A Qualitative Study Assessing the Management of Predatory Journals and Their Publishing Activities: Results From the ASGLOS Study.

Background Predatory journals are an emerging problem in scientific literature, as they have financial motives without guaranteeing scientific quality. Therefore, the scientific community needs to establish how this issue can be solved in the long term. Objective The study aims to provide information that can be used to take action against predatory journals and to guide future change. Methods A Google Forms (Google LLC, Mountain View, California, United States) survey was designed and disseminated between September 2021 and April 2022. Reflexive thematic analysis was used as a qualitative analysis technique in this study, with the assistance of the NVivo software (Lumivero LLC, Denver, Colorado, United States) to manage and support the analysis process. Results A total of 978 responses from 58 countries worldwide, achieving a response rate of 19.9%, were analyzed. Five key themes emerged regarding participants' suggestions on techniques to cope with the detrimental impact of predatory journals: "Checking," "Increasing education and awareness," "Responsibility," "Use of technology," and "Obstacles to the solution." Conclusion The outcomes of this study will help us focus and channel efforts in the future to combat predatory journals and aid us in understanding what needs to be done. We hope that this study will influence management strategies and encourage more education and awareness on a global scale.

The ASGLOS Study: A global survey on how predatory journals affect scientific practice.

Predatory journals and conferences are an emerging problem in scientific literature as they have financial motives, without guaranteeing scientific quality and exposure. The main objective of the ASGLOS project is to investigate the predatory e-email characteristics, management, and possible consequences and to analyse the extent of the current problem at each academic level. To collect the personal experiences of physicians' mailboxes on predatory publishing, a Google Form® survey was designed and disseminated from September 2021 to April 2022. A total of 978 responses were analysed from 58 countries around the world. A total of 64.8% of participants indicated the need for 3 or fewer emails to acquire a criticality view in distinguishing a real invitation from a spam, while 11.5% still have doubt regardless of how many emails they get. The AGLOS Study clearly highlights the problem of academic e-mail spam by predatory journals and conferences. Our findings signify the importance of providing academic career-oriented advice and organising training sessions to increase awareness of predatory publishing for those conducting scientific research.

Virtual Care and Electronic Patient Communication During COVID-19: Cross-sectional Study of Inequities Across a Canadian Tertiary Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: Virtual care (VC) visits (telephone or video) and email-based patient communication have been rapidly adopted to facilitate cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inequities in access and patient experience may arise as these digital health tools become prevalent. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize inequities in access and patient-reported experience following adoption of digital health tools at a tertiary cancer center during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We designed a cross-sectional study of outpatients with visits from September to December 2020. Patient characteristics and responses to an email-based patient-experience survey were collated. Inequities in access were assessed across three pairs of comparison groups: (1) patients with VC and in-person visits, (2) patients with and without documented email addresses, and (3) responders and nonresponders to the survey. Inequities in patient-reported experience were assessed among survey responders. Demographics were mapped to area-level averages from national census data. Socioeconomic status was mapped to area-level dimensions of the Canadian Index of Multiple Deprivation. Covariate balance between comparison groups was assessed using standardized mean differences (SMDs), with SMD≥0.2 indicating differences between groups. Associations between patient experience satisfaction scores and covariates were assessed using multivariable analyses, with P<.05 indicating statistical significance. RESULTS: Among the 42,194 patients who had outpatient visits, 62.65% (n=26,435) had at least one VC visit and 31.15% (n=13,144) were emailable. Access to VC and email was similar across demographic and socioeconomic indices (SMD<0.2). Among emailable patients, 21.84% (2870/13,144) responded to the survey. Survey responsiveness was similar across indices, aside from a small difference by age (SMD=0.24). Among responders, 24.4% received VC and were similar to in-person responders across indices (SMD<0.2). VC and in-person responders had similar satisfaction levels with all care domains surveyed (all P>.05). Regardless of visit type, patients had variable satisfaction with care domains across demographic and socioeconomic indices. Patients with higher ethnocultural composition scores were less satisfied with the cultural appropriateness of their care (odds ratio [OR] 0.70, 95% CI 0.57-0.86). Patients with higher situational vulnerability scores were less satisfied with discussion of physical symptoms (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.93). Patients with higher residential instability scores were less satisfied with discussion of both physical (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.97) and emotional (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77-0.96) symptoms, and also with the duration of their visit (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.98; P=.02). Male patients were more satisfied with how their health care provider had listened to them (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.11-2.44; P=.01). CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of VC and email can equitably maintain access and patient-reported experience in cancer care across demographics and socioeconomic indices. Existing health inequities among structurally marginalized patients must continue to be addressed to improve their care experience.

