Internet Access and Use by Patients with Gynecologic Malignancies: A Cross-Sectional Study

The influence of digitalization on information-seeking, decision-making properties of patients, therapy monitoring, and patient-physician interactions has and will change the global health sector tremendously. With this study, we add knowledge on the degree of digitalization, digital device availability, the use and availability of home and mobile internet access, and the willingness to use novel forms of patient-physician interactions in a group of gynecologic cancer patients. From July 2017 to March 2022, 150 women with a diagnosis of gynecologic malignancy at the University Hospital of Cologne participated in this questionnaire-based cohort study. Any one of three potential internet access devices (stationary computer, smartphone, or tablet) is owned by 94% of patients and the only patient intrinsic factor that is significantly associated with the property of any one of these internet access devices is age. The Internet is used daily or several times per week to assess information on their disease by 92.8%, 90.1% use the Internet for communicational purposes and 71.9% and 93.6% are willing to communicate with their treating physicians via E-Mail or even novel forms of communication, respectively. In conclusion, the predominant majority of gynecologic cancer patients can be reached by modern internet-based E-Health technologies.

Digital Technical and Informal Resources of Breast Cancer Patients From 2012 to 2020: Questionnaire-Based Longitudinal Trend Study

Background

Digitalization offers enormous potential in medicine. In the era of digitalization, the development of the use of digital, technical, and informal resources of breast cancer patients and factors influencing the degree of digitization of patients has been insufficiently researched.

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess the development of the use of digital technical and informal resources in a well-defined patient cohort.

Methods

A longitudinal study on 513 breast cancer patients from 2012 to 2020 was conducted using a questionnaire that included the main aspects of the degree of digitalization, including digital device availability and use, stationary and mobile internet access and use, and communication and information seeking regarding breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Results

The majority of patients (421/513, 82.1%) owned the technical resources to benefit from eHealth, used the internet to obtain information (292/509, 57.4%), and were willing to use new eHealth solutions (379/426, 89%). Two-thirds of the patients discussed information about their cancer on the internet with their doctor, one-third found additional treatment options on the internet, and 15.3% (44/287) of the patients stated that this had changed their cancer therapy. The degree of digitization is increasing yet still significantly depends on 3 factors: (1) age (whereas 100% [39/39] of the <59-year-old group used the internet in 2020, 92% of the 60 to 69-year-old group [11/12] and only 47% [6/13] of the >70-year-old group used the internet), (2) education (internet use significantly depended on education, as only 51.8% [59/114] of patients with primary school education used the internet, but 82.4% [126/153] with middle school education and 90.3% [213/236] with high school education used the internet; P<.001), and (3) household size (67.7% [111/164] of patients living alone used the internet, whereas 84.7% [287/339] of patients living in a house with ≥2 people used the internet; P<.001).

Conclusions

To implement digital solutions in health care, knowledge of the composition and degree of the use of digital technical and informal resources of the patient group for which the respective solution is developed is crucial for success.

Trial Registration

German Register of Clinical Studies DRKS00012364; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00012364

Development of obstetrical and gynecological journals, 2007 to 2013: a trend analysis

PURPOSE

To analyze the trends and developments among journals in the specialty of obstetrics and gynecology.

METHODS

Using the Journal Citation Reports from 2007 to 2013, we analyzed the impact factor (IF), Eigenfactor® Score (ES), and Article Influence® Score (AIS) of 43 journals in the field of obstetrics and gynecology published in this time period.

RESULTS

From 78 journals of the Journal Citation Report 2013, 43 were selected for this study. The mean IF grew from 1.68 ± 0.97 in 2007 to 2.12 ± 1.05 in 2013, the ES from 0.0113 ± 0.0169 to 0.0114 ± 0.0140, and the AIS from 0.513 ± 0.302 to 0.663 ± 0.359. Differences in the IF, ES, and AIS between journals from the United States versus Europe could be observed. In most cases, the IF, ES, and AIS increased between 2007 and 2013. Strong correlations could be found between IF, AIS, and ES.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall mean IF for obstetrical and gynecological journals increased over the analyzed time period. The IF remains the standard measure to compare scientific journals. It correlates well with two major alternative measures of scientific impact, the ES and especially the AIS. Other measures are evolving and might show superior usage in the future.

Topical treatment of acute otitis externa: clinical comparison of an antibiotics ointment alone or in combination with hydrocortisone acetate

The study was designed to investigate the potential contribution of hydrocortisone acetate to the efficacy and safety of an antibiotics ointment in the treatment of acute otitis externa (AOE). In a double-blind study 151 patients with a unilateral acute bacterial otitis externa were randomized either to receive an ointment with polymyxin-B sulfate (7,500 I.E./g) + bacitracin (300 I.E./g) alone (AB) or the same antibiotic ointment with 10 mg hydrocortisone acetate/g ointment (AB + HC). Primary efficacy endpoint was the change of an aggregate clinical symptom score (CSS) (subscores: redness, swelling, pain and secretion) found at Visit 2 versus baseline (Visit 1). Secondary outcome parameters were the change of the CSS from Visit 1 to the study termination, and the changes in the subscores and of a visual analog scale for pain. In the group treated with AB + HC, significantly more patients with severe redness [14 (56%) vs. 7 (28%), P = 0.045] or severe secretion [23 (70%) vs. 10 (40%), P = 0.024] at inclusion were symptom-free at the last visit. Fewer pain-relieving tablets (1.1 +/- 2.2 vs. 2.3 +/- 4.6 paracetamol tablets) were used in the AB + HC-group. In the steroid group there was a slightly larger though not significant reduction in CSS at Visit 2 and Visit 3 versus baseline. Similar results were documented for redness, pain and secretion. No serious adverse events occurred. Both ointments are effective and safe in the topical treatment of AOE. Hydrocortisone acetate combined with the antibiotics improved individual symptoms better as did the steroid-free ointment.