Background:Health information-seeking behavior is a key concept in the empowerment of women with breast cancer after mastectomy for self-care management. Thus, a real understanding of their information needs and their information-seeking behavior may open up new opportunities for their postsurgery cares. The current research was conducted to identify the information needs and information-seeking motives of women with breast cancer after mastectomy.Materials and Methods:This is an applied qualitative research. Samples included 17 women with breast cancer after mastectomy selected from two hospitals of Shahid Mohammadi and Persian Gulf and Omid Central Chemotherapy in Bandar Abbas. Data were collected using semi-structured interview on winter 2014 and analyzed using qualitative content analysis method.Results:Three basic contents were extracted including information needs related to mental health, physical health related to disease and personal daily activities along with their subcategories, and representing common experience and perception of mastectomized women seeking for health information. Furthermore, hope, self-esteem, return to life, and available social support resources were expressed as the main information-seeking motives.Conclusion:Considering research findings, mastectomized women need to receive information in wide range of health and thus pursue purposeful behavior. Hence, it is necessary that required actions and measures are taken by health-care authorities, especially institutions responsible for women health, to support and meet information needs of the patients considering their information-seeking motives.
Over a million journal articles had been shared on public Facebook pages by 2017, but little is known about who is sharing (posting links to) these papers and whether mention counts could be an impact indicator. This study classified users who had posted about 749 links on Facebook before October 2017 mentioning 500 medical and health‐related research articles, obtained using http://altmetric.com data. Most accounts (68%) belonged to groups, including online communities, journals, academic organizations, and societies. Of individual profiles, academics accounted for only 4%, but the largest group were health care professionals (16%). More than half (58%) of all Facebook accounts examined were not academic. The non‐academic dominance suggests that public Facebook posts linking to health‐related articles are mostly used to facilitate scientific knowledge flow between non‐academic professionals and the public. Therefore, Facebook mention counts may be a combined academic and non‐academic attention indicator in the health and medical domains.
Researchers give credit to peer-reviewed, and thus, credible publications through citations. Despite a rigorous reviewing process, certain articles undergo retraction due to disclosure of their ethical or scientific deficiencies. It is, therefore, important to understand how society and academia react to the erroneous or deceitful claims and purge the science of their unreliable results. Applying a matched-pairs research design, this study examined a sample of medicine-related retracted and non-retracted articles matched by their content similarity. The regression analysis revealed similarities in obsolescence trends of the retracted and non-retracted groups. The Generalized Estimating Equations showed that citations are affected by the retraction status, life after retraction, life cycle and the journals’ previous reputation, with the two formers being the strongest in positively predicting the citations. The retracted papers obtain fewer citations either before or after retraction, implying academia’s watchful reaction to the low-quality papers even before official announcement of their fallibility. They exhibit an equal or higher social recognition level regarding Tweets and Blog Mentions, while a lower status regarding Mendeley Readership. This could signify social users’ sensibility regarding scientific quality since they probably publicise the retraction and warn against the retracted items in their tweets or blogs, while avoiding recording them in their Mendeley profiles. Further scrutiny is required to gain insight into the sensibility, if any, about scientific quality. The study’s originality relies on matching the retracted and non-retracted papers with their topics and neutralising variations in their citation potentials. It is also the first study comparing the groups’ social impacts.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.