A Cross-Sectional Study to Ascertain the Effect of COVID-19 Pandemic on Regional Anaesthesia Practices Amongst Anaesthesiologists of India.

Background and aims Regional anaesthesia has been advocated as a preferred modality during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID­19) pandemic, but pursuing regional anaesthesia during COVID-19 is challenging. Our cross-sectional survey aimed to analyze the challenges in conducting regional anaesthesia and the alterations in practices imposed by the COVID­19 pandemic across the nation. Material and methods The questionnaire was validated by seven experts. Following ethical approval and trial registration, this Google Forms-based survey was circulated to anaesthesiologists across the country via emails over 3 months (April 2021 to June 2021). Weekly reminders were sent to the non-responders till the desired sample size was attained, after which the survey was closed and responses were analyzed. Results Five hundred and thirty-two of 1100 anaesthesiologists completed the survey (48.3% response rate). Among the 532 respondents, 65.8% reported an increase in the use of regional anaesthesia due to the pandemic, with 77.4% reporting a change in practice. Almost 90% of the respondents used a dedicated operation theatre for all infected patients. Most respondents (75%) used disposable plastic drapes (75%) and full personal protective equipment (PPE) for COVID-19-positive patients during the procedure. However, using PPE resulted in poor vision due to fogging and multiple attempts and increased performance duration. Most respondents (74.4%) used gloves to maintain ultrasound probe sterility, while many other respondents (65.7%) used a sterile camera cover for the same. Many respondents ordered inflammatory markers during preoperative evaluation. Conclusion The present survey revealed that there was increased utilization of regional anaesthesia with increased utilization of PPE, sterility routines, and ordering of investigations. The use of PPE led to many challenges while performing regional anaesthesia. However, many deviations were identified from the accepted recommendations, and one needs to be aware of proper practices to achieve optimal patient outcomes and provider safety.

Frequency of receiving requested data for a systematic review and associated factors: A cross-sectional study.

This study aimed to assess the frequency of receiving requested data for a systematic review and associated factors. We contacted the authors of studies in need of additional data via e-mail. The primary outcome was the success in receiving the requested data according to the time until receipt. We estimated the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for success in each variable compared to the reference category, with weighted Cox proportional hazards models using Stata (version 14.2). Out of 164 studies contacted, 110 replied (67.1%), and 51 sent requested data (31.1%). Median time to receive a response or withdraw contact was 36.0 days (interquartile range: 17.5, 142.5). Higher success ratio was observed in studies published as scientific papers (HR = 3.01, 95% CI = [1.18, 7.70]), in more than one publication (HR = 2.00, 95% CI = [1.14, 3.51]), and contacted by personal e-mail (HR = 2.85, 95% CI = [1.34, 6.07]). Three or more contact attempts led to lower success ratio (HR = 0.19, 95% CI = [0.11, 0.35]) than one or two. Requesting data for a systematic review was time-consuming and effective in three out of ten studies. Fewer contacts were more successful than insisting.

Mixed-mode versus paper surveys for patient-reported outcomes after critical illness: A randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine the response rate to a mixed-mode survey using email compared with that to a paper survey in survivors of critical illness. DESIGN: This is a prospective randomised controlled trial. SETTING: The study was conducted at a single-centre quaternary intensive care unit (ICU) in Adelaide, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Study participants were patients admitted to the ICU for ≥48 h and discharged from the hospital. INTERVENTIONS: The participants were randomised to receive a survey by paper (via mail) or via online (via email, or if a non-email user, via a letter with a website address). Patients who did not respond to the initial survey received a reminder paper survey after 14 days. The survey included quality of life (EuroQol-5D-5L), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), and post-traumatic symptom (Impact of Event Scale-Revised) assessment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Survey response rate, extent of survey completion, clinical outcomes at different time points after discharge, and survey cost analysis were the main outcome measures. Outcomes were stratified based on follow-up time after ICU discharge (3, 6, and 12 months). RESULTS: A total of 239 patients were randomised. The response rate was similar between the groups (mixed-mode: 78% [92/118 patients] vs. paper: 80% [97/121 patients], p = 0.751) and did not differ between time points of follow-up. Incomplete surveys were more prevalent in the paper group (10% vs 18%). The median EuroQol-5D-5L index value was 0.83 [0.71-0.92]. Depressive symptoms were reported by 25% of patients (46/187), anxiety symptoms were reported by 27% (50/187), and probable post-traumatic stress disorder was reported by 14% (25/184). Patient outcomes did not differ between the groups or time points of follow-up. The cost per reply was AU$ 16.60 (mixed-mode) vs AU$ 19.78 (paper). CONCLUSION: The response rate of a mixed-mode survey is similar to that of a paper survey and may provide modest cost savings.

