Introduction of article-processing charges for Population Health Metrics

Population Health Metrics is an open-access online electronic journal published by BioMed Central – it is universally and freely available online to everyone, its authors retain copyright, and it is archived in at least one internationally recognised free repository. To fund this, from November 1 2003, authors of articles accepted for publication will be asked to pay an article-processing charge of US$500. This editorial outlines the reasons for the introduction of article-processing charges and the way in which this policy will work. Waiver requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis, by the Editor-in-Chief. Article-processing charges will not apply to authors whose institutions are 'members' of BioMed Central. Current members include NHS England, the World Health Organization, the US National Institutes of Health, Harvard, Princeton and Yale universities, and all UK universities. No charge is made for articles that are rejected after peer review. Many funding agencies have also realized the importance of open access publishing and have specified that their grants may be used directly to pay APCs

Towards standard setting for patient-reported outcomes in the NHS homeopathic hospitals

We report findings from a pilot data collection study within a programme of quality assurance, improvement and development across all five homeopathic hospitals in the UK National Health Service (NHS).<p></p> <b>Aims</b> (1) To pilot the collection of clinical data in the homeopathic hospital outpatient setting, recording patient-reported outcome since first appointment; (2) to sample the range of medical complaints that secondary-care doctors treat using homeopathy, and thus identify the nature and complexity of complaints most frequently treated nationally; (3) to present a cross section of outcome scores by appointment number, including that for the most frequently treated medical complaints; (4) to explore approaches to standard setting for homeopathic practice outcome in patients treated at the homeopathic hospitals.<p></p> <b>Methods</b> A total of 51 medical practitioners took part in data collection over a 4-week period. Consecutive patient appointments were recorded under the headings: (1) date of first appointment in the current series; (2) appointment number; (3) age of patient; (4) sex of patient; (5) main medical complaint being treated; (6) whether other main medical complaint(s); (7) patient-reported change in health, using Outcome Related to Impact on Daily Living (ORIDL) and its derivative, the ORIDL Profile Score (ORIDL-PS; range, –4 to +4, where a score ≤−2 or ≥+2 indicates an effect on the quality of a patient's daily life); (8) receipt of other complementary medicine for their main medical complaint.<p></p> <b>Results</b> The distribution of patient age was bimodal: main peak, 49 years; secondary peak, 6 years. Male:female ratio was 1:3.5. Data were recorded on a total of 1797 individual patients: 195 first appointments, 1602 follow-ups (FUs). Size of clinical service and proportion of patients who attended more than six visits varied between hospitals. A total of 235 different medical complaints were reported. The 30 most commonly treated complaints were (in decreasing order of frequency): eczema; chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS); menopausal disorder; osteoarthritis; depression; breast cancer; rheumatoid arthritis; asthma; anxiety; irritable bowel syndrome; multiple sclerosis; psoriasis; allergy (unspecified); fibromyalgia; migraine; premenstrual syndrome; chronic rhinitis; headache; vitiligo; seasonal allergic rhinitis; chronic intractable pain; insomnia; ulcerative colitis; acne; psoriatic arthropathy; urticaria; ovarian cancer; attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); epilepsy; sinusitis. The proportion of patients with important co-morbidity was higher in those seen after visit 6 (56.9%) compared with those seen up to and including that point (40.7%; P < 0.001). The proportion of FU patients reporting ORIDL-PS ≥ +2 (improvement affecting daily living) increased overall with appointment number: 34.5% of patients at visit 2 and 59.3% of patients at visit 6, for example. Amongst the four most frequently treated complaints, the proportion of patients that reported ORIDL-PS ≥ +2 at visit numbers greater than 6 varied between 59.3% (CFS) and 73.3% (menopausal disorder).<p></p> <b>Conclusions</b> We have successfully piloted a process of national clinical data collection using patient-reported outcome in homeopathic hospital outpatients, identifying a wide range and complexity of medical complaints treated in that setting. After a series of homeopathy appointments, a high proportion of patients, often representing “effectiveness gaps” for conventional medical treatment, reported improvement in health affecting their daily living. These pilot findings are informing our developing programme of standard setting for homeopathic care in the hospital outpatient context

