BackgroundGlobal surgery has recently gained prominence as an academic discipline within global health. Authorship inequity has been a consistent feature of global health publications, with over-representation of authors from high-income countries (HICs), and disenfranchisement of researchers from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). In this study, we investigated authorship demographics within recently published global surgery literature.MethodsWe performed a systematic analysis of author characteristics, including gender, seniority and institutional affiliation, for global surgery studies published between 2016 and 2020 and indexed in the PubMed database. We compared the distribution of author gender and seniority across studies related to different topics; between authors affiliated with HICs and LMICs; and across studies with different authorship networks.Results1240 articles were included for analysis. Most authors were male (60%), affiliated only with HICs (51%) and of high seniority (55% were fully qualified specialist or generalist clinicians, Principal Investigators, or in senior leadership or management roles). The proportion of male authors increased with increasing seniority for last and middle authors. Studies related to Obstetrics and Gynaecology had similar numbers of male and female authors, whereas there were more male authors in studies related to surgery (69% male) and Anaesthesia and Critical care (65% male). Compared with HIC authors, LMIC authors had a lower proportion of female authors at every seniority grade. This gender gap among LMIC middle authors was reduced in studies where all authors were affiliated only with LMICs.ConclusionAuthorship disparities are evident within global surgery academia. Remedial actions to address the lack of authorship opportunities for LMIC authors and female authors are required.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted teaching in medical schools across the world. Online learning has become the core method of teaching during this pandemic. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of this mode of education among medical students in India. A survey was conducted by distributing online questionnaires to medical students across India. Data gathered from the survey was analyzed using SPSS® version 16. The overall response rate of survey was 58.4%. Practical training was most severely affected by online classes (93.32%) as compared to theory classes (60.93%). A total of 71.98% students agreed that canceling of physical medical conferences adversely affected the building up of their resumes while only 28.79% agreed that virtual conferences and meetings enhanced their learning. A total of 56.81% agreed that online exams adversely affected their performance. A total of 46.79% feels that online classes using simulated patients and simulation technology is not useful but 41.90% think that simulated teaching should be a part of the medical curriculum. A majority of the students (87.66%) had technical issues with online classes and 89.72% complained of poor concentration during online teaching due to distractions. A total of~75% felt that the pandemic has adversely affected the availability of research opportunities and development of skills, ethics, communication, and behavior. Online education has adversely affected all aspects of learning, performance in exams, research, and the overall future plans of students. Moving forward from this pandemic, in order to maximize the benefits of both face-to-face and online teaching, we suggest medical schools resort to a hybrid pattern.

Background: Internet has become the major source of health-related information, leading to a growing trend toward unsupervised self-medication using internet. This survey was conducted to assess the extent of internet use to obtain health information/self-medication, their perception regarding side effects of drug used, types/quality of information, and which site was commonly surfed for information. Materials and Methods: A web-based tool (Google Forms) was used to develop a questionnaire to obtain information about extent and impact of internet on self-medication by general population. The questionnaire included 9 questions along with demographic details of participants. The questionnaire was sent to participants by WhatsApp and E-mail and their responses were analyzed. Results: Four hundred and forty-eight (56%) persons responded to survey. There were 226 (50.4%) males and 222 (49.6%) females. The average age of responders was 35.10 years. Overall, 59.8% of responders used internet to obtain health information and self-medication. Out of these, 54.47% took allopathic medications without consulting the doctors. The majority of persons self-medicated for minor illnesses, but 11.6% of persons self-diagnosed and self-medicated for serious illnesses such as heart disease, diabetes, cancers, and psychological problems. 23.2% of peoples think that information on internet carries no risk for self-medication and 21% think that internet use can be a substitute for consulting a doctor. Google was the most common site (93.8%) surfed by participants. The health information provided on net was perceived as very good by 43.7%. Conclusions: There are growing trends toward the self-medication using internet. The health information on internet should be made easier, simpler, and safer to achieve positive health outcomes, but patients should be discouraged for self-medication. To support the safe and appropriate use of nonprescription medicines, minimum practice standards should be set by the governing medical bodies in each country.</ABS>

No abstract

No abstract