Um ano de e-mails não solicitados: o modus operandi de revistas e editoras predatórias / One year of unsolicited e-mails: the modus operandiof predatory journals and publishers

Objetivo: Quantificar, caracterizar e analisar e-mails de revistas predatórias (RP) recebidos por uma pesquisadora da área de odontologia. Materiais e métodos: E-mails recebidos em 2019 e suspeitos de serem potencialmente predatórios foram pré-selecionados. O checklist do Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI) para identificar RP biomédicas suspeitas foi aplicado, incluindo os seguintes critérios: taxa/preço de publicação (TP), fator de impacto falso, a revista estar listada no Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) e no Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Também foram extraídas informações sobre a falta de um fator de impacto no Journal Citations Reports, endereço de contato de e-mail não afiliado à revista, linguajar lisonjeiro, citação pessoal e/ou de um artigo, link de cancelamento de inscrição do tipo unsubscribe, estar listado no catálogo atual da National Library of Medicine (NLM) e estar indexado no Medline. Resultados: Um total de 2.812 e-mails suspeitos não solicitados foram recebidos e 1.837 requisitaram algum tipo de manuscrito; entre eles, 1.751 preencheram algum critério do OHRI. Menos da metade (780/1.837, 42%) referiu-se a alguma área da odontologia. A TP mediana foi de US$ 399. Um falso fator de impacto foi mencionado em 11% (201/1.837) dos e-mails e 27% (504/1.837) correspondiam a periódicos atualmente listados no catálogo da NLM. Os periódicos listados no DOAJ e COPE enviaram 89 e-mails. Conclusão: A campanha editorial das RP, sob a forma de e-mails, foi intensa e recorrente. Os pesquisadores devem estar bem informados sobre o modus operandi das RP para proteger sua própria reputação como autores, assim como a reputação da ciência

Objectives: To quantify, characterize and analyze e-mail from predatory journals (PJ) received by an academic in dentistry. Materials and methods: E-mails received in 2019 and suspected of being potentially predatory were pre-selected. The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI) checklist was applied to identify the suspected biomedical PJ, including the following criteria: article processing charge (APC), fake impact factor, the journal being listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We also extracted information on the lack of an impact factor on Journal Citations Reports, non-journal affiliated contact e-mail address, flattering language, article and/or personal citation, unsubscribe link, being listed in the National Library of Medicine (NLM) current catalog and indexed on Medline. Results: A total of 2,812 unsolicited suspected e-mails were received, and 1,837 requested some sort of manuscript; among these, 1,751 met some of the OHRI criteria. Less than half (780/1,837, 42%) referred to some area of dentistry. The median APC was US$399. A false impact factor was mentioned in 11% (201/1,837) of the e-mails, and 27% (504/1,837) corresponded to journals currently listed in the NLM catalog. Journals listed in DOAJ and COPE sent 89 e-mails. Conclusions: The email campaign from PJ was high and recurrent. Researchers should be well informed about PJ' modus operandi to protect their own reputation as authors and that of science.

Measuring and Quantifying Collateral Information in Psychiatry: Development and Preliminary Validation of the McLean Collateral Information and Clinical Actionability Scale.

