Using Bibliometric Big Data to Analyze Faculty Research Productivity in Health Policy and Management

Bibliometric big data and social media tools provide new opportunities to aggregate and analyze researchers' scholarly impact. The purpose of the current paper is to describe the process and results we obtained after aggregating a list of public Google Scholar profiles representing researchers in Health Policy and Management or closely-related disciplines. We extracted publication and citation data on 191 researchers affiliated with health administration programs in the U.S. With these data, we created a publicly available listing of faculty that includes each person's name, affiliation, year of first citation, total citations, h-index, and i-10 index. The median of total citations per individual faculty member was 700, while the maximum was 46,363. The median h-index was 13, while the maximum was 91. We plan to update these statistics and add new faculty to our public listing as new Google Scholar profiles are created by faculty members in the field. This listing provides a resource for students and faculty in our discipline to easily compare productivity and publication records of faculty members in their own and other departments. Similarly, this listing provides a resource for faculty, including department chairs and deans, who desire discipline-specific context for promotion and tenure processes

Designing a Personalized Health Risk Communication Website to Motivate User Attention and Systematic Processing

A web-based diabetes “risk calculator” is being developed and evaluated to determine the impact of personalized risk estimates and interactive feedback on user attention and systematic information processing. Preliminary experiments that randomized participants to two different health websites suggested that a risk calculator with personalized risk estimates did not increase (and may have decreased) systematic processing, focused immersion and information seeking. We describe a series of think aloud user studies which were conducted to provide a qualitative evaluation of the experimental protocol and explore alternate explanations for these unexpected findings. User study results suggested that the prior findings may have been driven by a lack of perceived novelty of the risk information, selective attention, and an expectation of personalization in both experimental conditions. Findings are consistent with satisficing in information search and have implications for the design of health information and future experiments that evaluate these types of interventions

Factors Related to User Ratings and User Downloads of Mobile Apps for Maternal and Infant Health: Cross-Sectional Study

Background: Mobile health apps related to maternal and infant health (MIH) are prevalent and frequently used. Some of these apps are extremely popular and have been downloaded over 5 million times. However, the understanding of user behavior and user adoption of these apps based on consumer preferences for different app features and categories is limited. Objective: This study aimed to examine the relationship between MIH app characteristics and users’ perceived satisfaction and intent to use. Methods: The associations between app characteristics, ratings, and downloads were assessed in a sample of MIH apps designed to provide health education or decision-making support to pregnant women or parents and caregivers of infants. Multivariable linear regression was used to assess the relationship between app characteristics and user ratings, and ordinal logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between app characteristics and user downloads. Results: The analyses of user ratings and downloads included 421 and 213 apps, respectively. The average user rating was 3.79 out of 5. Compared with the Apple App Store, the Google Play Store was associated with high user ratings (beta=.33; P =.005). Apps with higher standardized user ratings (beta=.80; P <.001), in-app purchases (beta=1.12; P =.002), and in-app advertisements (beta=.64; P =.02) were more frequently downloaded. Having a health care organization developer as part of the development team was neither associated with user ratings (beta=−.20; P =.06) nor downloads (beta=−.14; P =.63). Conclusions: A majority of MIH apps are developed by non–health care organizations, which could raise concern about the accuracy and trustworthiness of in-app information. These findings could benefit app developers in designing better apps and could help inform marketing and development strategies. Further work is needed to evaluate the clinical accuracy of information provided within the apps. [JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020;8(1):e15663

Clinical perspectives on hospitals’ role in the opioid epidemic

Policymakers, legislators, and clinicians have raised concerns that hospital-based clinicians may be incentivized to inappropriately prescribe and administer opioids when addressing pain care needs of their patients, thus potentially contributing to the ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States. Given the need to involve all healthcare settings, including hospitals, in joint efforts to curb the opioid epidemic, it is essential to understand if clinicians perceive hospitals as contributors to the problem. Therefore, we examined clinical perspectives on the role of hospitals in the opioid epidemic

Analgesic Management of Pain in Elite Athletes: A Systematic Review

Objective: To identify the prevalence, frequency of use, and effects of analgesic pain management strategies used in elite athletes. Design: Systematic literature review. Data Sources: Six databases: Ovid/Medline, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. Eligibility Criteria for Selecting Studies: Empirical studies involving elite athletes and focused on the use or effects of medications used for pain or painful injury. Studies involving recreational sportspeople or those that undertake general exercise were excluded. Main Results: Of 70 articles found, the majority examined the frequency with which elite athletes use pain medications, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroids, anesthetics, and opioids. A smaller set of studies assessed the effect of medications on outcomes such as pain, function, and adverse effects. Oral NSAIDs are reported to be the most common medication, being used in some international sporting events by over 50% of athletes. Studies examining the effects of pain medications on elite athletes typically involved small samples and lacked control groups against which treated athletes were compared. Conclusions: Existing empirical research does not provide a sufficient body of evidence to guide athletes and healthcare professionals in making analgesic medication treatment decisions. Based on the relatively robust evidence regarding the widespread use of NSAIDs, clinicians and policymakers should carefully assess their current recommendations for NSAID use and adhere to a more unified consensus-based strategy for multidisciplinary pain management in elite athletes. In the future, we hope to see more rigorous, prospective studies of various pain management strategies in elite athletes, thus enabling a shift from consensus-based recommendations to evidence-based recommendations

