Diversity, social justice, and intersectionality trends in C/MFT: a content analysis of three family therapy journals, 2004-2011.

In this study, we analyzed the amount of attention given to diversity, social justice, and an intersectional approach to social inequalities over an 8-year period (769 articles) in three family therapy journals. Overall, 28.1% of articles addressed at least one diversity issue, and a social justice framework was utilized in 48.1% of diversity articles. A systemic, intersectional approach to conceptualizing and analyzing multiple social inequalities was utilized in 17.6% of diversity articles. The most common goals addressed in diversity articles, articles using a social justice framework, and articles using an intersectional approach are also identified. Findings indicate that, despite important work being carried out, more work remains to further identify how addressing diversity issues can improve client outcomes.

Our ASHRM journey continues: ERM for our patients' safety.

First and foremost, as your 2013 ASHRM president, I'd like to thank you for all of the significant accomplishments you've helped ASHRM attain this year. And I'll be forever grateful for your support and making my personal and professional dream come true-to serve as your president. Advocating on behalf of all healthcare risk managers and furthering the quest of Getting to Zero for our patients' safety through Enterprise Risk Management, or ERM, has been an honor, because everyone is a risk manager!

Financial, nonfinancial and editors' conflicts of interest in high-impact biomedical journals.

PURPOSE: To assess financial, nonfinancial and editors' conflicts of interest (COI) disclosure policies among the most influential biomedical journals publishing original research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 399 high-impact biomedical journals in 27 biomedical categories of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) in December 2011. Information relevant to COI and requirements for disclosures that was publicly available on journal websites was collected. RESULTS: While financial COI disclosures were required by 358 (89.7%) and nonfinancial by 280 (70.2%) journals, 155 (38.8%) required editors' disclosures. Journals in the first decile of the JCR classification scored significantly higher than those in the second decile for all disclosure policies. Ninety (22.6%) journals were published by Elsevier and 59 (14.8%) by Wiley-Blackwell, with Elsevier scoring significantly better in financial disclosure policies (P = 0.022). Clinical journals scored significantly higher than basic journals for all disclosure policies. No differences were observed between open-access (n = 25) and nonopen-access (n = 374) journals for any type of disclosure. Somewhat incoherently, authors' disclosure statements were included in some published manuscript in 57.1% of journals without any COI disclosure policies. CONCLUSIONS: Authors' financial COI disclosures were required by about 90% of high-impact clinical and basic journals publishing original research. Unlike recent studies showing a significantly lower prevalence of nonfinancial compared with financial disclosures, the former were required by about 70% of journals, suggesting that editors are increasingly concerned about nonfinancial competing interests. Only 40% of journals required disclosure of editors' COI, in conflict with the recommendations of the most influential editors' associations.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)--explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting because substantial information must be conveyed to allow scrutiny of study findings. Despite a growth in published reports, existing reporting guidelines are not widely adopted. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user-friendly manner. A checklist is one way to help authors, editors, and peer reviewers use guidelines to improve reporting. OBJECTIVE: The task force's overall goal was to provide recommendations to optimize the reporting of health economic evaluations. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines into one current, useful reporting guidance. The CHEERS Elaboration and Explanation Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force facilitates the use of the CHEERS statement by providing examples and explanations for each recommendation. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. METHODS: The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. Previously published checklists or guidance documents related to reporting economic evaluations were identified from a systematic review and subsequent survey of task force members. A list of possible items from these efforts was created. A two-round, modified Delphi Panel with representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, and government, as well as the editorial community, was used to identify a minimum set of items important for reporting from the larger list. RESULTS: Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed, with some specific recommendations for single study-based and model-based economic evaluations. The final recommendations are subdivided into six main categories: 1) title and abstract, 2) introduction, 3) methods, 4) results, 5) discussion, and 6) other. The recommendations are contained in the CHEERS statement, a user-friendly 24-item checklist. The task force report provides explanation and elaboration, as well as an example for each recommendation. The ISPOR CHEERS statement is available online via Value in Health or the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices - CHEERS Task Force webpage (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). CONCLUSIONS: We hope that the ISPOR CHEERS statement and the accompanying task force report guidance will lead to more consistent and transparent reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate wider dissemination and uptake of this guidance, we are copublishing the CHEERS statement across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups to consider endorsing the CHEERS statement. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in 5 years.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website: (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.

