As we are now on our fifth issue of HOC, and our mailing list is expanding rapidly, we would greatly welcome some early feedback on how you view the newsletter and the value of its content by selecting one of the following links:
Click positive feedback if you find HOC’s content relevant and interesting, the overall image professional and well designed, and you are happy with the monthly frequency.
Click average feedback if you find the content of some interest, the overall presentation satisfactory or you would prefer to receive fortnightly.
Click negative feedback if HOC’s content serves no purpose, its image needs improving or you would prefer not to receive it.
If you would like to add any comments on your return email, we would be interested in your views on:
We will publish all results and feedback anonymously in a future issue. Thank you for your input.
Adjunctive therapy is treatment used together with the primary treatment. Adjuvant therapy is treatment given after the primary treatment to increase the chances of a cure. Neoadjuvant therapy is treatment given before the primary treatment. (Thanks to Amy Rothman Schonfeld for this one.)
Mean and median are statistical terms; average is sometimes statistical. Mean is usually synonymous with average. It can be found by dividing the sum by the number of members in a group. The median is another type of average, and is the value below and above which there is an equal number of values or which is the arithmetic mean of the two middle values if there is no one middle number.
These words are virtually synonymous and can all mean therapeutic preparations or drugs. Medication (without being preceded by “a”) can also mean the treatment itself or administration of a therapeutic preparation. Medicine can also be defined as the science and art of maintaining health and preventing disease, or a branch of medicine dealing with nonsurgical treatment.
1. A number of patients (was) (were) selected for the investigation.
2. A total of 257 products (was) (were) designated as orphan drugs by the FDA.
3. The number of erythrocytes (was) (were) excessive.
4. The total of students who were living on campus (was) (were) above capacity.
A number (a total) takes a plural verb. The number (the total) takes a singular verb.
Therefore: 1, were; 2, were; 3, was; 4, was.
1. None of the institutions in the consortium (has) (have) solutions to the problem of the uninsured.
2. As to the candidates for postdoctoral fellowships, none (is) (are) from this geographic region.
When none means not any, a plural verb is preferable. When none specifically means not one, a singular verb is preferable. Therefore: 1, have; 2, is.Thanks to Edith Schwager, author of Medical English Usage and Abusage, Greenwood Publishing Group/Oryx Press.
Getting your poster seen and read at an international or national conference can be something of a lottery – the space and location are decided for you and you may have only a few minutes in which to get your message across.
The audience is bombarded with hundreds of different messages during the course of the meeting and cannot hope to remember everything. While it is helpful to provide poster handouts, your poster must be competitive to succeed.
Two things are crucially important:
Email is a wonderful invention, but can also be the bane of your life if you become a slave to it. Striking a happy balance is difficult, but here are a few practices that might help.
Try at least one new idea in your working practice.
Print journals remain one of the most credible sources for disseminating health economic research findings, and there is consensus about which are the core publications for communications within the field.
At least some health economists are stepping out of their “health economics shell” and looking beyond these traditional research outlets to other venues – whether speciality or general-interest medical publications or the general news media – to reach wider audiences.
Health Economics and the Journal of Health Economics are considered the premier journals for communicating with fellow health economists, according to Kevin Frick, PhD, an associate professor in the department of Health Policy Management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Entries to these journals tend to be highly specialised and technical, and include empirical studies and theoretical contributions that focus on manpower planning and forecasting, financing of health services, cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses of procedures and treatments, and budgeting issues. In 2004, the ISI (Journal Citation Report Impact Factor)* was 2.495 for the Journal of Health Economics and 1.591 for Health Economics.
Three other journals are also highly regarded within the health economic field but have a broader readership: Medical Decision Making, Pharmacoeconomics, and Value in Health , according to Dr. Frick. The Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy and the American Journal of Managed Care are appropriate for economic valuations of medications and formulary decision making.
There is a growing appreciation within the health economic community that it is imperative to reach out to other audiences.“There’s a concern that journals like Health Economics and the Journal of Health Economics are not being read by managed care medical directors or other leaders that are making decisions about health care dollars,” Jennifer Lofland, PharmD, MPH, PhD, Research Assistant Professor of Medicine, and Project Director, Department of Health Policy, Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, told us. She suggests that authors should look to publications that focus on treating specific clinical diseases, especially those with wide readership like the Archives of Internal Medicine or the Mayo Clinic Proceedings.
Frick adds JAMA to this list. “In my mind, JAMA has the distinction of being one of the few journals that is not an economics journal but holds authors of cost/effectiveness articles to some very high standards in terms of what needs to be in an article in order to be accepted – but makes it very easy and transparent for readers to understand what is being presented.”
Frick strongly believes that reaching out and educating other health professionals is an essential part of the professional responsibilities of a health economist. He suggests that colleagues should volunteer to serve on the editorial board of journals outside their speciality and review articles for publications if asked. “There must be a willingness among health economists to do the reviews, even if it’s not a journal they would pick up themselves,” says Frick. “If we’re not willing to participate in that quality control which extends beyond our immediate profession, there are going to be bad articles published.”
Lofland has been noticing recently that health economic reporting is appearing in mainstream venues, although she knows of only a handful of health economists who seek those outlets. “If we could have more of that [type of exposure], that would be even better, because my impression is that more people read the Wall Street Journal than read the Journal of Health Economics.”
* The Journal Citation Report Impact Factor or ISI is a quantitative measure of the frequency with which the average article published in a given scientific journal has been cited in a particular year or period , and is generally considered to be a measure of the importance of a scientific journal. As a rule of thumb, an impact factor above 1.5 is fairly respectable. Many journals don’t have impact factors at all – and the creme de la creme can be above 30 e.g. the New England Journal of Medicine. JAMA impact factor is over 21, Archives of internal Medicine is over 6; you can generally find these figures from the journal websites or the ISI Journal citation reports for the previous year. http://scientific.thomson.com/products/jcr