Domains of professional practice: analysis of publications in the Journal of the Medical Library Association from 2010 to 2019.

The Medical Library Association (MLA) has defined 7 domain hubs aligning to different areas of information professional practice. To assess the extent to which content in the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) is reflective of these domains, we analyzed the magnitude of JMLA articles aligning to each domain hub over the last 10 years. Bibliographic records for 453 articles published in JMLA from 2010 to 2019 were downloaded from Web of Science and screened using Covidence software. Thirteen articles were excluded during the title and abstract review because they failed to meet the inclusion criteria, resulting in 440 articles included in this review. The title and abstract of each article were screened by two reviewers, each of whom assigned the article up to two tags corresponding to MLA domain hubs (i.e., information services, information management, education, professionalism and leadership, innovation and research practice, clinical support, and health equity & global health). These results inform the MLA community about our strengths in health information professional practice as reflected by articles published in JMLA.

Using a six-step co-design model to rapidly respond to cancer carers support and information needs during a global pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic placed severe strain on cancer carers resulting in an urgent need for information and support. METHODS: The Santin 2019 6-step co-design model was used to rapidly modify an existing online cancer carers resource. Draft content of a COVID-19 module was created via two workshops and six meetings with an expert advisory team (Step 1). This content was then produced into videoed testimonials (Step 2). A module prototype was reviewed by volunteers (Step 3) and modified based on feedback (Step 4). User-testing occurred via two online feedback sessions (Step 5) and modifications were made (Step 6). All steps were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. RESULTS: A COVID-19 support, and information module was rapidly co-designed by n = 45 stakeholders (n = 11 workshop 1 and 2 (3 carers/14 professionals), n = 6 advisory committee (1 carer/5 professionals), n = 4 video content (1 carer/3 professionals) and n = 24 feedback sessions (5 carers/19 professionals). The module contained vaccination information, infection control and how to manage the psychosocial impact of restrictions. Information was delivered in 4 short videos with links to up-to-date guidance and information services. Participants identified that the module included all key information for carers in an accessible and informative way. The use of videos was viewed as an emotive and reassuring. CONCLUSIONS: During a global pandemic, cancer carers urgently required tailored information. Co-designed online resources allow service providers to rapidly respond to emerging and unprecedented issues and provide urgent information and support.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and acceptance among pregnant people contacting a teratogen information service.

Pregnant people are at increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection and are more likely to be admitted to an intensive care unit, be put on a mechanical ventilator, and die, if infected. Having COVID-19 during pregnancy also increases the risk of preterm delivery. Vaccination is a critical tool for controlling the COVID-19 pandemic; however, to date, just over 30% of pregnant people in the United States have been vaccinated. It is important to identify any barriers to acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine among the pregnant population so that specific hesitancy concerns can be addressed. Our objective was to identify the proportion of pregnant people who are unsure or not planning to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and collect information about their reasons for hesitancy. A questionnaire examining views on COVID-19 vaccine interest was administered to 299 pregnant people who contacted MotherToBaby 3/1/21-7/23/21. Questions obtained information about the perception of COVID-19 risk in pregnancy, interest in receiving a COVID-19 vaccine while pregnant, and reasons for acceptance or hesitancy. Within the sample, 21% had already been vaccinated against COVID-19, 43% were planning to get vaccinated, 9% were not planning to receive the vaccine, and 27% were undecided. Women who were not planning to get vaccinated and those that were undecided both said their concern was 'not enough safety information for pregnancy'. Individuals aged 18-25, those who made less than $50,000/year, and those who lived in the Northeast were more likely to be hesitant. Based on these data, continued efforts to collect and communicate high-quality and understandable information to pregnant people about vaccine safety should be a key priority in efforts to increase vaccine acceptance among this group.

Are child health information services a viable source of accurate vaccination data for clinicians working in paediatric emergency departments in England?