BACKGROUND: The review of collateral information is an essential component of patient care. Although this is standard practice, minimal research has been done to quantify collateral information collection and to understand how collateral information translates to clinical decision making. To address this, we developed and piloted a novel measure (the McLean Collateral Information and Clinical Actionability Scale [M-CICAS]) to evaluate the types and number of collateral sources viewed and the resulting actions made in a psychiatric setting. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to test the feasibility of the M-CICAS, validate this measure against clinician notes via medical records, and evaluate whether reviewing a higher volume of collateral sources is associated with more clinical actions taken. METHODS: For the M-CICAS, we developed a three-part instrument, focusing on measuring collateral sources reviewed, clinical actions taken, and shared decision making between the clinician and patient. To determine feasibility and preliminary validity, we piloted this measure among clinicians providing psychotherapy at McLean Hospital. These clinicians (n=7) completed the M-CICAS after individual clinical sessions with 89 distinct patient encounters. Scales were completed by clinicians only once for each patient during routine follow-up visits. After clinicians completed these scales, researchers conducted chart reviews by completing the M-CICAS using only the clinician's corresponding note from that session. For the analyses, we generated summary scores for the number of collateral sources and clinical actions for each encounter. We examined Pearson correlation coefficients to assess interrater reliability between clinicians and chart reviewers, and simple univariate regression modeling followed by multilevel mixed effects regression modeling to test the relationship between collateral information accessed and clinical actions taken. RESULTS: The study staff had high interrater reliability on the M-CICAS for the sources reviewed (r=0.98; P<.001) and actions taken (r=0.97; P<.001). Clinician and study staff ratings were moderately correlated and statistically significant on the M-CICAS summary scores for the sources viewed (r=0.24, P=.02 and r=0.25, P=.02, respectively). Univariate regression modeling with a two-tailed test demonstrated a significant association between collateral sources and clinical actions taken when clinicians completed the M-CICAS (ß=.27; t87=2.47; P=.02). The multilevel fixed slopes random intercepts model confirmed a significant association even when accounting for clinician differences (ß=.23; t57=2.13; P=.04). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study established the feasibility and preliminary validity of the M-CICAS in assessing collateral sources and clinical decision making in psychiatry. This study also indicated that reviewing more collateral sources may lead to an increased number of clinical actions following a session.

Physician Stress During Electronic Health Record Inbox Work: In Situ Measurement With Wearable Sensors.

BACKGROUND: Increased work through electronic health record (EHR) messaging is frequently cited as a factor of physician burnout. However, studies to date have relied on anecdotal or self-reported measures, which limit the ability to match EHR use patterns with continuous stress patterns throughout the day. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to collect EHR use and physiologic stress data through unobtrusive means that provide objective and continuous measures, cluster distinct patterns of EHR inbox work, identify physicians' daily physiologic stress patterns, and evaluate the association between EHR inbox work patterns and physician physiologic stress. METHODS: Physicians were recruited from 5 medical centers. Participants (N=47) were given wrist-worn devices (Garmin Vivosmart 3) with heart rate sensors to wear for 7 days. The devices measured physiological stress throughout the day based on heart rate variability (HRV). Perceived stress was also measured with self-reports through experience sampling and a one-time survey. From the EHR system logs, the time attributed to different activities was quantified. By using a clustering algorithm, distinct inbox work patterns were identified and their associated stress measures were compared. The effects of EHR use on physician stress were examined using a generalized linear mixed effects model. RESULTS: Physicians spent an average of 1.08 hours doing EHR inbox work out of an average total EHR time of 3.5 hours. Patient messages accounted for most of the inbox work time (mean 37%, SD 11%). A total of 3 patterns of inbox work emerged: inbox work mostly outside work hours, inbox work mostly during work hours, and inbox work extending after hours that were mostly contiguous to work hours. Across these 3 groups, physiologic stress patterns showed 3 periods in which stress increased: in the first hour of work, early in the afternoon, and in the evening. Physicians in group 1 had the longest average stress duration during work hours (80 out of 243 min of valid HRV data; P=.02), as measured by physiological sensors. Inbox work duration, the rate of EHR window switching (moving from one screen to another), the proportion of inbox work done outside of work hours, inbox work batching, and the day of the week were each independently associated with daily stress duration (marginal R2=15%). Individual-level random effects were significant and explained most of the variation in stress (conditional R2=98%). CONCLUSIONS: This study is among the first to demonstrate associations between electronic inbox work and physiological stress. We identified 3 potentially modifiable factors associated with stress: EHR window switching, inbox work duration, and inbox work outside work hours. Organizations seeking to reduce physician stress may consider system-based changes to reduce EHR window switching or inbox work duration or the incorporation of inbox management time into work hours.

