Hand injuries in low- and middle-income countries: systematic review of existing literature and call for greater attention

© 2018 The Royal Society for Public Health Objectives: Hand injuries result in major healthcare costs from lack of productivity and disability. With rapid industrialization, the incidence of hand injuries is expected to rise in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, estimates of burden and validated outcome tools are needed for effective resource allocation in the management of these injuries. Study design: We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the burden of hand injuries in LMICs according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, PAIS International, African Index Medicus, Global Health, IMMEMR, IMSEAR, Wholis and Bdenf, Lilacs, Scielo, WPRIM, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to detect eligible articles with no restrictions on length of follow-up, type of hand injury, or date. Results: We included 17 articles after screening 933 eligible articles based on title, abstract, and full-text screening. There was significant heterogeneity and low quality of evidence. All included articles suggest that hand injuries were associated with work limitations for the majority of patients, and residual pain can further limit their activities. Direct and indirect costs related to treatment account for a major healthcare burden with limited evidence on estimates of long-term cost from disability. Conclusions: The present systematic review highlights the paucity of high-quality data on the epidemiology, management, and burden of hand injuries in LMICs. The data are heterogeneous, and comprehensive metrics are lacking. Because hand injuries can account for a significant proportion of injury-related disability, reducing the overall burden of hand injuries is of utmost importance

Differences in Applicant Perceptions of Virtual Interviews Between Integrated Plastic Surgery and Subspecialty Fellowship Applicants

OBJECTIVE: We aim to survey and compare integrated plastic surgery and plastic surgery subspecialty fellowship applicants on their experiences with virtual interviews and to determine if there are differences between them. DESIGN: An IRB-approved survey study was conducted using the Qualtrics platform. SETTING: The study was conducted at the Johns Hopkins University and the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore Maryland. PARTICIPANTS: Applicants that applied to 1) the Johns Hopkins/University of Maryland or the University of California San Diego integrated plastic surgery residency programs, 2) craniofacial surgery fellowship, and 3) microsurgery, hand surgery, or burn surgery fellowship at the Johns Hopkins University were selected to participate in the survey. RESULTS: A total of 94 surveys were completed by residency applicants and 55 by fellowship applicants. After the interview season, 80% of fellowship applicants recommended virtual interviews compared to 61.7% of residency applicants (p = 0.03). Fellowship applicants reported significantly less issues with self-advocacy and did not view the virtual interview process as significant of a detriment when meeting program residents/staff, viewing the hospital/surrounding area, and learning about the program (p \u3c 0.05). A higher percentage of fellowship applicants interviewed at multiple programs during a single day compared to residency applicants (56.4% vs 27.7%; p \u3c 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A higher proportion of fellowship applicants prefer virtual interviews, which associated with key differences in perceptions, expectations, and priorities. Our data supports that fellowship programs may wish to continue virtual interviews even after COVID-related restrictions are lifted, because fellows are equally able to self-advocate in a virtual format while benefiting from cost and time savings; fellowship programs would also gain the cost and time savings from this model as well

Women Continue to Be Underrepresented in Surgery: A Study of AMA and ACGME Data from 2000-2016

Objective: In the past decade women have comprised nearly half of U.S. medical school graduates. However, women remain underrepresented among surgical residents and practicing surgeons. We conducted the current study to assess recent trends in the female-to-male (F:M) ratios among residents and physicians pursuing careers in surgery. Design: We used retrospective population statistics published by the American Medical Association (AMA) and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) from 2000-2016. We compared trends of female-to-male ratios among residents and surgeons in surgical subspecialties to evaluate for potential differences over time. Setting: Published online population statistics Participants: We stratified both board-certified surgeons and surgical residents by sex and specialty. Results: From 2000-2013, the proportion of female surgeons among all female physicians remained constant (12-13%). The proportion of board-certified female surgeons to all surgeons increased (from 15% in 2000 to 25% in 2013). The F:M ratios of board-certified surgeons in neurosurgery and orthopedic surgery were 1:10.6 and 1:13.9, with resident ratios 1:4.8 and 1:5.9, respectively. One specialty with increasingly equivalent ratios is plastic surgery with integrated resident F:M ratios of 1:3.1 in 2008 to 1:1.4 in 2015, and board-certified plastic surgeons of 1:9.2 in 2008 to 1:5.3 in 2013. Conclusion: Although the gender gap is narrowing, women continue to be underrepresented in surgical specialties. It is important for fields with disproportionate representation to be aware of these differences and take steps towards creating and supporting a more diverse workforce