Use of an Online Crowdfunding Platform for Unmet Financial Obligations in Cancer Care.

This cross-sectional study identified characteristics of patients using an online crowdfunding platform for unmet financial obligations associated with cancer care

Use of GoFundMe® to crowdfund complementary and alternative medicine treatments for cancer.

PurposeComplementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use is common amongst cancer patients. However, there is growing concern about its safety and efficacy. Online crowdfunding campaigns represent a unique avenue to understand the cancer patient's perspective for using CAM or declining conventional cancer therapy (CCT).MethodsFive hundred GoFundMe campaigns from 2012 to 2019 detailing financial need for cancer treatment were randomly selected and reviewed for endorsement of CAM use, reasons for using CAM, and reasons for declining CCT. Descriptive statistics were used to compare patient and campaign characteristics between 250 CAM users and 250 non-CAM users.ResultsCompared to non-CAM users, CAM users were more likely to be female (70% vs. 54%, p < 0.01), to report more stage IV cancer (54% vs. 12%, p < 0.01), and to have a history of delayed, missed, or misdiagnosis (10% vs. 4%, p < 0.01). Reasons for using CAM include endorsing curative/therapeutic effects 212 (85%), pain/stress reduction 137 (55%), and dissatisfaction with current or past medical treatment options 105 (42%). 87 (35%) CAM users that declined CCT reported that they wanted to try to fight off cancer using CAM first 57 (61%), that CCT was too "toxic" to the body 39 (42%), and cancer was already too advanced, so that CCT would be futile or too aggressive 25 (27%).ConclusionCancer patients on GoFundMe using CAM highly value quality of life, comfort, and autonomy. Physicians should educate themselves on CAM to set realistic expectations and provide comprehensive counseling of the risks and benefits of CAM usage to patients who choose to use CAM to either augment or completely replace CCT

Perspectives From Authors and Editors in the Biomedical Disciplines on Predatory Journals: Survey Study.

BackgroundPredatory journals fail to fulfill the tenets of biomedical publication: peer review, circulation, and access in perpetuity. Despite increasing attention in the lay and scientific press, no studies have directly assessed the perceptions of the authors or editors involved.ObjectiveOur objective was to understand the motivation of authors in sending their work to potentially predatory journals. Moreover, we aimed to understand the perspective of journal editors at journals cited as potentially predatory.MethodsPotential online predatory journals were randomly selected among 350 publishers and their 2204 biomedical journals. Author and editor email information was valid for 2227 total potential participants. A survey for authors and editors was created in an iterative fashion and distributed. Surveys assessed attitudes and knowledge about predatory publishing. Narrative comments were invited.ResultsA total of 249 complete survey responses were analyzed. A total of 40% of editors (17/43) surveyed were not aware that they were listed as an editor for the particular journal in question. A total of 21.8% of authors (45/206) confirmed a lack of peer review. Whereas 77% (33/43) of all surveyed editors were at least somewhat familiar with predatory journals, only 33.0% of authors (68/206) were somewhat familiar with them (P<.001). Only 26.2% of authors (54/206) were aware of Beall's list of predatory journals versus 49% (21/43) of editors (P<.001). A total of 30.1% of authors (62/206) believed their publication was published in a predatory journal. After defining predatory publishing, 87.9% of authors (181/206) surveyed would not publish in the same journal in the future.ConclusionsAuthors publishing in suspected predatory journals are alarmingly uninformed in terms of predatory journal quality and practices. Editors' increased familiarity with predatory publishing did little to prevent their unwitting listing as editors. Some suspected predatory journals did provide services akin to open access publication. Education, research mentorship, and a realignment of research incentives may decrease the impact of predatory publishing

Using a handwriting app leads to improvement in manual dexterity in kindergarten children

This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of using electronic handwriting applications (apps) in addition to a traditional method of teaching handwriting on kindergarten children’s manual dexterity (MD) and handwriting skills. Testing was done with 125 children in two groups: control (n = 67) and experimental (n = 58). Both groups used worksheets, but the experimental group also used an app with a stylus for their practice time. A 2 (group) × 2 (time) analysis indicated a significant interaction for MD (p < 0.03), with a significant improvement in the experimental group. Significant differences emerged for legibility, showing that both groups improved at handwriting over time. Study results demonstrated that using apps in the kindergarten classroom can enhance handwriting as well as a traditional handwriting teaching method. Apps also have the advantage of improving MD, which is a building block for several fine motor skills

A Systematic Approach to Incision Planning and Graft Excision in Gender-affirming Vaginoplasty

We present our systematic approach to incision planning and skin graft excision for gender-affirming vaginoplasty. This approach is adaptable to patients of different body habitus and genital skin surface area, and it allows for early skin graft harvest with predictable wound tension at closure. We also describe how to adapt in cases of severe genital hypoplasia

Use of an Online Crowdfunding Platform for Unmet Financial Obligations in Cancer Care.

This cross-sectional study identified characteristics of patients using an online crowdfunding platform for unmet financial obligations associated with cancer care

Promotion Disparities in Academic Urology.

ObjectiveTo better understand promotion timelines across gender and race/ethnicity and how academic output impacts promotion in urology.MethodsWe examined the 2017 census. An academic subset was asked questions regarding their promotion timeline. We obtained demographic, academic output, and family responsibility data.ResultsOf 2926 academic urologists who identified a position of Assistant, Associate, or Full professor, 11.2% were women, 75% were White, and 94% were non-Hispanic. Men authored more papers and achieved principal investigator status more often than women. Non-Hispanics authored more papers than Hispanics. On average, women took 1.2 years longer than men to advance from Assistant to Associate Professor (7.3 years [95% CI: 6.8-7.8] vs 6.1 years, [95% CI: 5.8-6.6, P &lt;.001]). Advancement from Associate to Full Professor was similar between women and men (6.0 years [95% CI: 5.1-6.9] vs 6.6 [95% CI: 6.1-7.1, P&nbsp;=&nbsp;.25]). Compared to women, men were more likely to experience rapid promotion (≤4 years) to Associate Professor (odds ratio 3 [95% CI: 1.8-5.1]). There was no statistical difference across race/ethnicity for promotion from Assistant to Associate, Associate to Full Professor, or rapid promotion.ConclusionWe identified disparities in promotion times based on gender but not race and ethnicity. The number of under-represented minority faculty in urology is low. Understanding the causes of disparities should be a priority in order to support fair promotion practices and retention of diverse faculty