Educación a distancia de la maestría Atención Estomatológica Comunitaria durante el periodo de COVID-19 / E-learning of the Community Dental Care master's degree during COVID-19

RESUMEN Fundamento: Mantener las formas organizativas de la formación académica con métodos alternativos es una necesidad en los momentos actuales debido a la difícil situación que ha impuesto la pandemia de COVID-19. Objetivo: Describir las modalidades de educación a distancia utilizadas en la maestría Atención Estomatológica Comunitaria en tiempos de la pandemia COVID-19. Metodología: Se realizó una investigación descriptiva en la Universidad de Ciencias Médicas de Sancti Spíritus entre marzo y junio de 2020 con la aplicación de métodos del nivel teórico (analítico-sintético; inductivo-deductivo) y empírico (análisis de documentos). Resultados: El correo electrónico, el intercambio de medios electrónicos de almacenamiento, la vía telefónica, el grupo de WhatsApp y la autopreparación fueron las principales modalidades implementadas en las condiciones de restricción de movilidad y distanciamiento social que impuso la situación epidemiológica actual. Conclusiones: Las modalidades de educación a distancia utilizadas permitieron contextualizar el proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje de la maestría a los tiempos de pandemia.

ABSTRACT Background: At present to maintain the structural forms of academic training with alternative methods is essential due to the difficult situation imposed by COVID-19. Objective: To describe the e-learning modalities used in the Community Dental Care master's degree in times of COVID-19. Methodology: A descriptive research was conducted at the Sancti Spíritus University of Medical Sciences between March and June 2020 with the application of theoretical (analytical-synthetic; inductive-deductive) and empirical (document analysis) methods. Results: E-mail, the exchange of electronic storage media, the telephone, the WhatsApp group and self-preparation were the main modalities implemented in the conditions of mobility restriction and social distance imposed by the current epidemiological situation. Conclusions: The e-learning modalities used allowed contextualizing the teaching-learning process of the master's degree to the times of pandemic.

E-mail messages can be effective to make the health education activity of family pediatricians more effective.

Background: Not all family pediatricians carry on their health education tasks constantly and they do not often use effective communication strategies. To deal with this situation it is useful to find ways that are easy to implement, reproducible in the most diverse contexts and that can be accepted even by the least motivated pediatricians. We have been experimenting a training method, based on sending a series of e-mail messages, assessing their feasibility and effectiveness. Study design: Experimental approach. Methods: The intervention consisted of sending 21 email to 141 family pediatricians. In order to assess the intervention effectiveness, we first select randomly 20 pediaticians out of the 141 and before the intervention we interviewed in their offices 400 parents of 2-14 years-old children (20 parents for each of the 20 family pediatricians); similary 5-6 months after the intervention, we selected randomly other 20 pediatricians and interviewed 355 parents. The emails mentioned the 5 A's model as well as the motivational interview, the model of the stages of change and the counseling techniques. They also enclosed communication material to be reproduced and given to the parents, as well as recommendations and guidelines. Five messages contained self-assessment tests. Results: Following the intervention, out of 26 questions asked to mothers, there was a significant improvement in the response to 10 questions and a worsening in the response to a single question. The overall difference between before and after the intervention is very significant (p <0.0001). Conclusions: The intervention was proved to be very effective and easily reproducible. It is necessary to confirm these findings with further studies based on the use of a control group too. It appears to be the first time that email messages are sent in order to train family pediatricians on the behavior change counseling.

One year of unsolicited e-mails: The modus operandi of predatory journals and publishers.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify, characterize and analyze e-mail from predatory journals (PJ) received by an academic in dentistry. METHODS: E-mails received in 2019 and suspected of being potentially predatory were pre-selected. The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI) checklist was applied to identify the suspected biomedical PJ, including the following criteria: article processing charge (APC), fake impact factor, the journal being listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We also extracted information on the lack of an impact factor on Journal Citations Reports, non-journal affiliated contact e-mail address, flattering language, article and/or personal citation, unsubscribe link, being listed in the National Library of Medicine (NLM) current catalog and indexed on Medline. RESULTS: A total of 2812 unsolicited suspected e-mails were received, and 1837 requested some sort of manuscript; among these, 1751 met some of the OHRI criteria. Less than half (780/1837, 42 %) referred to some area of dentistry. The median APC was US$399. A false impact factor was mentioned in 11 % (201/1837) of the e-mails, and 27 % (504/1837) corresponded to journals currently listed in the NLM catalog. Journals listed in DOAJ and COPE sent 89 e-mails. CONCLUSIONS: The email campaign from PJ was high and recurrent. Researchers should be well informed about PJ' modus operandi to protect their own reputation as authors and that of science. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Peer review and established academic practices and etiquette contribute to ensuring scientific progress, which is essential to protect the health of patients in particular and of people in general. Predatory journals constitute a threat to peer review and scientific etiquette and, as such, may hinder scientific progress and public health.

