Health open research最新文献

As the global population ages, and rates of modifiable risk factors for cancer change, cancer incidence and mortality continue to increase. While we understand many modifiable risk factors related to diet, nutrition, bodyweight, and physical activity in adulthood that influence cancer risk, how exposure during childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood impacts cancer risk is less clear. This is partly because the timeline from initial mutation to cancer development and diagnosis can span several decades. This long latency period creates methodological, ethical, and financial issues; as well as resource and feasibility challenges in the design, implementation, and data analysis of lifecourse studies. As such, the large majority of lifecourse studies are observational, often using recall data which has inherent bias issues. Concurrently, a new research era has begun, with mature birth cohort studies that are phenotyped/genotyped and can support studies on adult cancer risk. Several studies and consortia contain information spanning the lifecourse. These resources can support association, mechanistic and epigenetic investigations into the influences of multi-disciplinary (e.g. genetic, behavioural, environmental) factors, across the lifecourse and critical time periods. Ultimately, we will be able to produce high-quality evidence and identify how/when early life risk factors impact cancer development and survival.

Background: Our aim was to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the publication productivity of neurosurgeons in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland.

Methods: Using bibliometric data we quantified and analysed the academic output of neurosurgeons in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, and the Republic of Ireland, between two time periods i.e., January 2017 to December 2019 and January 2020 to March 2022, as a representative capture of the academic climate before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The consultant neurosurgeons were grouped according to their departments, title, sex, subspecialities and additional research qualifications. Using data charts on Scopus author directory, the total number of publications, citations and h-indices of each neurosurgeon were obtained over the two time periods. The median and mean of these 3 parameters were computed and the median values were analysed and tested for significance using a Mann Whitney-U test according to the groups.

Results: Our analysis conveyed a statistically significant increase (2440 publications and between January 2020 and March 2022 there were 2548 publications p<0.05) in the total number of publications after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to before. There was a statistically significant decrease in the mean number of citations (mean 55.24 vs 57.01, p<0.05), after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. This trend was observed in both sexes, in authors without an additional MD/PhD and in authors who sub-specialized in neuro-oncology. Overall, there was a significant decrease in H-index after the start of the pandemic compared to before (median h-index:1.00 and 2.00; mean h-index:1.8 and 3.4 respectively).

Conclusions: There appears to be an apparent increase in total number of publications after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, most authors have registered a reduction in citations and h-indices, suggesting a lower impact and unequal distribution of the abovementioned increase.

Background: Digital Health (DH) integrates digital technologies into healthcare to increase efficiency and improve patient experiences, benefiting both primary care and military healthcare systems. However, it raises concerns about the potential shift of healthcare responsibilities onto patients, creating workloads or treatment burdens that affect care, adherence, equity, and resource allocation. It is critical to assess this in the military context to enhance patient-centred care and outcomes.

Objective: To understand military personnel's experience of treatment burden of DH in primary care, to understand the barriers and facilitators of the use of DH, and to map barriers identified to the Burden of Treatment Theory (BOTT).

Design: A systematic literature review. MEDLINE, Psych INFO, EMBASE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Google Scholar will be searched. Two independent reviewers will screen papers using inclusion and exclusion criteria, with conflicts decided by a third reviewer. Any retrieved study that meets the inclusion and exclusion criteria will be quality appraised using the appropriate Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist. The findings will be analysed using thematic synthesis and evaluated in the context of the Burden of Treatment Theory. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol (PRISMA) guidelines have been adhered to in the production of this protocol.

Conclusions: Understanding the experience of treatment burden whilst using DH in the military has the potential to influence health policy, the commissioning of services and interventions, and most importantly, improve patient experience and health outcomes. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023494297.