EFFORTS TO IMPROVE NURSING COMMUNICATION: A NARRATIVE REVIEW

Background: Communication is an interaction process that is highly essential in building nurse-patient interpersonal relationships. Good nurse communication-patient will have a good impact on the treatment plan and recovery for the patient. Improper communication can lead to mistaken nursing care provision and even lead to injury and death. Objective: This literature review aimed to know the efforts to improve nurse-patient communication. Design: This literature review used narrative review design. Data Sources: The databases used in narrative review are Scopus, Science Direct, ProQuest, and PubMed. The journal is limited to the publication year 2016 - 2020 with the area of ​​the nursing medicine journal, full text Portable Document Format (PDF) journal. This literature review uses 4 articles appropriate the inclusion criteria. The study of articles and data extraction were carried out separately by the researcher, if there were differences, the results were taken by consensus. Review Methods: The review method for this literature review using a narrative method by classifying the similar extracted data according to the research findings. Results: The databases used in the literature review are Science Direct, Scopus, PubMed and ProQuest. The journal is limited to the 2016 – 2020 publication year with the area of ​​nursing medicine journals, improving nurse communication, full text open access pdf journals, research designs. This literature review was identified with the number of science direct: 45, Scopus: 242, PubMed: 36 and ProQuest: 492, then screened and found 4 articles that matched the inclusion criteria. The study of articles and data extraction were carried out separately by the researcher, if there were differences, the results were taken by consensus. Conclusion: Nurse communication training has a positive impact where nurses have skills in developing knowledge and capability in improving nurse communication performance. Good communication nurse-patient can increase the patient's cure rate.

A Review of COVID-19-Related Publications and Lag Times During the First Six Months of the Year 2020

Introduction: Considering the need for information regarding approaches to prevention and treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we sought to determine publication lag times of COVID-19-related original research articles published in top general medicine and emergency medicine (EM) journals. We further sought to characterize the types of COVID-19 publications within these journals. Methods: We reviewed 125 top-ranked general medicine journals and 20 top-ranked EM-specific journals for COVID-19-related publications. We abstracted article titles and manuscript details for each COVID-19-related article published between January 1–June 30, 2020, and categorized articles as one of the following: original research; case report; review; or commentary. We abstracted data for preprint publications over the same time period and determined whether articles from the general medicine and EM journals had been previously published as preprint articles. Our primary outcomes were the following: 1) lag time (days) between global cumulative World Health Organization (WHO)-confirmed cases of COVID-19 and publications; 2) lag times between preprint article publication and peer-reviewed journal publication; and 3) lag times between submission and publication in peer-reviewed journals. Our secondary outcome was to characterize COVID-19-related publications. Results: The first original research publications appeared in a general medicine journal 20 days and in an EM journal 58 days after the first WHO-confirmed case of COVID-19. We found median and mean lag times between preprint publications and journal publications of 32 days (19, 49) and 36 days (22) for general medicine journals, and 26 days (16, 36) and 25 days (13) for EM journals. Median and mean lag times between submission and publication were 30 days (19, 45) and 35 days (13) for general medicine journals, and 23 days (11, 39) and 27 days (19) for EM journals. Of 2530 general medicine journal articles and 351 EM journal articles, 28% and 23.6% were original research. We noted substantial closing of the preprint to peer-reviewed publication (160 days pre-pandemic) and peer-reviewed journal submission to publication (194 days pre-pandemic) lag times for COVID-19 manuscripts. Conclusion: We found a rapid and robust response with shortened publication lag times to meet the need for the publication of original research and other vital medical information related to COVID-19 during the first six months of 2020.

Global Scientific Outputs of Palliative Care Publications: A Holistic Approach with Bibliometric Analysis

Objective: This study aims to summarize the scientific outputs of the palliative care studies conducted between 1975 and 2019 through bibliometric analyses, identify the top effective journals, top-cited studies, the collaboration between countries, and trend topics. Materials and Methods: We performed a bibliometric analysis on palliative care. “Palliative care”, “terminal care”, “end-of-life care” and “hospice care” terms were used as the keywords in the title section of articles in Web of Science database. Spearman correlation coefficient was performed for the correlation analysis between the number of publications produced by the countries and economic indicators. Results: There were 22361 publications about palliative care. Of these publications, 10309 were articles. The top three countries that produced more than 100 articles were the USA, the United Kingdom, and Canada. The top three journals that had the highest number of publications were Journal of Palliative Medicine, Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, and Palliative Medicine. There was a positive, highly significant relationship between the number of publications and Gross domestic product (r = 0.709, p <0.001). Conclusion: This study is believed to be a beneficial guide about the global outputs of palliative care for the clinicians and scientists and present new research ideas to the researchers.

Gender Differences in Authorship of Family Medicine Publications, 2002-2017

Background and Objectives: Representation of women in medicine is increasing, including in academic family medicine. Despite this, women continue to hold a minority of senior faculty and leadership roles. This study examines the trends of women first and senior authorship between 2002 and 2017 in five family medicine journals: Family Medicine, Journal of Family Practice, Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, Annals of Family Medicine, and American Family Physician. The study also examines gender congruence between first and senior authors and women’s membership on editorial boards. Methods: We collected and analyzed data on a total of 1,671 original articles published in the five family medicine journals in 2002, 2007, 2012, and 2017. We also examined the gender composition of the journals’ editorial boards. Results: Overall, women first authorship increased significantly from 32.6% in 2002 to 47.7% in 2017. There was no significant difference in women senior authorship or editorial board representation from 2002 to 2017. Both men and women senior authors partnered with women first authors significantly more over the 15 years. Conclusions: While there was a statistically significant increase in women first authors between 2002 and 2017, there is still a gap between women’s authorship and editorial board representation and their representation within academic family medicine. These gaps could help to explain the continued lack of women represented within senior faculty positions.