IntroductionResearchers, funders, and institutions are interested in understanding and quantifying research dissemination and impact, particularly related to communicating with the public. Traditionally, citations have been a primary impact measure; however, citations can be slow to accrue and focus on academic use. Recently altmetrics, which track alternate dissemination forms (e. g., social media), have been suggested as a complement to citation-based metrics. This study examines the relationship between altmetrics and traditional measures: journal article citations and access counts.MethodsThe researchers queried Web of Science and Altmetric Explorer for articles published in HPE journals between 2013–2015. They identified 2,486 articles with altmetrics. Data were analyzed using negative binomial and linear regression models.ResultsBlogging was associated with the greatest increase in citations (13% increase), whereas Tweets (1.2%) and Mendeley (1%) were associated with smaller increases. Journal impact factor (JIF) was associated with a 21% increase in citations. Publicly accessible articles were associated with a 19% decrease, but the interactive effect between accessible articles and JIF was associated with a 12% increase. When examining access counts, publicly accessible articles had an increase of 170 access counts whereas blogging was associated with a decrease of 87 accesses.DiscussionThis study suggests that several altmetrics outlets are positively associated with citations, and that public accessibility, holding all other independent variables constant, is positively related to article access. Given the scientific community’s evolving focus on dissemination these findings have implications for stakeholders, providing insight into the factors that may improve citations and access of articles.

Findings suggest that clear identification of a research question that is addressed by a well-designed study methodology on a topic aligned with the mission of the journal would address many of the problems that lead to rejection through the internal review process. The findings also align with research on external peer review.

Purpose The scope of physicians’ responsibility toward patients is becoming increasingly complicated to delimit as interdisciplinary care delivery and degrees of subspecialization increase. Patients can easily be lost across multiple transitions involved in care. Preparing learners to engage in safe and responsible patient care requires that we be clear about parameters of patient ownership. This scoping review (1) explores and synthesizes definitions of patient ownership and (2) describes the factors that influence patient ownership. Method Searching PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO, the authors sought out publications of any format (i.e., original research papers, review articles, commentaries, editorials, and author discussions) that (1) addressed patient ownership directly or a closely related concept that explicitly affected patient ownership, (2) included medical care providers (attending/faculty physicians, medical residents, and/or medical students), and (3) were published in English. The authors analyzed findings to construct common themes and categorize findings. Results Of 411 papers screened, 82 met our inclusion criteria. Twenty-three papers defined patient ownership in highly variable ways. Common themes across definitions included responsibility for patient care, personally carrying out patient care tasks, knowledge of patients’ medical information, independent decision making, and putting patients’ needs above one’s own. Factors influencing patient ownership were (1) logistical concerns, (2) personal attributes, and (3) socially or organizationally constructed expectations. Conclusions A new definition of patient ownership is proposed encompassing findings from the review, while also respecting the shift from individual to a team-based patient care, and without removing the centrality of an individual provider’s commitment to patients.