The 2016 U.S. Trust ® Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy

The 2016 U.S. Trust® Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy reveals consistent trends in the giving and volunteering behaviors of high net worth individuals and households from previous years, as well as departures from past trends. Most (91.0 percent) high net worth households gave to charity in 2015, and nearly half (49.7 percent) of high net worth individuals volunteered their time. On average, high net worth households gave $25,509 to charity in 2015. By comparison, households in the general population gave$2,124 in 2015

What WorX: Measuring the impact of faith-based service and social justice programs on Catholic youth

The Center for FaithJustice (CFJ) offers innovative programs that engage youth in faith, service, and social justice. With the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at IUPUI, they developed a survey to evaluate their programs and measure their longitudinal impact on alumni in those three focus areas. This report will offer related insights on youth engagement and suggest how CFJ’s programs relate to larger trends of youth disaffiliation within the Catholic Church. This study examines survey results from alumni and parents of alumni of CFJ’s youth programs, which are collectively called the “WorX” programs. These include curricula for middle school students (ServiceworX), high school students (JusticeworX, New Jersey Service Project/NJSP, MercyworX, and CommunityworX), young adults (LeaderworX), and adults (FaithJustice Fellows and adult volunteers). The results of this study focused on CFJ’s three core areas of interest: faith, service, and social justice

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe

Growth of mobile applications in dermatology - 2017 update

Background: More than 80% of households in the US have a smartphone. Growth of mobile applications (apps) has grown in parallel with access to smartphones. Mobile health apps are used in medical fields, including dermatology. These apps allow patients to access information regarding dermatology conditions as well as access physicians via teledermatology.Purpose: To analyze changes in number of dermatology mobile apps since 2014 and discuss benefits and drawbacks of mobile application growth to dermatology.Methods: Apple, Android, and Windows were queried for dermatology-related apps. The apps were categorized by purpose and compared to previously published data to assess growth and change in dermatology apps.Results: A total of 526 dermatology mobile apps were found corresponding to an 80.8% growth in dermatology apps since 2014. The market share of teledermatology increased from 11.0% in 2014 to 20.1% in 2017.Conclusions: Dermatology apps continue to grow at a comparable pace to general app growth. Teledermatology apps experienced significant growth from 2014 to 2017. This growth has allowed time-efficient and cost-effective access to dermatologists, especially in rural areas. The growth of dermatology apps targeting patients allows for patient autonomy but also can result in access to inaccurate information regarding dermatology conditions

Industry payments to dermatologists: updates from the 2016 open payment data

Payments made to dermatologists by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturing companies have become better understood following the advent of the Open Payments program. The purpose of this study was to analyze payments made to dermatologists in 2016 and evaluate trends in the payments from the previously published 2014 data

Editorial boards of dermatology journals and their potential financial conflict of interest

Background: Financial relationships between editorial board members of peer-reviewed journals and pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturing companies can potentially lead to biases and loss of objectivity of the medical literature. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential financial conflicts of interest that exist among editorial board members of dermatology journals.Methods: Editorial board members for 36 dermatology journals were identified and searched using the Open Payments database on the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. The total amount of general payments made to these physician editors were collected and stratified using a tier system: 1) nothing reported, 2) &gt;0 and <10,000, 3) &gt;10,000 and <100,000, and 4) &gt;$100,000.Results: We identified 551 editors from 36 dermatology journals for use in our analysis. Some form of general payment was made to 87$100,000.Conclusions: Financial relationships exist between editorial board members of dermatology journals and pharmaceutical/medical device manufacturing companies, which could lead to financial conflicts of interest. Publications coming from journals with highly paid physician editors have more potential to be biased

Editorial boards of dermatology journals and their potential financial conflict of interest

Background: Financial relationships between editorial board members of peer-reviewed journals and pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturing companies can potentially lead to biases and loss of objectivity of the medical literature. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential financial conflicts of interest that exist among editorial board members of dermatology journals.Methods: Editorial board members for 36 dermatology journals were identified and searched using the Open Payments database on the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. The total amount of general payments made to these physician editors were collected and stratified using a tier system: 1) nothing reported, 2) &gt;0 and <10,000, 3) &gt;10,000 and <100,000, and 4) &gt;$100,000.Results: We identified 551 editors from 36 dermatology journals for use in our analysis. Some form of general payment was made to 87$100,000.Conclusions: Financial relationships exist between editorial board members of dermatology journals and pharmaceutical/medical device manufacturing companies, which could lead to financial conflicts of interest. Publications coming from journals with highly paid physician editors have more potential to be biased