Conectar
Japanese medical academia continues to depend on quantitative indicators, contrary to the general trend in research evaluation. To understand this situation better and facilitate discussion, this study aimed to examine how Japanese medical researchers perceive quantitative indicators and qualitative factors of research evaluation and their differences by the researchers’ characteristics.
We employed a web-based cross-sectional survey and distributed the self-administered questionnaire to academic society members via the Japanese Association of Medical Sciences.
We received 3139 valid responses representing Japanese medical researchers in any medical research field (basic, clinical and social medicine).
The subjective importance of quantitative indicators and qualitative factors in evaluating researchers (eg, the journal impact factor (IF) or the originality of the research topic) was assessed on a four-point scale, with 1 indicating ‘especially important’ and 4 indicating ‘not important’. The attitude towards various opinions in quantitative and qualitative research evaluation (eg, the possibility of research misconduct or susceptibility to unconscious bias) was also evaluated on a four-point scale, ranging from 1, ‘strongly agree’, to 4, ‘completely disagree’.
Notably, 67.4% of the medical researchers, particularly men, younger and basic medicine researchers, responded that the journal IF was important in researcher evaluation. Most researchers (88.8%) agreed that some important studies do not get properly evaluated in research evaluation using quantitative indicators. The respondents perceived quantitative indicators as possibly leading to misconduct, especially in basic medicine (strongly agree—basic, 22.7%; clinical, 11.7%; and social, 16.1%). According to the research fields, researchers consider different qualitative factors, such as the originality of the research topic (especially important—basic, 46.2%; social, 39.1%; and clinical, 32.0%) and the contribution to solving clinical and social problems (especially important—basic, 30.4%; clinical, 41.0%; and social, 52.0%), as important. Older researchers tended to believe that qualitative research evaluation was unaffected by unconscious bias.
Despite recommendations from the Declaration on Research Assessment and the Leiden Manifesto to de-emphasise quantitative indicators, this study found that Japanese medical researchers have actually tended to prioritise the journal IF and other quantitative indicators based on English-language publications in their research evaluation. Therefore, constantly reviewing the research evaluation methods while respecting the viewpoints of researchers from different research fields, generations and genders is crucial.
Incisional scarring is a factor of cosmetic appearance evaluated after breast reconstruction, along with the shape, position, and size of the breast. This study aimed to examine the effect of the incision scar location on patient satisfaction after breast reconstruction. Using the Japanese version of the SCAR-Q, we assessed the scar appearance, symptoms and psychosocial effects. Plastic surgeons performed assessments using the Manchester Scar Scale. The patients were divided into two groups: those with scars on the margins of the breast (MB group) and those with scars in the breast area (IB group). The results revealed that patients in the MB group reported significantly higher satisfaction with the scar appearance and psychological impact than those in the IB group. However, assessments using the Manchester Scar Scale did not reveal any significant differences between the two groups. In conclusion, this study underscores the importance of patient-reported outcomes in the evaluation of scar satisfaction after breast reconstruction. Patients tend to prefer and have higher satisfaction with scars along the breast margin, which offers valuable insights into surgical decisions. Further studies with larger and more diverse sample sizes are required for validation.
To clarify the reasons for consultation, advice sought by frontline physicians and relationship between the patient’s pathology and the type of advice provided to guide the future development of telecritical care services.
Secondary analysis of transcripts of telephone calls originally recorded for quality control purposes was conducted using a thematic content analysis. The calls were conducted between December 2019 and April 2021 (total cases: 70; total time: ~15 hour).
Intensivists provided consultation services to frontline physicians at secondary care institutions in the Kansai and Chubu regions.
Non-intensive care frontline physicians working in five secondary care institutions in the Kansai and Chubu regions and intensivists providing a consultation service (n=26).
Not applicable.
The main outcome was the themes emerging from the language used during telephone and video consultations, indicating the gap filled by the telecritical care service.
We analysed 70 cases and approximately 15 hours of anonymised audio data. We identified the following reasons for consultation: ‘lack of competence in treatment and diagnostic testing’ and ‘lack of access to consultation in their own hospital’. Frontline physicians most often sought advice related to ‘treatment’, followed by ‘patient triage and transfer’, ‘diagnosis’ and ‘diagnostic testing and evaluation’. Regarding the relationship between the patient’s pathology and type of advice provided, the most commonly sought advice by frontline physicians varied based on the patient’s pathology.
This study explored the characteristics of 70 telecritical sessions and identified the reasons for and nature of the consultations. These findings can be used to guide the future provision and scale up of telecritical services.
FreshRSS 