Objectives: This study aimed to map out African health journals using publicly-available information on major databases.Methods: The authors searched the African Journals Online Library (AJOL) and Scientific Journal Rankings (SJR) databases from their inception in 1998 and 1996 respectively to 17 October 2020, and identified African health journals. The authors extracted data on journal scope, PubMed indexation, open-access status, publishing fees, Journal Publishing Practices and Standards rating and bibliometrics. The data were compared with health journals from other regions using the Chi-square test and odds ratio.Results: AJOL had 173 health journals registered on its database. One hundred (57.8%) journals were actively publishing. Fifty-seven (32.9%) had a 1-star Journal Publishing Practices and Standards rating and 4 (2.3%) had 2-star ratings. 112 (64.7%) had no star rating. The journal scope spanned all aspects of health. Few health journals were PubMed (n = 20) or SJR (n = 22) indexed. On average, African journals had lower total publications (median [IQR]: 52.0 [29.0–74.8] vs. 140.0 [75.8–272.5]), total references (55.0 [19.5–74.8] vs. 160.0 [42.0–519.8]), and H-index (12.2 [5.0–14.0] vs. 39.1 [10.0–53.0]) (P=0.01) compared to other regions.Conclusion: African health journals face unique challenges that require targeted interventions.
Health Organization (WHO) member states in 2016. According to the Global Strategy, the world has a workforce deficit in excess of 18 million, and the majority of the deficit is in low-and middleincome countries (LMICs). [1] The Global Strategy proposed a multipronged approach to reducing the workforce deficit. This holistic strategy is informed by the labor markets, data and information systems, education and training, migration and mobility, and governance and planning. [1] The Global Strategy does a great job of developing targets and proposing health policy options to meet these targets.[1] It goes on to describe local and international stakeholders' responsibilities and defines accountability structures. [1] For example, it details monitoring and evaluation plans in the short-, medium-, and long term.Five years from this landmark event, it is critical that we assess our progress as a community and adjust the Global Strategy to address current challenges and seize opportunities. The COVID-19 pandemic represents the most important threat to meeting the 2030 goals. The World Health Organization estimates that more than 115,000 health workers have died from COVID-19. [2] COVID-related deaths of health workers will set back many countries, especially LMICs. The COVID-19 pandemic has also had a significant psychological burden on health workers in the form of burnout, depression, and post-traumatic stress. [3] We must equally note that the pandemic offers opportunities for the Global Strategy. The pandemic highlighted weaknesses in our health systems, and our governments' reluctance to strengthen health systems despite advice from leading public health agencies and experts did not go unnoticed. [4] The human resources for health community must seize this window of opportunity and remind stakeholders that human resources for health are an indispensable component of health systems. Also, we must remind them that investments in the health workforce will facilitate the attainment of multiple sustainable development goals. Finally, the human resources for health community must be part of ongoing demands for accountability regarding the management of COVID-19, as this will help strengthen governance and planning for future health system interventions.Accountability is essential but difficult to implement, especially in global health. For example, Isaac Adewole, Nigerian Minister of Health from November 2015 to May 2019, represented Nigeria at the 69th World Health Assembly, where the Global Strategy was adopted. Yet, in 2018 he advised young Nigerian physicians to consider a career change in agriculture or tailoring. [5] The Democratic Republic of Congo faces multiple public health challenges, including malaria, HIV, the Ebola virus disease, cholera, and neglected tropical diseases. [6] These challenges are compounded by the lack of
Johnson et al 1 surveyed 104 medical students at 36 US schools to identify the determinants of specialty choice. Their study has numerous merits. First, the authors meticulously evaluated the participants' interest in otolaryngology, their socioeconomic background, and the push-and-pull factors regarding an otolaryngology career. 1 Next, they successfully captured underrepresented medical students. Most respondents were Black (86.5%) and female (70.2%), and 72.1% did not have a physician relative. 1 In addition, a little over half of the respondents had considered an otolaryngology career, and less than two-thirds were still interested at the time of the survey. 1 The response rate is commendable given that the survey was sent out during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is evidence that response rates dropped significantly during this period because respondents were saturated with survey requests. 2 The authors identified multiple challenges, including the highly competitive nature of otolaryngology, which they measured using a proxy (ie, the Step 1 score). 1 Although Step 1 is now pass/fail, program directors will need new measures to narrow the pool of applicants, and we can reasonably expect that new measures will be just as competitive. In general, otolaryngology programs screen applications holistically considering other factors, such as Step 2, subinternship experience, research experience, AOA status (Alpha Omega Alpha), Gold Humanism awards, medical school ranking, and letters of recommendation. Hence, program directors must emphasize this when interacting with underrepresented students who are less likely to have mentors. 1 In addition, faculty should consider reaching out to underrepresented students at their home programs as early as MS1 (first-year medical school) to build a watertight pipeline into the specialty.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.