The Karma system is currently undergoing maintenance (Monday, January 29, 2018).
The maintenance period has been extended to 8PM EST.
Karma Credits will not be available for redeeming during maintenance.
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 2017: 4.671), 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: Cancer treatments have the potential to cause infertility among women of reproductive age. Many cancer patients do not receive sufficient oncofertility information or referrals to reproduc...
Background: Cancer treatments have the potential to cause infertility among women of reproductive age. Many cancer patients do not receive sufficient oncofertility information or referrals to reproductive specialists prior to beginning cancer treatment. While health care providers cite lack of awareness on the available oncofertility resources, the majority of cancer patients utilize the Internet as a resource to find additional information to supplement discussions with their providers. Objective: To identify and characterize existing oncofertility decision support resources for women of reproductive age with a diagnosis of any cancer. Methods: Five databases and the grey literature were searched from 1994 to 2018. The developer and content information for identified resources was extracted. Each resource underwent a quality assessment. Results: Thirty-one open access resources including four decision aids and 27 health educational materials were identified. The most common fertility preservation options listed in the resources included embryo (100%), egg (100%), and ovarian tissue (97%) freezing. Notably, approximately one-third (35%) contained references and five (16%) had a reading level of grade 8 or below. Resources were of varying quality; two decision aids from Australia and the Netherlands, two booklets from Australia and the United Kingdom, and three websites from Canada and the United States rated as the highest quality. Conclusions: This comprehensive review characterizes numerous resources available to support patients and providers with oncofertility information, counseling, and decision-making. More focus is required to improve the awareness and the access of existing resources among patients and providers. Providers can address patient information needs by leveraging or adapting existing resources to support clinical discussions and their specific patient population. Clinical Trial: NA
Background: With the advent of internet-based communications, face-to-face interactions are becoming increasingly uncommon and inconvenient, including those between the doctor and the patient. Social...
Background: With the advent of internet-based communications, face-to-face interactions are becoming increasingly uncommon and inconvenient, including those between the doctor and the patient. Social media (SM) has been recognized as a tool that could potentially help nourish and expand relationships in healthcare; however, much remains to be explored. Objective: A systematic literature Review (SLR) was conducted to explore the use of SM in the United States (US) healthcare setting, and the characteristics of its use, including barriers and facilitators. Methods: A SLR was conducted using three peer-reviewed databases; PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE. EBSCOhost database was included to gain a deeper understanding of companies’ use of SM and any lessons that can be learnt and applied to the healthcare setting. Results: Over the last decade there has been a rapid shift in the US towards the uptake of SM technologies, with many hospitals now using platforms such as Twitter and Facebook for communication, health promotion, education and research. SM can also present a competitive and financial advantage to increase a hospital’s reputation and reduce costs. However, despite its many proven or apparent uses, SM also brings with it many challenges, such as ethical considerations, need for clear guidelines and evaluation, perceptions and attitudes of patients and staff, and the possibility of mismatched offer versus patients’ needs. Conclusions: The future of SM lies first of all in developing sound practices, and in its integration into the hospitals’ overall communication strategies, as well as expanding the number of uses and stakeholders involved.