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。     

Accountability in reminder-based adherence interventions: A review

ObjectiveInterventions to elicit accountability capitalize on social behaviors to improve adherence but are distinct from reminders. However, little is known about the impact of accountability in reminder-based adherence interventions. Through a literature review, we aim to identify the frequency and effectiveness of accountability in reminder-based intervention studies.MethodsPubMed and PsycArticles were searched for reminder-based adherence studies. Articles were categorized as reminder-only or reminder with accountability studies. Studies were characterized by outcome measures, and differences between control and intervention groups were compared for studies that used electronic monitoring devices.Results165 studies met the inclusion criteria; 154 used reminders without accountability (93%). 79 of the 154 reminder-only studies (51%) improved adherence in intervention groups compared to controls. Eleven of the 165 studies (6.6%) included an accountability aspect. The intervention group had better adherence than controls in 10 out of the 11 reminder with accountability studies (91%).ConclusionsAlthough distinct from reminders, accountability can be incorporated in reminder-based interventions. However, it is not commonly included in reminder-based interventions.Practice implicationsIt is important to consider accountability’s effects on encouraging patient medication adherence. The addition of accountability interventions may further boost adherence, but few studies currently incorporate these types of interventions.     

Development and validation of standardized severity rating scale to assess the consistency of drug-drug interaction severity among various drug information resources

BackgroundThe consistency in reporting the severity of drug interactions across the drug information resources is important in guiding the appropriate clinical use of drug-pairs, to minimize the associated adverse events. This necessitates the need of a standardized severity rating scale, that can accommodate the different severity ratings of the same interacting drug-pair into a reasonable severity category, that can ease the consistency assessment among different drug information resources.ObjectiveTo develop and validate a standardized severity rating scale that can ease the consistency assessment among the various drug information resources.MethodsThe definitions of various severity rating categories as documented in the eight drug information resources was consolidated to develop a standardized severity rating scale. Thus developed rating scale was validated using twenty commonly used drug-pairs. Fleiss' kappa score was used as an indicator for assessing overall consistency among various drug information resources, whereas, Cohen's kappa was used as an indicator of level of consistency between two drug information resources and between individual drug information resource and newly developed standardized severity rating scale.ResultsThe newly developed standardized severity rating scale classifies the severity of drug-drug interactions into three categories namely mild, moderate and major. The Fleiss' kappa score was improved from 0.047 to 0.176, indicating improved strength of agreement [Average pairwise agreement: 16% Vs 36.7%] among various drug information resources. The average pairwise Cohen's kappa was 0.082 [Strength of agreement: poor] in original severity ratings whereas it was improved to 0.198 [Strength of agreement: almost equal to fair] in standardized severity rating scale.ConclusionThe newly developed standardized severity rating scale can be used as a tool to assess the consistency of severity rating categories among the various drug information resources.     

Redefining shared decision-making in the digital era

Perioperative shared decision-making can be improved through the development of novel patient-centered outcome measures made possible by digital phenotyping—“the moment-by-moment quantification of individual-level human phenotype in situ using data from personal digital devices, in particular smartphones.” This Short Report presents data from a patient with breast cancer that illustrates the opportunities of digital phenotyping to better inform patient quality of life while also discussing the challenges to its adoption. With time, effort, and physician engagement, digital phenotyping can help surgeons better understand the patient experience in the postoperative period and in turn, help them provide care that maximizes patient quality of life.