Randomized Clinical Trial Visual Abstract Display and Social Media-Driven Website Traffic.

In this study, the authors assessed whether publication of a visual abstract on social media was associated with reader engagement online.

The role of emergency physicians in the fight against health misinformation: Implications for resident training.

Emergency physicians on the frontlines of the COVID-19 pandemic are first-hand witnesses to the direct impact of health misinformation and disinformation on individual patients, communities, and public health at large. Therefore, emergency physicians naturally have a crucial role to play to steward factual information and combat health misinformation. Unfortunately, most physicians lack the communications and social media training needed to address health misinformation with patients and online, highlighting an obvious gap in emergency medicine training. We convened an expert panel of academic emergency physicians who have taught and conducted research about health misinformation at the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Annual Meeting in New Orleans, LA, on May 13, 2022. The panelists represented geographically diverse institutions including Baystate Medical Center/Tufts University, Boston Medical Center, Northwestern University, Rush Medical College, and Stanford University. In this article, we describe the scope and impact of health misinformation, introduce methods for addressing misinformation in the clinical environment and online, acknowledge the challenges of tackling misinformation from our physician colleagues, demonstrate strategies for debunking and prebunking, and highlight implications for education and training in emergency medicine. Finally, we discuss several actionable interventions that define the role of the emergency physician in the management of health misinformation.

Physician and Biomedical Scientist Harassment on Social Media During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

This survey study assesses the frequency and nature of harassment on social media experienced by physicians, biomedical scientists, and trainees during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Peer Review in a General Medical Research Journal Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Although peer review is an important component of publication for new research, the viability of this process has been questioned, particularly with the added stressors of the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To characterize rates of peer reviewer acceptance of invitations to review manuscripts, reviewer turnaround times, and editor-assessed quality of reviews before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic at a large, open-access general medical journal. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, pre-post cohort study examined all research manuscripts submitted to JAMA Network Open between January 1, 2019, and June 29, 2021, either directly or via transfer from other JAMA Network journals, for which at least 1 peer review of manuscript content was solicited. Measures were compared between the period before the World Health Organization declaration of a COVID-19 pandemic on March 11, 2020 (14.3 months), and the period during the pandemic (15.6 months) among all reviewed manuscripts and between pandemic-period manuscripts that did or did not address COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures: For each reviewed manuscript, the number of invitations sent to reviewers, proportions of reviewers accepting invitations, time in days to return reviews, and editor-assessed quality ratings of reviews were determined. Results: In total, the journal sought review for 5013 manuscripts, including 4295 Original Investigations (85.7%) and 718 Research Letters (14.3%); 1860 manuscripts were submitted during the prepandemic period and 3153 during the pandemic period. Comparing the prepandemic with the pandemic period, the mean (SD) number of reviews rated as high quality (very good or excellent) per manuscript increased slightly from 1.3 (0.7) to 1.5 (0.7) (P < .001), and the mean (SD) time for reviewers to return reviews was modestly shorter (from 15.8 [7.6] days to 14.4 [7.0] days; P < .001), a difference that persisted in linear regression models accounting for manuscript type, study design, and whether the manuscript addressed COVID-19. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the speed and editor-reported quality of peer reviews in an open-access general medical journal improved modestly during the initial year of the pandemic. Additional study will be necessary to understand how the pandemic has affected reviewer burden and fatigue.

Use of Twitter Amplifiers by Medical Professionals to Combat Misinformation During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Social media is an important tool for disseminating accurate medical information and combating misinformation (ie, the spreading of false or inaccurate information) and disinformation (ie, spreading misinformation with the intent to deceive). The prolific rise of inaccurate information during a global pandemic is a pressing public health concern. In response to this phenomenon, health professional amplifiers such as IMPACT (Illinois Medical Professional Action Collaborative Team) have been created as a coordinated response to enhance public communication and advocacy around the COVID-19 pandemic.

Emergency Medicine Influencers' Twitter Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mixed-methods Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to analyze the messages of influential emergency medicine (EM) Twitter users in the United States (US) during the early stages of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic by characterizing the themes, emotional tones, temporal viewpoints, and depth of engagement with the tweets. METHODS: We performed a retrospective mixed-methods analysis of publicly available Twitter data derived from the publicly available "Coronavirus Tweet IDs" dataset, March 3, 2020-May 1, 2020. Original tweets and modified retweets in the dataset by 50 influential EM Twitter users in the US were analyzed using linguistic software to report the emotional tone and temporal viewpoint. We qualitatively analyzed a 25% random subsample and report themes. RESULTS: There were 1315 tweets available in the dataset from 36/50 influential EM Twitter users in the US. The majority of tweets were either positive (455/1315, 34.6%) or neutral (407/1315, 31%) in tone and focused on the present (1009/1315, 76.7%). Qualitative analysis identified six distinct themes, with users most often sharing news or clinical information. CONCLUSIONS: During the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, influential EM Twitter users in the US delivered mainly positive or neutral messages, most often pertaining to news stories or information directly relating to patient care. The majority of these messages led to engagement by other users. This study underscores how EM influencers can leverage social media in public health outbreaks to bring attention to topics of importance.

Consensus Guidelines for Digital Scholarship in Academic Promotion.