Physicians' electronic inbox work patterns and factors associated with high inbox work duration.

OBJECTIVES: Electronic health record systems are increasingly used to send messages to physicians, but research on physicians' inbox use patterns is limited. This study's aims were to (1) quantify the time primary care physicians (PCPs) spend managing inboxes; (2) describe daily patterns of inbox use; (3) investigate which types of messages consume the most time; and (4) identify factors associated with inbox work duration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 1 month of electronic inbox data for 1275 PCPs in a large medical group and linked these data with physicians' demographic data. RESULTS: PCPs spent an average of 52 minutes on inbox management on workdays, including 19 minutes (37%) outside work hours. Temporal patterns of electronic inbox use differed from other EHR functions such as charting. Patient-initiated messages (28%) and results (29%) accounted for the most inbox work time. PCPs with higher inbox work duration were more likely to be female (P < .001), have more patient encounters (P < .001), have older patients (P < .001), spend proportionally more time on patient messages (P < .001), and spend more time per message (P < .001). Compared with PCPs with the lowest duration of time on inbox work, PCPs with the highest duration had more message views per workday (200 vs 109; P < .001) and spent more time on the inbox outside work hours (30 minutes vs 9.7 minutes; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Electronic inbox work by PCPs requires roughly an hour per workday, much of which occurs outside scheduled work hours. Interventions to assist PCPs in handling patient-initiated messages and results may help alleviate inbox workload.

A Retrospective Analysis of Provider-to-Patient Secure Messages: How Much Are They Increasing, Who Is Doing the Work, and Is the Work Happening After Hours?

BACKGROUND: Patient portal registration and the use of secure messaging are increasing. However, little is known about how the work of responding to and initiating patient messages is distributed among care team members and how these messages may affect work after hours. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the growth of secure messages and determine how the work of provider responses to patient-initiated secure messages and provider-initiated secure messages is distributed across care teams and across work and after-work hours. METHODS: We collected secure messages sent from providers from January 1, 2013, to March 15, 2018, at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, both in response to patient secure messages and provider-initiated secure messages. We examined counts of messages over time, how the work of responding to messages and initiating messages was distributed among health care workers, messages sent per provider, messages per unique patient, and when the work was completed (proportion of messages sent after standard work hours). RESULTS: Portal registration for patients having clinic visits increased from 33% to 62%, and increasingly more patients and providers were engaged in messaging. Provider message responses to individual patients increased significantly in both primary care and specialty practices. Message responses per specialty physician provider increased from 15 responses per provider per year to 53 responses per provider per year from 2013 to 2018, resulting in a 253% increase. Primary care physician message responses increased from 153 per provider per year to 322 from 2013 to 2018, resulting in a 110% increase. Physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and registered nurses, all contributed to the substantial increases in the number of messages sent. CONCLUSIONS: Provider-sent secure messages at a large health care institution have increased substantially since implementation of secure messaging between patients and providers. The effort of responding to and initiating messages to patients was distributed across multiple provider categories. The percentage of message responses occurring after hours showed little substantial change over time compared with the overall increase in message volume.

Email Use Reconsidered in Health Professions Education: Viewpoint.

Email has become a popular means of communication in the past 40 years, with more than 200 billion emails sent each day worldwide. When used appropriately, email can be an effective and useful form of correspondence, although improper practices, such as email incivility, can present challenges. Email is ubiquitous in education and health care, where it is used for student-to-teacher, provider-to-provider, and patient-to-provider communications, but not all students, faculty members, and health professionals are skilled in its use. This paper examines the challenges and opportunities posed by email communication in health professions education and reveals important deficiencies in training, as well as steps that can be taken by health professions educators to address them. Recommendations are offered to help health professions educators develop approaches for teaching email professionalism.

