基于合作对象探讨我国学术期刊专题/专栏建设

【目的】 了解学术期刊专题/专栏建设的现状,以切实发挥学术期刊专题/专栏建设的作用,为期刊的品牌建设、学术创新、影响力提升和办刊质量提高提供策略。【方法】 采用问卷调查法,对全国范围内397名专题/专栏合作对象(包括期刊主编、编委、审稿人、作者)进行调查,了解他们对期刊专题/专栏建设的态度和意见,从合作对象视角探讨影响学术期刊专题/专栏建设成功率和有效性的因素。【结果】 合作对象态度上,表示支持专题/专栏建设工作的比例较高(71.28%),但供稿率不高(43.37%),存在态度和行为分离的现象。排名前5的供稿率影响因素是期刊被本专业领域研究者认可、期刊被数据库收录情况、期刊影响力、期刊品牌、期刊的处理速度。最优的约稿方式是行业内的学术带头人联系约稿,其次是熟识的专家委托和期刊主编亲自联系进行约稿。合作对象最希望获得的帮助是稿件快速审理发表和确定选题方向。【结论】 为提高学术期刊专题/专栏建设质量,应进一步挖掘重要合作对象的作用,有针对性地选择高供稿率的合作对象;努力挖掘和利用影响合作对象供稿的因素,在期刊品牌建设、扩大影响力方面下功夫;优化约稿方式方法,重视行业学术带头人的作用;同时通过稿件快速审理发表、帮助确定选题并提供发表后推广等服务,提高合作对象对专题/专栏建设工作的认可度和参与度。     

上海市社区药学服务需求现状

背景 随着患者就诊下沉明显，联合家庭医生团队开展社区药学服务日益重要，但如何发挥家庭医生团队作用以满足患者社区药学服务需求仍有待进一步探索。 目的 了解上海市社区药学服务需求现状，为改进社区药学人员参与家庭医生团队开展服务的方式提供参考建议。 方法 于2020年9—12月，采用多阶段抽样法抽取349例老年慢性病患者和855例家庭医生团队主要成员〔全科医生（n=481）、护士（n=234）、公共卫生医生（n=140）〕进行问卷调查。针对老年慢性病患者的调查问卷主要内容包括基本情况、患病情况、用药情况、社区药学服务需求情况和社区药学服务利用情况。针对家庭医生团队成员的调查问卷主要内容包括基本情况、社区药学服务认知情况和社区药学服务需求情况。 结果 349例老年慢性病患者中，125例（35.8%）同时患有≥3种慢性病，305例（87.4%）每日需多次用药。用药管理类药学服务方面，"用药重整及随访"需求人数最多，为52例（14.9%），"用药随访"利用人数最多，为49例（14.0%）。用药教育类药学服务方面，"慢性病用药特殊性的普及教育"需求人数最多，为247例（70.8%），"宣传健康生活方式"利用人数最多，为33例（9.4%）。家庭医生团队成员中，全科医生、护士、公共卫生医生对药学服务的了解程度方面，分别有440例（91.5%）、202例（86.3%）、112例（80.0%）表示了解；对药师的信任程度方面，分别有302例（62.8%）、183例（78.2%）、103例（73.6%）表示非常信任；"协同医师做好药物使用遴选"服务项目的需求人数分别有359例（74.6%）、112例（47.9%）、81例（57.8%）；"指导护士使用与管理药品"服务项目的需求人数分别有190例（39.5%）、153例（65.4%）、57例（40.7%）。 结论 一方面患者实际迫切需要用药管理类药学服务，另一方面患者的用药教育类药学服务需求远未得到满足。鉴于社区药学人员队伍薄弱及家庭医生团队对社区药学服务认知局限的现状，社区药学人员应通过培训团队成员，提升团队的社区药学服务认知水平及服务能力，借助团队力量及成员特性，更广泛高效地开展社区药学服务。     

俄罗斯学术期刊的发展现状与思考

【目的】 分析俄罗斯学术期刊的发展状况,归纳中俄学术期刊交流合作中存在的障碍,提出进一步推动两国学术期刊合作的措施和建议,为我国期刊界和相关管理部门提供借鉴。【方法】 采用文献调研法与网络调查法,从出版情况、传播体系、作者群体、相关法律、国际化进程等方面对俄罗斯学术期刊的发展状况进行调查,在此基础上分析中俄学术期刊交流合作存在的障碍。【结果】 中俄学术期刊交流存在着政策障碍、语言障碍、获取性障碍、写作障碍和投稿障碍。【结论】 两国相关部门有必要组织制定学术共同体统一评价体系,打造品牌化学术期刊交流平台。我国期刊应组建专业化编委团队,探索多元化交流方式。     

Quality indicators for breast cancer care: A systematic review

ObjectivesWe evaluated breast cancer (BC) care quality indicators (QIs) in clinical pathways and integrated health care processes.MethodsFollowing protocol registration (Prospero n^o: CRD42021228867), relevant documents were identified, without language restrictions, through a systematic search of bibliographic databases (EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE), health care valuable representatives and the World Wide Web in April 2021. Data concerning QIs, measurement tools and compliance standards were extracted from European and North American sources in duplicate with 98% reviewer agreement.ResultsThere were 89 QIs found from 22 selected documents (QI per document mean 13.5 with standard deviation 11.9). The Belgian (38 QIs) and the EUSOMA (European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists) (34 QIs) documents were the ones that best reported the QIs. No identical QI was identified in all the documents analysed. There were 67/89 QIs covering processes (75.3%) and 11/89 (12.4%) for each structure and outcomes QIs. There were 21/89 QIs for diagnosis (30.3%), 43/89 for treatment (48.3%), and 19/89 for staging, counselling, follow-up and rehabilitation (21.4%). Of 67 process QIs and 11 outcome QIs, 20/78 (26%) did not report a minimum standard of care. Shared decision making was only included as a QI in the Italian document.ConclusionMore than half of countries have not established a national clinical pathway or integrated breast cancer care process to achieve the excellence of BC care. There was heterogeneity in QIs for the evaluation of BC care quality. Over two-thirds of the clinical pathways and integrated health care processes did not provide a minimum auditable standard of care for compliance, leaving open the definition of best practice. There is a need for harmonisation of BC care QIs.     

