Medical Journal Editors Authorship Criteria Research Articles

Place of care and costs associated with acute episodes and remission in schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia imposes significant economic burden on patients, families, caregivers, and society. To our knowledge, place of care and associated costs of acute schizophrenia episodes have not been well characterized. OBJECTIVE: To describe the care settings and costs associated with likely acute episodes and untreated remission periods among patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: Adults with schizophrenia were identified using the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases (2009-2018); claims for capitated benefits plans were excluded. Acute episode index date was defined as at least 1 inpatient schizophrenia claim or outpatient schizophrenia claim (frequency of claim dependent on visit type, such as hospitalization, emergency department, private practice, clinic, urgent care, or laboratory). Mental health-related medical costs (health plan+patient) associated with acute episodes were collected over a 2-month follow-up period and stratified by setting (inpatient vs outpatient); acute episode data were reported in subgroups of patients without or with prior clozapine use, as an indication of disease severity. Remission index date was defined as at least 1 outpatient claim with a schizophrenia diagnosis with no acute episode and no oral or injectable antipsychotic therapy. Remission costs were assessed over a 3-month period. All data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 14,824 patients with schizophrenia met criteria for an acute episode (12,896 [87.0%] without prior clozapine use; 1,427 [9.6%] with prior clozapine use). Most acute episodes were treated in an outpatient setting (all patients, 76.3%; without prior clozapine use, 74.5%; with prior clozapine use, 87.1%). When treated inpatient, mean (SD) episode medical costs were $17,045 ($28,101) for all patients, $16,060 ($22,786) for those without prior clozapine use, and $22,827 ($55,860) for those with prior clozapine use. When treated outpatient, mean (SD) medical costs for acute episodes were $2,478 ($6,961) for all patients, $2,609 ($7,068) for those without prior clozapine use, and $1,770 ($6,560) for those with prior clozapine use. For all patients with acute episodes, regardless of clozapine use, patient-incurred out-of-pocket costs were approximately 30% of total medical costs. For an untreated period of remission, 6,950 patients with schizophrenia met criteria. Total medical costs were $2,399 for these patients over a 3-month period. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of acute schizophrenia episodes were treated in the outpatient setting. For episodes that required inpatient care, inpatient episodes were approximately 7 times more costly than episodes treated in outpatient-only settings. For acute episodes and remission periods, health plans covered most costs; however, there were additional patient-incurred out-of-pocket costs. DISCLOSURES: All authors met the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors authorship criteria. Neither honoraria nor payments were made for authorship. Dr McIntyre has received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) and the Milken Institute; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, AbbVie, Atai Life Sciences. Dr McIntyre is a CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp. Mr Doan, Dr Amari, and Mr Mercer are employees of Genesis Research, which was funded to perform the study. Ms Higa, Dr Gillard, and Dr Harrington were employees of AbbVie at the time of the study and may hold stock. This study was sponsored by AbbVie.

Courtesy Authorship Practices Among First and Senior Authors: Evaluation of Motivations, Gender Bias, and Inequities.

A courtesy author is an individual who has not met authorship criteria but is listed as an author. This practice is common and often seen as victimless. Because publications are used for funding and promotion decisions, it is critical to understand biases in this practice. An anonymous survey was conducted from March to October 2020 of first and senior authors of publications from 2014 to 2015 in 8 surgical journals. Authors were surveyed about demographic data, practice setting, and courtesy author practices. Three hundred forty-one authors responded (16% response rate). 75% were from academic practice settings. 14% reported adding courtesy authors 5 or more times in the past year. Courtesy authors were more often male (80%, P = 0.023), older (75%), and of higher academic rank (65%) than first/senior authors. All author groups were >75% white. When a reason was reported, 46% added a courtesy author due to avoid retaliation; 64% to avoid awkwardness. 26% expected reciprocal authorship offers. 92% of respondents acknowledge understanding International Committee of Medical Journal Editors authorship criteria. Women were less common among those added from goodwill than those added from fear (P = 0.039.) When courtesy authors were of a lower rank than first/senior authors, they were nearly twice as likely to be female (P = 0.0056) or non-white (P = 0.0184.). Courtesy authors were more often male, older, and higher rank than first/senior authors. Fear of career consequences was a major motivator for including courtesy authors. Understanding the motivations and pressures leading to courtesy authorship will help to correct this practice.

Establishing and Facilitating Large-Scale Manuscript Collaborations via Social Media: Novel Method and Tools for Replication.

BackgroundAuthorship teams in the health professions are typically composed of scholars who are acquainted with one another before a manuscript is written. Even if a scholar has identified a diverse group of collaborators outside their usual network, writing an article with a large number of co-authors poses significant logistical challenges.ObjectiveThis paper describes a novel method for establishing and facilitating large-scale manuscript collaborations via social media.MethodsOn September 11, 2020, I used the social media platform Twitter to invite people to collaborate on an article I had drafted. Anyone who wanted to collaborate was welcome, regardless of discipline, specialty, title, country of residence, or degree completion. During the 25 days that followed, I used Google Docs, Google Sheets, and Google Forms to manage all aspects of the collaboration.ResultsThe collaboration resulted in the completion of 2 manuscripts in a 25-day period. The International Council of Medical Journal Editors authorship criteria were met by 40 collaborators for the first article (“Documenting Social Media Engagement as Scholarship: A New Model for Assessing Academic Accomplishment for the Health Professions”) and 35 collaborators for the second article (“The Benefits of Using Social Media as a Health Professional in Academia”). The authorship teams for both articles were notably diverse, with 17%-18% (7/40 and 6/35, respectively) of authors identifying as a person of color and/or underrepresented minority, 37%-38% (15/40 and 13/35, respectively) identifying as LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, gender non-conforming, queer and/or questioning), 73%-74% (29/40 and 26/35, respectively) using she/her pronouns, and 20%-23% (9/40 and 7/35, respectively) identifying as a person with a disability.ConclusionsScholars in the health professions can use this paper in conjunction with the tools provided to replicate this process in carrying out their own large-scale manuscript collaborations.

Understanding of International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Authorship Criteria Among Faculty Members of Pharmacy and Other Health Sciences in Jordan.

Authorship represents a critical element of scientific research. This study evaluated the perceptions, attitudes, and practices of Jordanian researchers toward the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria. An anonymous questionnaire was distributed to health sciences faculty ( n = 986), with 272 participants completing the questionnaire. Only 27.2% reported awareness of ICMJE guidelines, yet, 76.8% agreed that all ICMJE criteria must be met for authorship, and 55.9% believed that it is easy to apply the guidelines. Unethical authorship practices were reported by 16.5% to 31.3% of participants. A majority (73%) agreed that violation of authorship criteria is scientific misconduct. Well-defined criteria for authorship need to be disseminated and emphasized in less developed countries through training to avoid authorship disputes and unethical conduct.