Disparities in Secure Messaging Uptake Between Patients and Physicians: Longitudinal Analysis of Two National Cross-Sectional Surveys.

BACKGROUND: Emails securely exchanged between patients and clinicians offer the promise of improved access to care and indirectly improved health outcomes. Yet research to date is mixed on who-among both patients and clinicians-is using secure messaging. OBJECTIVE: Using data from two large nationally representative cross-sectional surveys, this study aimed to compare the prevalence of secure messaging use among patients and their access to the functionality through their physicians, and to explore the clinical practice and physician characteristics and patient sociodemographic characteristics associated with the use of secure messaging. METHODS: We conducted regression analyses to identity statistical associations between self-reported secure messaging use and access, and the patient, practice, and physician characteristics from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS). The NHIS data collected between 2013 and 2018, with approximately 150,000 adult individuals, were used to evaluate patient characteristics associated with email communication with clinicians. The NAMCS data included 7340 physicians who reported on secure messaging use between 2013 and 2016 and provided context on physician specialty, use of certified health information technology (IT), and practice size and ownership associated with secure messaging access and use. RESULTS: By 2016, two-thirds of ambulatory care visits were conducted by a physician who reported using secure messaging, up from 40.70% in 2013. The percentage of US residents who reported sending an email to their clinician, however, only increased from 7.22% to 16.67% between 2013 and 2018. We observed a strong positive association between certified health IT use and secure messaging use (odds ratio [OR] 11.46, 95% CI 7.55-17.39). Individuals who were black, had lower levels of education, had Medicaid or other public payer insurance, or those who were uninsured had reduced odds for using email to communicate with clinicians. No differences were observed in secure messaging use based on physician specialty, but significant differences were observed by practice size (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35-0.60 in solo practices vs nonsolo practices) and practice ownership (P<.001 for the different categories). CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to use two large nationally representative surveys to produce longitudinal estimates on the access and use of patient-clinician email communication in the United States. The survey findings complement each other: one provides the patient perspective of their use and the other indicates potential patient access to secure messaging based on the use of the functionality by the physicians providing treatment. This study provides nationally representative data on the characteristics of patients and physicians who have access to and are using secure messaging. This information can be used to target interventions to promote adoption and use of secure messaging.

Predatory conferences in biomedical streams: An invitation for academic upliftment or predator's looking for prey.

Scientific conferences, once deemed essential in scholars' lives, are now converting into a high-profit business. These predatory conferences are often organized by some profit-making predatory publishers or manufacturing companies for marketing their product or luring young researchers and scientists to submit their research manuscripts to these so-called predatory journals. Various tactics are used by these conferences to extract money from the researchers and students such as organizing conferences at attractive tourist places with multidisciplinary scope, invitation to submit a research paper to be published at the earliest or to become part of an editorial board/editor-in-chief. It should be realized that these predatory conferences do not provide any benefit to registering individuals for the development of science. The only remedy to expose and stop the business of all such predatory conference organizers is by creating awareness among young scholars and researchers, regarding these predatory conferences and the demerits of attending them, through the established medical and dental institutions, along with specialized associations and societies. A zero-tolerance policy should be created to ban such conferences with a refusal to provide promotion or funding to scholars or researchers attending these conferences. Hence, this narrative review aims to create awareness regarding these predatory conferences, the tactics used by them to trap researchers and ways which young researchers and academic scholars can use to delineate them from legitimate ones.