Vaccination is a global success story, yet UK coverage remains undertarget for a number of diseases. The paediatric emergency department (PED) offers the potential for opportunistic vaccination interventions. OBJECTIVES: To map the Greater Manchester (GM) Child Health Information System network to see if it was a viable source of vaccination data for clinicians working in the PED as a case study. METHODS: Postprimary care vaccination management systems for GM were visualised using a systems mapping approach, with data obtained from the Office for National Statistics and commissioners in the GM Health and Social Care Partnership. RESULTS: Once vaccination data left primary care, it passed through 1 of 10 local child health information services (CHISs), using an assortment of different information technology systems, after which it shed individual identifiers and was aggregated within national systems. None of the existing GM CHISs were accessible to PED practitioners. CONCLUSION: More work needs to be done to explore possible alternative sources of accurate vaccination data during a PED consultation.

Literature Review and Knowledge Distribution During an Outbreak: A Methodology for Managing Infodemics.

PROBLEM: The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged health care systems in an unprecedented way by imposing new demands on health care resources and scientific knowledge. There has also been an exceedingly fast accumulation of new information on this novel virus. As the traditional peer-review process takes time, there is currently a significant gap between the ability to generate new data and the ability to critically evaluate them. This problem of an excess of mixed-quality data, or infodemic, is echoing throughout the scientific community. APPROACH: The authors aimed to help their colleagues at the Rambam Medical Center, Haifa, Israel, manage the COVID-19 infodemic with a methodologic solution: establishing an in-house mechanism for continuous literature review and knowledge distribution (March-April 2020). Their methodology included the following building blocks: a dedicated literature review team, artificial intelligence-based research algorithms, brief written updates in a graphical format, large-scale webinars and online meetings, and a feedback loop. OUTCOMES: During the first month (April 2020), the project produced 21 graphical updates. After consideration of feedback from colleagues and final editing, 13 graphical updates were uploaded to the center's website; of these, 31% addressed the clinical presentation of the disease and 38% referred to specific treatments. This methodology as well as the graphical updates it generated were adopted by the Israeli Ministry of Health and distributed in a hospital preparation kit. NEXT STEPS: The authors believe they have established a novel methodology that can assist in the battle against COVID-19 by making high-quality scientific data more accessible to clinicians. In the future, they expect this methodology to create a favorable uniform standard for evidence-guided health care during infodemics. Further evolution of the methodology may include evaluation of its long-term sustainability and impact on the day-to-day clinical practice and self-confidence of clinicians who treat COVID-19 patients.

Corona Virus (COVID-19) "Infodemic" and Emerging Issues through a Data Lens: The Case of China.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) is a humanitarian emergency, which started in Wuhan in China in early December 2019, brought into the notice of the authorities in late December, early January 2020, and, after investigation, was declared as an emergency in the third week of January 2020. The WHO declared this as Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on 31th of January 2020, and finally a pandemic on 11th March 2020. As of March 24th, 2020, the virus has caused a casualty of over 16,600 people worldwide with more than 380,000 people confirmed as infected by it, of which more than 10,000 cases are serious. Mainly based on Chinese newspapers, social media and other digital platform data, this paper analyzes the timeline of the key actions taken by the government and people over three months in five different phases. It found that although there was an initial delay in responding, a unique combination of strong governance, strict regulation, strong community vigilance and citizen participation, and wise use of big data and digital technologies, were some of the key factors in China's efforts to combat this virus. Being inviable and non-measurable (unlike radioactive exposure), appropriate and timely information is very important to form the basic foundation of mitigation and curative measures. Infodemic, as it is termed by WHO, is a key word, where different stakeholder's participation, along with stricter regulation, is required to reduce the impact of fake news in this information age and social media. Although different countries will need different approaches, focusing on its humanitarian nature and addressing infodemic issues are the two critical factors for future global mitigation efforts.