Workplace incivility experienced by Health Administration faculty

Workplace incivility is low-intensity, nonspecific, discourteous behavior towards others and may negatively affect employee and organizational outcomes. This exploratory study sought to examine the prevalence of and factors related to experiencing several different types of workplace incivility using a national sample of Health Administration full-time faculty members in the United States. We found that 27–36% of respondents have experienced at least one type of uncivil behavior from students, coworkers, or supervisors. Further, 4–9% of faculty respondents experience such incidents frequently. Faculty respondents who experienced workplace incivility were significantly more likely to report lower job satisfaction and indicated an intention to leave their position within the next three years. Academic leaders should work to foster an environment where incivility towards others is actively discouraged, as it may contribute to dissatisfaction and turnover

An Analysis of Primary Care Clinician Communication About Risk, Benefits, and Goals Related to Chronic Opioid Therapy

Background. Safe opioid prescribing and effective pain care are particularly important issues in the United States, where decades of widespread opioid prescribing have contributed to high rates of opioid use disorder. Because of the importance of clinician-patient communication in effective pain care and recent initiatives to curb rising opioid overdose deaths, this study sought to understand how clinicians and patients communicate about the risks, benefits, and goals of opioid therapy during primary care visits. Methods. We recruited clinicians and patients from six primary care clinics across three health systems in the Midwest United States. We audio-recorded 30 unique patients currently receiving opioids for chronic noncancer pain from 12 clinicians. We systematically analyzed transcribed, clinic visits to identify emergent themes. Results. Twenty of the 30 patient participants were females. Several patients had multiple pain diagnoses, with the most common diagnoses being osteoarthritis (n = 10), spondylosis (n = 6), and low back pain (n = 5). We identified five themes: 1) communication about individual-level and population-level risks, 2) communication about policies or clinical guidelines related to opioids, 3) communication about the limited effectiveness of opioids for chronic pain conditions, 4) communication about nonopioid therapies for chronic pain, and 5) communication about the goal of the opioid tapering. Conclusions. Clinicians discuss opioid-related risks in varying ways during patient visits, which may differentially affect patient experiences. Our findings may inform the development and use of more standardized approaches to discussing opioids during primary care visits

Characterizing variability in state-level regulations governing opioid treatment programs

Abstract Introduction: The opioid use crisis has left nearly 1 million people in need of treatment. States have focused primarily on policies aimed at decreasing the prevalence of opioid use disorder. However, opioid treatment programs (OTPs), an evidence-based modality which can prevent and decrease opioid-related mortality and morbidity, remain highly complex with variation in treatment by state. A focus on evidence-based state-level regulation of OTPs may help improve the unmet need for treatment. This study characterized the variability in state laws that regulate OTPs and examines how this variability is associated with state characteristics. These data provides an opportunity for policymakers to consider regulations that increase access to care and retention in OTPs, which could improve population health. Materials and Methods: Utilizing legal mapping techniques, we identified all regulations governing OTPs in effect on January 1, 2017 and determined whether the most common regulations were consistent with best practices. We then examined how the number and type of regulations were associated with state characteristics. All legal mapping research was conducted between November 2017 and March 2019. Results: We identified 89 different regulations, the most common of which exists in fewer than half of all states; and most exist in less than 25% of states. Eighteen of the 30 most common regulations were inconsistent with best practice recommendations. Overall, variability in the number and type of OTP regulations was related to geographic location as opposed to state size or political leanings. Conclusions: Wide-ranging variability in the regulations of OTPs exists across the U.S. The majority of state OTP regulations are not congruent with best practices

Comparative effectiveness of dual-action versus single-action antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people living with HIV/AIDS

Background Depression is the most common psychiatric comorbidity among people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA). Little is known about the comparative effectiveness between different types of antidepressants used to treat depression in this population. We compared the effectiveness of dual-action and single-action antidepressants in PLWHA for achieving remission from depression. Methods We used data from the Centers for AIDS Research Network of Integrated Clinic Systems to identify 1175 new user dual-action or single-action antidepressant treatment episodes occurring from 2005 to 2014 for PLWHA diagnosed with depression. The primary outcome was remission from depression defined as a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) score <5. Mean difference in PHQ-9 depressive symptom severity was a secondary outcome. The main approach was an intent-to-treat (ITT) evaluation complemented with a per protocol (PP) sensitivity analysis. Generalized linear models were fitted to estimate treatment effects. Results In ITT analysis, 32% of the episodes ended in remission for both dual-action and single-action antidepressants. The odds ratio (OR) of remission was 1.02 (95%CI=0.63,1.67). In PP analysis, 40% of dual-action episodes ended in remission compared to 32% in single-action episodes. Dual-action episodes had 1.33 times the odds of remission (95%CI=0.55,3.21), however the result was not statistically significant. Non-significant differences were also observed for depressive symptom severity. Limitations Missing data was common but was addressed with inverse probability weights. Conclusions Results suggest that single-action and dual-action antidepressants are equally effective in PLWHA. Remission was uncommon highlighting the need to identify health service delivery strategies that aid HIV providers in achieving full remission of their patients’ depression