We are scheduled to perform a server upgrade on Thursday, November 30, 2017 between 4 and 6 PM Eastern Time.
Please refrain from submitting support requests related to server downtime during this window.
A new general medical journal for the 21st centrury, focusing on innovation in health and medical research
i-JMR is a general medical journal with a focus on innovation in health, health care, and medicine - through new medical techniques and innovative ideas and/or research, including - but not limited to - technology, clinical informatics, sociotechnical and organizational health care innovations, or groundbreaking research.
Published by JMIR Publications, publisher of JMIR, the leading eHealth/mHealth journal (Impact Factor 2016: 5.175), i-JMR is a JMIR "sister journal" with a projected impact factor of about 2.03 (2016). which features a rapid and thorough peer-review process, professional copyediting, professional production of PDF, XHTML, and XML proofs.
i-JMR is indexed in PubMed and archived in PubMed Central.
i-JMR is also indexed in Clarivate Analytics (formerly the IP and Science Division of Thomson Reuters) new Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).
Right click to copy or hit: ctrl+c (cmd+c on mac)
Background: Being separated from home and relatives is a major stressor for children and adolescents when hospitalized. Children long for a manner to be distracted, pleasured and socially connected du...
Background: Being separated from home and relatives is a major stressor for children and adolescents when hospitalized. Children long for a manner to be distracted, pleasured and socially connected during hospitalization. Different technological devices have been applied in healthcare to answer those needs. Both Virtual Reality (VR) and videoconferencing have proven their value at hospital wards and in pediatrics. VisitU® combines these two technologies in an innovative way. VisitU® is a recently launched VR technology enabling the user to be virtually at home during hospitalization. Objective: Our objective was to explore the experiences of hospitalized patients with the VR intervention of VisitU® in addition to standard care. Methods: Over a 3-month period a purposive sample of 10 patients hospitalized in the Radboudumc Amalia Children’s Hospital was included in this qualitative study. Semi-structured interviews were performed, one before and one after the use of the VR device. Patients were asked open questions concerning the experiences with VisitU® on practical, cognitive, emotional and social domains. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Atlas.ti was used to support qualitative analysis. Inductive thematic analysis was done according to the six-step procedure described by Braun and Clarke. Results: Six main themes were the result of qualitative analysis; “Being hospitalized”, “Expectations of VisitU®”,“VisitU® in use”, “VisitU®, the benefits”, “The impact of VisitU®” and “Barriers when using VisitU®”. The way VisitU® was used by patients varied. The main benefits of VisitU® were being somewhere else, being at home and facilitating social connection. Limitations were experienced on the technical abilities, physical side effects and complexity of use. Despite that, patients were positive about VisitU® and the patients were unanimous in the view that they would like to use it again and advise other patients to use it. Conclusions: This study shows positive experiences of children and adolescents with VR live stream enabling the user to be virtually at home during hospitalization. VisitU® brings together the needs of patients and possibilities of VR and videoconferencing; it offers patients a virtual way out of the hospital. Practical and technical obstacles must be overcome and side effects are an area of further research.
Background: : Information from ratings sites are increasingly informing decisions related to health care and the selection of physicians. Objective: The current study seeks to determine the validity o...
Background: : Information from ratings sites are increasingly informing decisions related to health care and the selection of physicians. Objective: The current study seeks to determine the validity of physician ratings through comparison with an objective “ground truth”. Methods: We obtained 223,715 reviews of 41,104 physicians from the 10 largest cities in the United States, including 1,142 physicians who were listed as “America’s Top Doctors” in the Castle Connolly Medical rankings, the “ground truth” used for this study. To mitigate issues related to “fake” reviews, physicians with fewer than three reviews were excluded from analysis. Results: This large scale study found limited differences in patient ratings of physicians by ground truth. However, patient ratings for several “primary care” and “high patient contact” specialties (i.e., Family Medicine, Allergists, Internal Medicine and Pediatrics) were higher for those physicians listed in Castle Connolly Medical versus those who were not. Conclusions: The presence of online ratings sites will likely continue to grow and expand across all segments of the economy. The results of this large scale study indicate that while patient ratings are consistent with physician peer review ratings for “high patient contact” practitioners like Allergists and Pediatricians, patient reviews were not consistent with medical peer review for specializations characterized by less patient contact like Neurology or General Surgery, indicating that patients may not be sufficiently knowledgeable to provide informed physician ratings for these types of practitioners.