Restrictions impeding web-based courses: a survey of publishers' variation in authorising access to high quality on-line literature

BACKGROUND: Web-based delivery of educational programmes is becoming increasingly popular and is expected to expand, especially in medicine. The successful implementation of these programmes is reliant on their ability to provide access to web based materials, including high quality published work. Publishers' responses to requests to access health literature in the context of developing an electronic Master's degree course are described. METHODS: Two different permission requests were submitted to publishers. The first was to store an electronic version of a journal article, to which we subscribe, on a secure password protected server. The second was to reproduce extracts of published material on password protected web pages and CD Rom. RESULTS: Eight of 16 publishers were willing to grant permission to store electronic versions of articles without levying charges additional to the subscription. Twenty of 35 publishers gave permission to reproduce extracts of published work at no fee. Publishers' responses were highly variable to the requests for access to published material. This may be influenced by vague terminology within the 'fair dealing' provision in the copyright legislation, which seems to leave it open to individual interpretation. Considerable resource costs were incurred by the exercise. Time expended included those incurred by us: research to identify informed representatives within the publishing organisation, request 'chase-ups' and alternative examples being sought if publishers were uncooperative; and the publisher when dealing with numerous permission requests. Financial costs were also incurred by both parties through additional staffing and paperwork generated by the permission process, the latter including those purely borne by educators due to the necessary provision of photocopy 'course packs' when no suitably alternative material could be found if publishers were uncooperative. Finally we discuss the resultant bias in material towards readily available electronic resources as a result of publisher's uncooperative stance and encourage initiatives that aim to improve open electronic access. CONCLUSIONS: The permission request process has been expensive and has resulted in reduced access for students to the relevant literature. Variations in the responses from publishers suggest that for educational purposes common policies could be agreed and unnecessary restrictions removed in the future

Early Life Socioeconomic Circumstance and Late Life Brain Hyperintensities : A Population Based Cohort Study

Funding: Image acquisition and image analysis for this study was funded by the Alzheimer's Research Trust (now Alzheimer's Research UK). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the participants of the Aberdeen 1936 Birth Cohort (ABC36), without whom this research would not have been possible.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

“It’s hard to tell”. The challenges of scoring patients on standardised outcome measures by multidisciplinary teams: a case study of Neurorehabilitation

Background Interest is increasing in the application of standardised outcome measures in clinical practice. Measures designed for use in research may not be sufficiently precise to be used in monitoring individual patients. However, little is known about how clinicians and in particular, multidisciplinary teams, score patients using these measures. This paper explores the challenges faced by multidisciplinary teams in allocating scores on standardised outcome measures in clinical practice. Methods Qualitative case study of an inpatient neurorehabilitation team who routinely collected standardised outcome measures on their patients. Data were collected using non participant observation, fieldnotes and tape recordings of 16 multidisciplinary team meetings during which the measures were recited and scored. Eleven clinicians from a range of different professions were also interviewed. Data were analysed used grounded theory techniques. Results We identified a number of instances where scoring the patient was 'problematic'. In 'problematic' scoring, the scores were uncertain and subject to revision and adjustment. They sometimes required negotiation to agree on a shared understanding of concepts to be measured and the guidelines for scoring. Several factors gave rise to this problematic scoring. Team members' knowledge about patients' problems changed over time so that initial scores had to be revised or dismissed, creating an impression of deterioration when none had occurred. Patients had complex problems which could not easily be distinguished from each other and patients themselves varied in their ability to perform tasks over time and across different settings. Team members from different professions worked with patients in different ways and had different perspectives on patients' problems. This was particularly an issue in the scoring of concepts such as anxiety, depression, orientation, social integration and cognitive problems. Conclusion From a psychometric perspective these problems would raise questions about the validity, reliability and responsiveness of the scores. However, from a clinical perspective, such characteristics are an inherent part of clinical judgement and reasoning. It is important to highlight the challenges faced by multidisciplinary teams in scoring patients on standardised outcome measures but it would be unwarranted to conclude that such challenges imply that these measures should not be used in clinical practice for decision making about individual patients. However, our findings do raise some concerns about the use of such measures for performance management

