PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-5 (5)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Authors
more »
Year of Publication
1.  Performance measurement and equity 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2007;334(7608):1333-1334.
To maximise benefits and minimise harm, equity must be built in from the start
doi:10.1136/bmj.39251.660127.AD
PMCID: PMC1906660  PMID: 17599980
2.  Catering to the customers 
doi:10.1503/cmaj.1041163
PMCID: PMC524929
3.  Relation between randomized controlled trials published in leading general medical journals and the global burden of disease 
Background
More than two-thirds of the world's population live in low-income countries, where health priorities are different from those of people living in more affluent parts of the world. We evaluated the relation between the global burden of disease and conditions or diseases studied in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in general medical journals.
Methods
A MEDLINE search identified 373 RCTs that had been published in 6 international peer-reviewed general medical journals in 1999. Manual review excluded non-RCTs, brief reports and trials in which the unit of randomization was not the patient; 286 RCTs remained eligible for analysis. We identified the RCTs that studied any of the 40 leading causes of the global burden of disease. Five of these conditions were considered unsuitable for study with an RCT design and were excluded from subsequent analysis. To provide a practical perspective, we asked 12 experts working with international health organizations to rate the relevance to global health of the articles that studied any of the top 10 causes of the global burden of disease, as measured by disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and mortality, using a 5-point Likert scale.
Results
Among the 286 RCTs in our sample, 124 (43.4%) addressed 1 of the 35 leading causes of the global burden of disease. Of these, ischemic heart disease, HIV/AIDS and cerebrovascular disease were the most commonly studied conditions. Ninety articles (31.5%) studied 1 of the top 10 causes of the global burden of disease. The mean rating (and standard deviation) for international health relevance assigned by experts was 2.6 (1.5) out of 5. Only 14 (16%) of the 90 trials received a rating of 4 or greater, indicating high relevance to international health. Almost half of the 40 leading causes of the global burden of disease were not studied by any trial.
Interpretation
Many conditions or diseases common internationally are underrepresented in RCTs published in leading general medical journals. Trials published in these journals that studied one of these high-priority conditions were generally rated as being of little relevance to international health.
doi:10.1503/cmaj.1031006
PMCID: PMC408507  PMID: 15159365
4.  Representation of women's health in general medical versus women's health specialty journals: a content analysis 
BMC Women's Health  2002;2:5.
Background
Women's health, traditionally defined, emphasises reproductive and maternal conditions without consideration of social contexts. Advocates urge a broader conceptualisation. The medical literature influences the definitions and delivery of women's health care. We compared how women's health was represented in leading general medical (GM) versus women's health specialty (WS) journals.
Methods
Original investigations published between January 1 – June 30, 1999 in leading GM (n = 514) and WS (n = 82) journals were compared. Data were collected from 99 GM and 82 WS articles on women's health. Independent reviewers conducted content analyses of sample characteristics, study design, and health topic. Each article was classified as "Traditional" (e.g. menstruation, breast cancer), "Non-traditional" (e.g. abuse, osteoporosis), or "Both."
Results
Of the GM articles, 53 (53.5%) focused solely on a traditional women's health topic; half were reproductive and half female cancers. In contrast, 22 (26.8%) WS articles were traditionally focused. A non-traditional topic was the sole focus of 27 (27.3%) GM articles versus 34 (41.5%) WS articles. One-fifth of GM and one-third of WS articles addressed both. RCTs dominated the GM articles, while 40% of WS articles used qualitative or mixed study designs. Leading sources of women's death and disability were not well covered in either type of journal.
Conclusions
Most GM articles drew on a narrow definition of women's health. WS journals provided more balanced coverage, addressing social concerns in addition to "navel-to-knees" women's health. Since GM journals have wide impact, editorial decisions and peer review processes should promote a broader conceptualisation of women's health.
doi:10.1186/1472-6874-2-5
PMCID: PMC116680  PMID: 12086593
5.  Babes and boobs? Analysis of JAMA cover art 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  1999;319(7225):1603-1605.
Objective
To determine the representation of the sexes in JAMA cover art.
Design
Review of 50 consecutive issues.
Setting
JAMA, March 1997-March 1998.
Main outcome measures
Numbers and nature of covers portraying men and women.
Results
Of the 50 covers, 34 depicted humans. 15 depicted women, 13 men, and 6 were of mixed or indeterminate sex. 11 pictures of women included a child and five included nudity. One cover showed a man with a child (not as a father) and none depicted nudity. Men were depicted exclusively in authoritative roles.
Conclusions
Much of the cover art gives strong messages about sexual stereotypes that are inappropriate in modern society. JAMA should consider reviewing its policy for choosing cover art.
PMCID: PMC28304  PMID: 10600956

Results 1-5 (5)