Empowering Patients Through Digital Health Literacy and Access to Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) in the Developing World.

This editorial discusses the transformative potential of digital health literacy and the critical role of electronic medical records (EMRs) in promoting patient empowerment in the healthcare landscape of developing countries. It examines the impact of digital media in healthcare, noting its ability to both democratize access to information and services and pose risks of misinformation among populations with limited health literacy. The discussion includes an overview of key literacy components critical for effectively navigating the digital healthcare ecosystem. Our article highlights the critical role of EMR in facilitating a patient-centered care (PCC) model, with a special emphasis on making EMR systems accessible and user-friendly for vulnerable groups in developing countries. The core aim of our study is twofold: First, it sheds light on the significant challenges - be they technical, financial, or infrastructural - that obstruct the adoption of sophisticated EMR systems in these areas. Second, it explores the essential aspect of digital health literacy, advocating for its improvement as a vital step toward enabling patients to effectively engage with their medical records. By addressing these key issues, our study seeks to illustrate how enhancing digital health literacy, alongside increasing the accessibility of EMR systems, can empower patients in the developing world to actively participate in their healthcare processes. This dual focus aims to contribute to the broader discourse on improving healthcare outcomes through more inclusive and patient-centered approaches, particularly in settings that are currently underserved by modern healthcare technologies. In conclusion, the editorial advocates for a concerted effort toward creating a more inclusive and empowered healthcare paradigm. It suggests integrating PCC principles, tailoring EMR systems to diverse needs, and enhancing digital health literacy as strategies to harness digital health innovations for better healthcare outcomes and equity. It emphasizes the importance of ongoing investment in education, technology, and policy to fully leverage digital health solutions in the developing world.

Gender Disparity in Leading Authorship of Critical Care Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

In critical care medicine, research trials serve as crucial avenues for disseminating knowledge, influencing clinical practices, and fostering innovation. Notably, a significant gender imbalance exists within this field, potentially mirrored in the authorship of critical care research. This study aimed to investigate an exploration to ascertain the presence and extent of female representation in first and senior authorship roles within critical care literature. To this end, a systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases for original articles published up to February 2024, coupled with a methodological quality assessment via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and statistical analyses through Review Manager software (RevMan, version 5.4.1, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020). The study's findings, distilled from seven studies included in the final analysis, reveal a pronounced gender disparity. Specifically, in critical care literature examining mixed populations, female first authors were significantly less common than their male counterparts, with an odds ratio (OR) of 4.25 (95% confidence interval (CI): 3.18-5.68; p < 0.00001). Conversely, pediatric critical care studies did not show a significant difference in gender distribution among first authors (OR: 1.37; 95% CI: 0.31-6.10; p = 0.68). The investigation also highlighted a stark underrepresentation of female senior authors in critical care research across both mixed (OR: 11.67; 95% CI: 7.76-17.56; p < 0.00001) and pediatric populations (OR: 5.41; 95% CI: 1.88-15.56; p = 0.002). These findings underscore the persistent underrepresentation of women in critical care literature authorship and their slow progression into leadership roles, as evidenced by the disproportionately low number of female senior authors.

A Systematic Review of Gender Disparity in the Authorship of Clinical Trials and Clinical Practice Guidelines in Various Medicine Subspecialties.

Authorship in clinical trials and clinical practice guidelines is considered prestigious and is associated with broader peer recognition. This systematic review investigated female representation among studies reporting authorship trends in clinical trials or clinical practice guidelines in different medicine subspecialties. Our search strategy yielded 836 articles, of which 30 met the inclusion criteria. Our findings indicate that females are severely underrepresented in authorship of clinical trials and clinical practice guidelines. Although the proportions of females may have improved in the past decade, the gains are marginal. Notably, studies in this domain predominantly focus on first/last authorship positions, and whether females are underrepresented in other positions as collaborative partners is currently unknown. Also, authorship trends in clinical trials or clinical practice guidelines of most medicine subspecialties besides cardiovascular medicine remain under-researched. Hence, standardizing the methodology for studying gender disparity in research output for comparative analysis between different subspecialties is as urgent as addressing the gender disparity in authorship.

Unpacking COVID-19 Vaccine Attitudes: Exploring Hesitancy and Acceptance Among Undergraduate Students in Bangladesh.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy is a significant global health concern, and mass vaccination is essential in preventing the spread of COVID-19. Undergraduate students need to be prioritized for vaccination as they continue their academic curriculum physically. However, limited research explores vaccine hesitancy and acceptance among undergraduate students in Bangladesh. Therefore, this study evaluated vaccine hesitancy and acceptance among this population. METHOD: A web-based cross-sectional study was conducted between May and June 2021 using a structured questionnaire to assess COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and acceptance among undergraduate students in Bangladesh. The Oxford Covid-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale was used to measure vaccine hesitancy. The study used convenient sampling. RESULT: Across the country, 334 undergraduate students participated in this study on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, with a mean age of 22.4 years. Most participants were male and unmarried, most having spent four years at university. 89.52% of participants would accept a COVID-19 vaccine if it were suggested by educational institutions or available, while 4.49% refused to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Participants showed low levels of vaccine hesitancy, with a mean score of 10.77 on the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale. Most participants had a positive attitude towards receiving the vaccine, with the majority wanting to get it as soon as it becomes available. No association was found between vaccine acceptance and participants' background characteristics. CONCLUSION: Our study found a high level of vaccine acceptance among undergraduate students in Bangladesh, indicating that this group can be vaccinated quickly, significantly accelerating vaccination goals. However, further large-scale studies are recommended among vulnerable groups, including school and college students, to ensure vaccine preparedness.