Use of Telephone and Digital Channels to Engage Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Adults in Health Disparities Research Within a Social Service Setting: Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Engaging socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in health research is vital to understanding and, ultimately, eliminating health-related disparities. Digital communication channels are increasingly used to recruit study participants, and recent trends indicate a growing need to partner with the social service sector to improve population health. However, few studies have recruited participants from social service settings using multiple digital channels. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to recruit and survey 3791 adult clients of a social service organization via telephone and digital channels. This paper aimed to describe recruitment outcomes across five channels and compare participant characteristics by recruitment channel type. METHODS: The Cancer Communication Channels in Context Study recruited and surveyed adult clients of 2-1-1, a social service-focused information and referral system, using five channels: telephone, website, text message, web-based live chat, and email. Participants completed surveys administered either by phone (if recruited by phone) or on the web (if recruited from digital channels, ie, website, text message, Web-based live chat, or email). Measures for the current analysis included demographic and health characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 3293 participants were recruited, with 1907 recruited by phone and 1386 recruited from digital channels. Those recruited by phone had a moderate study eligibility rate (42.23%) and the highest survey completion rate (91.24%) of all channels. Individuals recruited by text message had a high study eligibility rate (94.14%) yet the lowest survey completion rate (74.0%) of all channels. Sample accrual goals were achieved for phone, text message, and website recruitment. Multivariable analyses found differences in participant characteristics by recruitment channel type. Compared with participants recruited by phone, those recruited from digital channels were younger (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.96, 95% CI 0.96-0.97) and more likely to be female (aOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.23-1.88), married (aOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.22-1.89), and other than non-Hispanic black (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.22-1.79). Those recruited via phone also were more likely to have more than a high school education (aOR 2.17, 95% CI 1.67-2.82), have a household income ≥US $25,000 a year (aOR 2.02, 95% CI 1.56-2.61), and have children living in the home (aOR 1.26, 95% CI 1.06-1.51). Additionally, participants recruited from digital channels were less likely than those recruited by phone to have public health insurance (aOR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.90) and more likely to report better overall health (aOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.27-1.83 for good-to-excellent health). CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate the feasibility and utility of recruiting socioeconomically disadvantaged adults from the social service sector using multiple communication channels, including digital channels. As social service-based health research evolves, strategic recruitment using a combination of traditional and digital channels may be warranted to avoid underrepresentation of highly medically vulnerable individuals, which could exacerbate disparities in health.

Modifying Provider Vitamin D Screening Behavior in Primary Care.

PURPOSE: Clinical evidence shows minimal benefit to vitamin D screening and subsequent treatment in the general population. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of 2 light-touch interventions on reducing vitamin D test orders. METHODS: The outcomes were weekly average vitamin D rates, computed from adult primary care encounters (preventive or nonpreventive) with a family medicine (FM) or internal medicine (IM) provider from June 14, 2018 through December 12, 2018. We conducted an interrupted time series analysis and estimated the cost impact of the interventions. The interventions consisted of an educational memo (August 9, 2018) distributed to providers and removal of the vitamin D test (FM: August 15, 2018; IM: October 17, 2018) from the providers' quick order screen in the electronic health record. Change in order rates were analyzed among physicians (MDs and DOs), physician assistants (PAs), and nurse practitioners (NPs). RESULTS: There were 587,506 primary care encounters (FM = 367,947; IM = 219,559). Vitamin D order rates decreased from 6.9% (FM = 5.1%; IM = 9.9%) to 5.2% (FM = 4% [P < .01], IM = 7.9% [P < .01]). For FM, the vitamin D test order rate continued to fall at a 0.08% per week rate after the interventions (end of study: 2.73%). The education intervention showed a relative decrease in each provider type (FM-physician = 16% [P < .01], FM-PA = 47% [P < .01], FM-NP = 20% [P = .01], IM-physician = 14% [P = .02], IM-PA = 52% [P < .01], IM-NP = 34% [P = .04]). Annualized savings was approximately 1 million dollars. CONCLUSIONS: Emailed evidence-based provider education may be an effective tool for modifying providers' vitamin D test ordering behavior. The lack of the effectiveness of the vitamin D test removal from the quick order screen found for IM highlights the challenges facing simple electronic health record interventions when multiple alternate ordering pathways exist.

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

This article presents an editorial perspective on the challenges associated with e-mail management for academic physicians. We include 2-week analysis of our own e-mails as illustrations of the e-mail volume and content. We discuss the contributors to high e-mail volumes, focusing especially on unsolicited e-mails from medical/scientific conferences and open-access journals (sometimes termed "academic spam emails"), as these e-mails comprise a significant volume and are targeted to physicians and scientists. Our 2-person sample is consistent with studies showing that journals that use mass e-mail advertising have low rates of inclusion in recognized journal databases/resources. Strategies for managing e-mail are discussed and include unsubscribing, blocking senders or domains, filtering e-mails, managing one's inbox, limiting e-mail access, and e-mail etiquette. Academic institutions should focus on decreasing the volume of unsolicited e-mails, fostering tools to manage e-mail overload, and educating physicians including trainees about e-mail practices, predatory journals, and scholarly database/resources.