The United States and global health: inseparable and synergistic? The Institute of Medicine's report on global health

In the wake of dynamic economic and political transitions worldwide, the Institute of Medicine recently released its report advocating investments in global health from the United States (US). The expert panel reinforces the ‘transnational and interdisciplinary’ nature of global health research and practice as an endeavor ‘to improve health and achieve greater equity for all people worldwide.’ This report was judiciously timed given the growing recognition of global health, and is also acknowledged for incorporating themes that are particularly pertinent to the twenty-first century. New paradigms are introduced, denouncing the dichotomous distinction between rich and poor countries with the rapidly transitioning countries emerging as global powers, and affirming the need for models of respectful partnership and wider translation of science into practice. Cultivating sustainable partnerships and investing in the understanding and combat of diseases worldwide will become increasingly important for the US to maintain its global competitiveness, and may offer lessons in innovation, efficiency, and organization of institutions and human resources

Representation of women's health in general medical versus women's health specialty journals: a content analysis

BACKGROUND: Women's health, traditionally defined, emphasises reproductive and maternal conditions without consideration of social contexts. Advocates urge a broader conceptualisation. The medical literature influences the definitions and delivery of women's health care. We compared how women's health was represented in leading general medical (GM) versus women's health specialty (WS) journals. METHODS: Original investigations published between January 1 – June 30, 1999 in leading GM (n = 514) and WS (n = 82) journals were compared. Data were collected from 99 GM and 82 WS articles on women's health. Independent reviewers conducted content analyses of sample characteristics, study design, and health topic. Each article was classified as "Traditional" (e.g. menstruation, breast cancer), "Non-traditional" (e.g. abuse, osteoporosis), or "Both." RESULTS: Of the GM articles, 53 (53.5%) focused solely on a traditional women's health topic; half were reproductive and half female cancers. In contrast, 22 (26.8%) WS articles were traditionally focused. A non-traditional topic was the sole focus of 27 (27.3%) GM articles versus 34 (41.5%) WS articles. One-fifth of GM and one-third of WS articles addressed both. RCTs dominated the GM articles, while 40% of WS articles used qualitative or mixed study designs. Leading sources of women's death and disability were not well covered in either type of journal. CONCLUSIONS: Most GM articles drew on a narrow definition of women's health. WS journals provided more balanced coverage, addressing social concerns in addition to "navel-to-knees" women's health. Since GM journals have wide impact, editorial decisions and peer review processes should promote a broader conceptualisation of women's health

The re-identification risk of Canadians from longitudinal demographics

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The public is less willing to allow their personal health information to be disclosed for research purposes if they do not trust researchers and how researchers manage their data. However, the public is more comfortable with their data being used for research if the risk of re-identification is low. There are few studies on the risk of re-identification of Canadians from their basic demographics, and no studies on their risk from their longitudinal data. Our objective was to estimate the risk of re-identification from the basic cross-sectional and longitudinal demographics of Canadians.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Uniqueness is a common measure of re-identification risk. Demographic data on a 25% random sample of the population of Montreal were analyzed to estimate population uniqueness on postal code, date of birth, and gender as well as their generalizations, for periods ranging from 1 year to 11 years.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Almost 98% of the population was unique on full postal code, date of birth and gender: these three variables are effectively a unique identifier for Montrealers. Uniqueness increased for longitudinal data. Considerable generalization was required to reach acceptably low uniqueness levels, especially for longitudinal data. Detailed guidelines and disclosure policies on how to ensure that the re-identification risk is low are provided.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A large percentage of Montreal residents are unique on basic demographics. For non-longitudinal data sets, the three character postal code, gender, and month/year of birth represent sufficiently low re-identification risk. Data custodians need to generalize their demographic information further for longitudinal data sets.</p