Medicine, the media and political interests.

The news media is frequently criticised for failing to support the goals of government health campaigns. But is this necessarily the purpose of the media? We suggest that while the media has an important role in disseminating health messages, it is a mistake to assume that the media should serve the interests of government as it has its own professional ethics, norms, values, structures and roles that extend well beyond the interests of the health sector, and certainly beyond those of the government. While considerable attention has been given to the ways in which uncritical publication of industry perspectives by news media can negatively impact on public understandings of health and health behaviours, we would argue that it is equally important that journalists not become the 'lapdogs' of government interests. Further, we suggest that the interests of public health may be served more by supporting the ongoing existence of an independent media than by seeking to overdetermine its purpose or scope.

[When simple meets false: challenges to science journalism]. / Nach einfach kommt falsch: Herausforderungen im Wissenschaftsjournalismus.

Science journalists working for public media are caught between the two poles of factual correctness ("Thou shalt not harm") and entertaining presentation ("Thou shalt not bore"). Writing about (in most cases) complex topics they need to stand their ground against the mass media, the consumption of which is--in contrast to science and technology media--inherently voluntary. Within the general framework of the mass media, science journalism has emerged from a "late department" to become an important, but by no means leading part of the press arena. The trend is moving away from interpreting towards critically accompanying science. Due to the strong support to high-quality science journalism that major foundations provided during the past thirty years, the numbers of better trained scientific journalists operating in Germany have considerably increased, but so have the requirements: higher levels of work stress and a higher demand for real-time information, particularly from online media, the risk of economic and other organisations taking control over information by intensifying their public relations campaigns.

Testing the effect of framing and sourcing in health news stories.

This study examines whether changing the way news stories report on health can induce shifts in readers' perceptions of problems of obesity, diabetes, immigrant health, and smoking. The authors manipulated two variables in a controlled experiment: the quality of sourcing-the number of sources and their expertise-and the framing-changing from an episodic, traditional frame to a thematic frame that incorporated information on context, risk factors, prevention strategies, and social attributions of responsibility. The authors found that a thematic frame made readers more supportive of public policy changes and encouraged them to improve their own health behaviors. However, it did not alter their attributions of responsibility for health problems from one of blaming individuals to seeing the larger social factors. Adding richer sourcing to the thematic frame did not increase these effects, nor did readers find the thematic stories to be more interesting, relevant, believable, important, and informative. In addition, there were differential results because of story topics that represent uncontrolled effects. The implications for improving health reporting to encourage positive change in society are discussed.

Significance of authorship position: an open-ended international assessment.

INTRODUCTION: The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) does not recommend guidelines on authorship position, despite its important role in academic promotion. To identify perceptions of authorship position, the authors performed the first study of authorship position using only open-ended questioning. METHODS: Articles with at least 3 authors were selected from the top 10 cited and 20 other medical journals. The first, last, and 1 author in-between were selected and asked to identify contributions of first and last authors listed in medical journal articles. The responses were analyzed for differences between perceptions of first versus last authorship. RESULTS: Respondents were more likely to report ICMJE criteria being fulfilled by first authors; however, only 1.1% identified all 3 ICMJE conditions of authorship for either author. ICMJE criteria were no more likely identified by authors of high-impact versus low-impact journals. Significant differences existed between the understandings of appropriate roles for first- versus last-listed authors. First-listed authors were viewed at least 7 times more likely to be involved in study conduct, manuscript writing, have a major study contribution and perform the majority of the work involved. Last-listed authors were at least 7 times more likely to be viewed as having a minor or no contribution to the study, provide funding, be a laboratory head/mentor, hold a senior position and supervise/oversee the study. CONCLUSIONS: ICMJE authorship criteria were poorly identified by respondents in this open-ended, international sampling of medical journal authors. Although ICMJE criteria are ideally met by all authors, this does not seem to be well understood or accepted.