INTRODUCTION: As scholarship moves into the digital sphere, applicant and promotion and tenure (P&T) committee members lack formal guidance on evaluating the impact of digital scholarly work. The P&T process requires the appraisal of individual scholarly impact in comparison to scholars across institutions and disciplines. As dissemination methods evolve in the digital era, we must adapt traditional P&T processes to include emerging forms of digital scholarship. METHODS: We conducted a blended, expert consensus procedure using a nominal group process to create a consensus document at the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors Academic Assembly on April 1, 2019. RESULTS: We discussed consensus guidelines for evaluation and promotion of digital scholarship with the intent to develop specific, evidence-supported recommendations to P&T committees and applicants. These recommendations included the following: demonstrate scholarship criteria; provide external evidence of impact; and include digital peer-review roles. As traditional scholarship continues to evolve within the digital realm, academic medicine should adapt how that scholarship is evaluated. P&T committees in academic medicine are at the epicenter for supporting this changing paradigm in scholarship. CONCLUSION: P&T committees can critically appraise the quality and impact of digital scholarship using specific, validated tools. Applicants for appointment and promotion should highlight and prepare their digital scholarship to specifically address quality, impact, breadth, and relevance. It is our goal to provide specific, timely guidance for both stakeholders to recognize the value of digital scholarship in advancing our field.

Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Emergency Medicine Journals' Editorial Boards.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We aim to characterize the prevalence of financial conflicts of interest among emergency medicine journal editorial board members. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of editorial board members of leading peer-reviewed emergency medicine journals. A list of highly cited emergency medicine journals was curated with Journal Citation Reports and Google Scholar Metrics. Financial conflicts of interest were obtained by curating the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Open Payments database for the most recently available data (2017). The outcomes of this study were prevalence of financial conflicts of interest and frequency of disclosure on each journal's Web site. RESULTS: Editorial boards of the top 5 journals were analyzed. Of the 198 unique US-based physician-editors, 60 (30.3%) had a financial conflict of interest documented as general or research-based payments. The 52 editors with general payments had a median of 2 payments (interquartile range [IQR] 1 to 8.25), with a median of $202 (IQR $69 to $7,386); the maximum general payment was $115,730 received from industry. For research payments, 26 editors (13.1%) had a median 4 payments (IQR 2 to 9), with a median of $47,095 (IQR $5,328 to $126,025) and maximum of $3,590,000 received from industry. Seven editors in one of the emergency medicine journals included in this study publicly disclosed competing interests; dollar amounts were not reported. CONCLUSION: Nearly one third of US-based editors at leading emergency medicine journals had financial conflicts of interest, although only one journal publicly disclosed the presence of payments. Public disclosure of editorial board members' financial relationships with industry may allow for more transparency related to the content published in these journals.

Systematic Online Academic Resource (SOAR) Review: Renal and Genitourinary.

BACKGROUND: Online resources for emergency medicine (EM) trainees and physicians have variable quality and inconsistent coverage of core topics. In this first entry of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Systematic Online Academic Resource (SOAR) series, we describe the application of a systematic methodology to comprehensively identify, collate, and curate online content for topic-specific modules. METHODS: A list of module topics and related terms was generated from the American Board of Emergency Medicine's Model of the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine. The authors selected "renal and genitourinary" for the first module, which contained 35 terms; all MeSH headers and colloquial synonyms related to the topic and related terms were searched both within the 100 most impactful online educational websites per the Social Media Index and the FOAMsearch.net search engine. Duplicate entries, journal articles, images, and archives were excluded. The quality of each article was rated using the revised METRIQ (rMETRIQ) score. RESULTS: The search yielded 13,058 online resources. After 12,717 items were excluded, 341 underwent quality assessment. All renal/genitourinary topics were covered by at least one resource. The median rMETRIQ score was 11 of 21 (interquartile range = 8-14). Calculus of urinary tract was most prominently featured with 60 posts. Thirty-four posts (10% of full-text screened FOAM articles) covering 12 core topics were identified as high quality (rMETRIQ ≥ 16). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated the feasibility of systematically identifying and curating FOAM resources for a specific EM topic and identified an overrepresentation of some subtopics. This curated list of resources may guide trainees, teacher recommendations, and resource producers. Further entries in the series will address other topics relevant to EM.

Primary Care Office Visits For Acute Care Dropped Sharply In 2002-15, While ED Visits Increased Modestly.

The traditional model of primary care practices as the main provider of care for acute illnesses is rapidly changing. Over the past two decades the growth in emergency department (ED) visits has spurred efforts to reduce "inappropriate" ED use. We examined a nationally representative sample of office and ED visits in the period 2002-15. We found a 12 percent increase in ED use (from 385 to 430 visits per 1,000 population), which was dwarfed by a decrease of nearly one-third in the rate of acute care visits to primary care practices (from 938 to 637 visits per 1,000 population). The decrease in primary care acute visits was also present among two vulnerable populations: Medicaid beneficiaries and adults ages sixty-five and older, either in Medicare or privately insured. As acute care delivery shifts away from primary care practices, there is a growing need for integration and coordination across an increasingly diverse spectrum of venues where patients seek care for acute illnesses.