High citation rates, impact factors, and circulation rates, and low manuscript acceptance rates and indexing on Brandon/Hill Library List appear to be predictive of higher methodological quality scores for journal articles.

Objective: To identify characteristics of submitted manuscripts that are associated with acceptance for publication by major biomedical journals. Design, setting and participants: A prospective cohort study of manuscripts reporting original research submitted to three major biomedical journals (BMJ and the Lancet [UK] and Annals of Internal Medicine [USA]) between January and April 2003 and between November 2003 and February 2004. Case reports on single patients were excluded. Main outcome measures: Publication outcome, methodological quality, predictors of publication. Results: Of 1107 manuscripts enrolled in the study, 68 (6%) were accepted, 777 (70%) were rejected outright, and 262 (24%) were rejected after peer review. Higher methodological quality scores were associated with an increased chance of acceptance (odds ratio [OR], 1.39 per 0.1 point increase in quality score; 95% CI, 1.16–1.67; P < 0.001), after controlling for study design and journal. In a multivariate logistic regression model, manuscripts were more likely to be published if they reported a randomised controlled trial (RCT) (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.21–4.80); used descriptive or qualitative analytical methods (OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.51–5.37); disclosed any funding source (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.01–3.60); or had a corresponding author living in the same country as that of the publishing journal (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.14–3.46). There was a non‐significant trend towards manuscripts with larger sample size (≥ 73) being published (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 0.94–4.32). After adjustment for other study characteristics, having statistically significant results did not improve the chance of a study being published (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.34–1.96). Conclusions: Submitted manuscripts are more likely to be published if they have high methodological quality, RCT study design, descriptive or qualitative analytical methods and disclosure of any funding source, and if the corresponding author lives in the same country as that of the publishing journal. Larger sample size may also increase the chance of acceptance for publication.

No abstract

OBJECTIVES Care coordination programs can improve patient outcomes and decrease healthcare expenditures; however, implementation costs are poorly understood. We evaluate the direct costs of implementing a collaborative dementia care program. DESIGN We applied a micro‐costing analysis to calculate operational costs per‐participant‐month between March 2015 and May 2017. SETTING The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC). PARTICIPANTS Participants diagnosed with dementia, enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid, 45 years of age or older, residents of California, Nebraska or Iowa, and having a caregiver. The sample was 272 (UCSF) and 192 (UNMC) participants. INTERVENTION A collaborative dementia care program provided by care team navigators (CTNs), advanced practice nurses, a social worker, and a pharmacist, focusing on caregiver support and education, medications, advance care planning, and behavior symptom management. MEASUREMENTS We measured costs (personnel, supplies, equipment, and training costs) during three program periods, Start‐up, Early Operations, and Continuing Operations, and estimated the effects of caseload variation on costs. RESULTS Start‐up and Early Operations costs were, respectively, $581 and $328 (California), and $501 and $219 (Nebraska) per‐participant‐month. Average costs decreased across phases to $241 (California) and $142 (Nebraska) per‐participant‐month during Continuing Operations. We estimated that costs would range between $75 (UNMC) and $92 (UCSF) per‐participant‐month with the highest projected caseloads (90). CONCLUSION We found that CTN caseload is an important driver of service cost. We provide strategies for maximizing caseload without sacrificing quality of care. We also discuss current barriers to broad implementation that can inform new reimbursement policies. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2628–2633, 2019