RESUMEN
Introduction As of 2008, the United States had 41,000 people living with upper extremity amputation. This number is projected to reach 300,000 by 2050. Human upper extremity transplantation (HUET) may become a more common treatment option with the potential to significantly improve the quality of life for certain amputees. Awareness and opinions regarding HUET among Americans, particularly in Veterans/Service Members (VSM) affiliates, are largely unknown. Materials and methods We administered a survey on Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) workers. Eligible participants were US citizens aged ≥18 years; MTurk worker selection targeted workers who self-reported being a VSM. We used descriptive statistics to summarize study findings and Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon's rank-sum tests for between-group comparisons. Results The survey was completed by 764 individuals, 604 (79.1%) of whom reported being aware of HUET. Among those familiar versus unfamiliar, a significantly higher proportion were aged ≤35 years (n=385, 64.0% vs. n=86, 53.7%; p=0.017), employed (n=523, 86.6% vs. n=114, 71.3%; p<0.001), and aware of their religion's stance on organ/tissue donation (n=341, 54.5% vs. n=62, 38.8%; p<0.001). Amputees and/or respondents related to an amputee were more likely to be aware of HUET than individuals who were amputation naive (n=211, 90.6% vs. n=393, 74.0%, respectively; p<0.001), as were individuals with a personal or familial military affiliation (n=286, 85.4% with vs. n=318, 74.1% with no affiliation; p<0.001). The most reported HUET information sources were digital media (n=157, 31.2%) and internet (n=137, 27.2%). Conclusions Our survey of MTurk workers found greater awareness of HUET among individuals with a VSM or amputee connection. Our additional findings that the internet and academic sources, such as journals or reputable medical publications, were respondents' preferred sources of HUET information emphasize the importance of vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) centers' involvement in creating accurate and accessible content to help educate the public about this treatment.
RESUMEN
Introduction To date, upper extremity transplantation (UET) is the most frequently performed vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA). Perceptions regarding upper extremity donation among Americans, particularly in veterans and service members (VSMs), are largely unknown. Materials and methods We administered a one-time survey to United States (US)-resident Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) workers aged ≥18 years. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize study data; frequencies and percentages were calculated for categorical variables analyzed by Fischer's exact test and using a two-tailed test assessing the statistical significance of p<0.05. Results A total of 860 respondents completed the study survey. Among these, 529 (61.5%) reported willingness to donate an upper extremity, 152 (17.7%) were undecided, and 179 (20.8%) were unwilling. A significantly higher proportion of those willing to donate were female (66.7%, p=0.009), non-Hispanic (63.9%, p=0.000), White (64.0%, p=0.004), non-religious (71.3%, p=0.001), not a VSM (62.8%, p=0.000), or non-amputees (62.9%, p=0.000). Conclusions Our survey found that being female, non-Hispanic, White, non-religious, non-VSM, or non-amputee was significantly associated with donation willingness. These findings may help guide VCA programs, organ procurement organizations, and researchers in efforts to develop targeted educational materials to broaden the public's knowledge and awareness of VCA donation to further benefit all patients in need of or desiring transplantation.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the geospatial distribution of cleft lip and/or cleft palate (CL/P) care in the United States, assesses disparities between families with and without one-hour proximity to CL/P care, and recommends interventions for improving access. DESIGN: We identified American Cleft Palate Craniofacial Association-approved CL/P teams and calculated a one-hour driving radius around each clinic. We then used census data to compare risk factors for developing cleft (i.e., incidence risk factors) and obstacles to care (i.e., access risk factors) between counties with and without one-hour proximity. RESULTS: We identified 187 CL/P teams in 45 states. Most were in the South (n = 60, 32.0%), though children in the Middle Atlantic had the greatest access to care. Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky had the least access. Children without access were 39% more likely to have gestational tobacco exposure, 8% more likely to have gestational obesity exposure, and 28% less likely to have health insurance (p < 0.01). Children without access in the South were 29% more likely to have a low birth weight and 46% more likely to be living below the poverty line (p < 0.01). Children with access were twice as likely to live in immigrant families and 7-times more likely to speak English as a second language. CONCLUSIONS: Pronounced disparities affect patients with and without one-hour access to CL/P care. Interventions should address care costs for patients living furthest without access and language barriers for patients with access that speak English as a second language.
RESUMEN
Purpose: Our goals were to characterize associations of author number, author gender, and institutional affiliation on ratings and acceptances of abstracts submitted to one surgical education conference over 5 years. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all abstracts submitted between 2017 and 2021 to the annual meeting of the Association for Surgical Education (ASE). Abstract data included average rater scores, acceptance status, author lists, and institutional affiliations. We cross-referenced last author affiliation with top-40 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded institutions and used a gender determination software to code first and last author genders. Results: We analyzed 1,162 abstracts. Higher reviewer scores demonstrated positive, weak associations with more authors [r(1160) = 0.191, p < 0.001] and institutions [r(1160) = 0.182, p < 0.001]. Significantly higher scores were noted for abstracts with last authors affiliated with top-40 NIH-funded institutions [4.18 (SD 0.96) vs. 3.72 (SD 1.12), p < 0.001]. Women were first authors (51.8%) (n = 602) and last authors (35.4%) (n = 411) of the time. Abstracts were rated significantly higher with women rather than men as first authors [3.98 (SD 0.99) vs. 3.82 (SD 1.12), p = 0.011] or last [4.01 (SD 1.04) vs. 3.82 (SD 1.10), p = 0.005]. Across all years, abstracts were accepted more often as podium or plenary presentations when submitted by women first [n = 279, 59.7% (p = 0.002)] or last [n = 183, 38.4% (p = 0.095)] authors. Conclusion: Abstracts whose last authors were affiliated with top-40 NIH-funded institutions received significantly higher scores, possibly indicating increased tangible or intangible resources contributing to research efforts. Abstracts with women first and last authors scored higher and were more frequently invited for plenary and podium presentations.