Timely access to trial data in the context of a pandemic: the time is now.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical trial data sharing has the potential to accelerate scientific progress, answer new lines of scientific inquiry, support reproducibility and prevent redundancy. Vivli, a non-profit organisation, operates a global platform for sharing of individual participant-level trial data and associated documents. Sharing of these data collected from each trial participant enables combining of these data to drive new scientific insights or assess reproducibility-not possible with the aggregate or summary data tables historically made available. We report on our initial experience including key metrics, lessons learned and how we see our role in the data sharing ecosystem. We also describe how Vivli is addressing the needs of the COVID-19 challenge through a new dedicated portal that provides a direct search function for COVID-19 studies, availability for fast-tracked request review and data sharing. DATA SUMMARY: The Vivli platform was established in 2018 and has partnered with 28 diverse members from industry, academic institutions, government platforms and non-profit foundations. Currently, 5400 trials representing 3.6 million participants are shared on the platform. From July 2018 to September 2020, Vivli received 201 requests. To date, 106 of 201 requests received approval, 5 have been declined, 27 withdrew and 27 are in the revision stage. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic has only magnified the necessity for data sharing. If most data are shared and in a manner that allows interoperability, then we have hope of moving towards a cohesive scientific understanding more quickly not only for COVID-19 but also for all diseases. Conversely, if only isolated pockets of data are shared then society loses the opportunity to close vital gaps in our understanding of this rapidly evolving epidemic. This current challenge serves to highlight the value of data sharing platforms-critical enablers that help researchers build on prior knowledge.

The role of the critical care pharmacist during the COVID-19 pandemic.

On January 4 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported the emergence of a cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China due to a new coronavirus, the SARS-CoV-2. A few weeks later, hospitals had to put in place a series of drastic measures to deal with the massive influx of suspected COVID-19 (COronaroVIrus Disease) patients while securing regular patient care, in particular in the intensive care units (ICU). Since March 12th, 77 of the 685 COVID-19 patients admitted to our hospital required hospitalization in the ICU. What are the roles and the added-value of the critical care pharmacist during this period? His missions have evolved although they have remained focused on providing health services for the patients. Indeed, integrated into a steering committee created to organize the crisis in the intensive care units, the role of the clinical pharmacist was focused on the organization and coordination between ICU and the pharmacy, the implementation of actions to secure practices, to train new professionals and the adaptation of therapeutic strategies. He participated to literature monitoring and increased his involvement in the clinical research team. He provided a link between the ICU and the pharmacy thanks to his knowledges of practices and needs.

Misinformation of COVID-19 on the Internet: Infodemiology Study.

BACKGROUND: The internet has become an important source of health information for users worldwide. The novel coronavirus caused a pandemic search for information with broad dissemination of false or misleading health information. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality and readability of online information about the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), which was a trending topic on the internet, using validated instruments and relating the quality of information to its readability. METHODS: The search was based on the term "Wuhan Coronavirus" on the Google website (February 6, 2020). At the search time, the terms "COVID-19" or "SARS-CoV-2" (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) did not exist. Critical analysis was performed on the first 110 hits using the Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark, the DISCERN instrument, and Google ranking. RESULTS: The first 110 websites were critically analyzed, and only 1.8% (n=2) of the websites had the HONcode seal. The JAMA benchmark showed that 39.1% (n=43) of the websites did not have any of the categories required by this tool, and only 10.0% (11/110) of the websites had the four quality criteria required by JAMA. The DISCERN score showed that 70.0% (n=77) of the websites were evaluated as having a low score and none were rated as having a high score. CONCLUSIONS: Nonhealth personnel and the scientific community need to be aware about the quality of the information they read and produce, respectively. The Wuhan coronavirus health crisis misinformation was produced by the media, and the misinformation was obtained by users from the internet. The use of the internet has a risk to public health, and, in cases like this, the governments should be developing strategies to regulate health information on the internet without censuring the population. By February 6, 2020, no quality information was available on the internet about COVID-19.