertiary academic and safety-net hospital, utilizing a conceptual framework based on the Stanford Wellness Framework for physician resilience around challenging patient encounters.

RESULTS

Two themes emerged: feelings of helplessness and time-consuming encounters. Helplessness was associated with systems issues, misaligned patient/provider goals, and violence. Time-consuming encounters were due to systems issues, misaligned goals requiring prolonged conversations, and patient factors. These factors were found to negatively impact hospitalist well-being. Resilience strategies included developing and teaching empathy and seeking expert/colleague opinion through debriefing, peer-to-peer interactions, and external resources.

CONCLUSIONS

Organizational strategies to support hospitalists in the context of challenging patient encounters require a multifaceted approach: improved system processes, fostering a local culture of empathy-building, and supporting peer-to-peer relationships and debriefing mechanisms.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Enhanced communication around system process improvements and culture of wellness, in addition to communication skills and mindfulness, could improve hospitalist well-being.

Should I include studies from "predatory" journals in a systematic review? Interim guidance for systematic reviewers

ABSTRACT

A systematic review involves the identification, evaluation, and synthesis of the best-available evidence to provide an answer to a specific question. The "best-available evidence" is, in many cases, a peer-reviewed scientific article published in an academic journal that details the conduct and results of a scientific study. Any potential threat to the validity of these individual studies (and hence the resultant synthesis) must be evaluated and critiqued.In science, the number of predatory journals continue to rise. Studies published in predatory journals may be of lower quality and more likely to be impacted by fraud and error compared to studies published in traditional journals. This poses a threat to the validity of systematic reviews that include these studies and, therefore, the translation of evidence into guidance for policy and practice. Despite the challenges predatory journals present to systematic reviewers, there is currently little guidance regarding how they should be managed.In 2020, a subgroup of the JBI Scientific Committee was formed to investigate this issue. In this overview paper, we introduce predatory journals to systematic reviewers, outline the problems they present and their potential impact on systematic reviews, and provide some alternative strategies for consideration of studies from predatory journals in systematic reviews. Options for systematic reviewers could include excluding all studies from suspected predatory journals, applying additional strategies to forensically examine the results of studies published in suspected predatory journals, setting stringent search limits, and applying analytical techniques (such as subgroup or sensitivity analyses) to investigate the impact of suspected predatory journals in a synthesis.

[Predatory journals: A real threat for medical research. 1. Identify these journals and understand how they work]

The "author-pay" model of open access publication, which appeared in 2002, allocates to the author or his institution the costs of processing articles due to the journal after acceptance, for an amount of a few hundred to several thousand euros. New publishers emerged towards the end of the 2000s, which used this model but with purely commercial objectives, offering naive authors and/or wishing to quickly expand their curriculum vitae by publications in "predatory journals". They are characterized by aggressive e-mail solicitations, lack of ethics, lack of details about the publisher and the editorial board, poor peer review, unspecified and low fees for processing articles, a lack of indexing and the promise of rapid publication.

[Predatory journals: A real threat for medical research. 2 Assess their consequences and initiate a response]

The deleterious consequences of "predatory" journals are numerous, whether the researcher submitted his work to them naively or knowingly: work little or not read by the international community in the absence of indexing and disappearance of any digital trace in the absence of archiving. The reputation of researchers but also of universities and research organizations and the credit of science for citizens can be sustainably damaged. These open access journals, with the author who pays as model, represent as many resources unavailable for legitimate journals. A joint mobilization of all the actors involved is necessary: researchers, universities and faculties of medicine, sections of the national university council, publishers of legitimate journals, research organizations, learned societies, ethics committees, funders, media and political decision-makers. Publishing in a predatory journal is now a scientific misconduct.