高校科技期刊的业务流程再造实践——以《中国有色金属学报》为例

【目的】 在媒体融合的背景下,探索高校科技期刊获得良性、可持续发展的业务流程再造方案。【方法】 通过问卷调查法和深度访谈法,对《中国有色金属学报》学术用户的实际需求进行诊断分析,并依据《中国有色金属学报》一年内的业务流程再造实践,总结和设计普适性较强的高校科技期刊业务流程再造方案。【结果】 《中国有色金属学报》在学术用户群体服务与管理、学术资源挖掘和利用、缩短出版周期和媒体融合等方面进行业务流程再造并取得了显著成效。【结论】 高校科技期刊要想谋求新的发展和突破,必须基于用户日益增长的学术需求进行业务拓展,同时基于技术和机制,与时俱进地进行业务流程再造。     

China special issue on gastrointestinal tumors-Improved survival after multidisciplinary team decision for patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer: A multicenter,noninterventional, controlled study

Formal multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions in clinical practice require time and space but have unclear survival benefits for advanced gastrointestinal cancer patients. Our study aimed to investigate the long-term survival of patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer after MDT decision. From June 2017 to June 2019, continuous MDT discussions on advanced gastrointestinal cancer were conducted in 13 medical centers in China. MDT decisions and actual treatment received by patients were prospectively recorded. The primary endpoint was the difference in overall survival (OS) between patients in the MDT decision implementation and nonimplementation groups. The secondary endpoints included the implementation rate of MDT decisions and subgroup survival analysis. A total of 461 MDT decisions of 455 patients were included in our study. The implementation rate of MDT decisions was 85.7%. Previous treatment had an impact on MDT decision-making. The OS was 24.0 months and 17.0 months in the implementation and nonimplementation groups, respectively. The implementation of MDT decisions significantly reduced the risk of death in multivariate analyses (hazard ratio = 0.518; 95% confidence interval: 0.304-0.884, P = .016). Subgroup analysis showed a significant difference in survival of patients with colorectal cancer, but not in survival of patients with gastric cancer. The rate of secondary MDT discussion was only 5.6% among patients who the MDT decisions were discontinued due to changes in their condition. MDT discussion can prolong the OS of patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer, especially those with colorectal cancer. Timely scheduling of the subsequent MDT discussion is necessary when the disease condition changes.     

National criteria for academic appointment in vascular surgery

ObjectiveAdvancement in academic medicine is multifactorial. Our objectives were to characterize academic appointments in vascular surgery and to investigate what factors, particularly publications, influenced academic appointment.MethodsAcademic vascular surgeons at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education vascular training programs or at primary sites of U.S. allopathic medical schools were included. Those with qualified titles, such as “adjunct” or a “clinical” prefix, were excluded. Sex, education, region, board certification, and affiliation details were recorded. Web of Science was queried for publication details and h-index. The h-index is a “personal impact factor” defined as “x” number of publications cited at least “x” number of times. After surgeons' information was deidentified, univariate and multivariable analyses were completed for academic appointment and appointment as division chief.ResultsThere were 642 vascular surgeons who met criteria: 297 (46.3%) assistant professors, 150 (23.4%) associate professors, and 195 (30.4%) professors. There were 96 (15%) division chiefs and 10 (1.6%) chairs of surgery, and 83.2% were male. Surgeons worked in the Northeast (33.5%), Southern (32.6%), Central (20.1%), and Western (13.9%) United States. The mean (±standard deviation) number of publications was 13.7 ± 15.4 for assistant professors, 33.9 ± 28.8 for associate professors, and 86.8 ± 63.6 for professors (P < .001). Mean number of first or last author publications was 5.3 ± 6.4 for assistant professors, 12.2 ± 12.7 for associate professors, and 38.7 ± 35.3 for professors (P < .001). Mean h-index was 5.9 ± 5.4 for assistant professors, 12 ± 7.7 for associate professors, and 24.9 ± 12.6 for professors (P < .001). In multivariable analysis, vascular surgery board certification (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 6.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-32.2; P = .03), academic appointment at a public medical school (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.18-3.37; P = .01), years since medical school graduation (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.09-1.18; P < .001, per year), and number of publications (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.03-1.06; P < .001, per publication) were independently associated with associate professor. Factors independently associated with professor were years since medical school graduation (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.12-1.24; P < .001, per year) and number of first or last author publications (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.09; P = .003, per publication). Appointment as division chief was independently associated with h-index (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08; P = .016, per point).ConclusionsTotal number of publications was independently associated with associate professor, with number of first or last author publications particularly important for professor. The h-index was not independently associated with academic appointment, but it was for appointment as division chief. This study provides relevant data for promotional guidance in academic vascular surgery.