Search

Background: Dermatology journals play an essential role in the distribution and promotion of scientific and medical information. Despite this, there are little data on governance structure with respect to its editors, owners, and journal boards that oversee the day-to-day operations for these entities. Objective: This study aimed to explore the current governance structure of dermatology journals and best practice recommendations. Methods: The editors-in-chief of the major dermatology journals participated in an online survey of 29 questions to examine general statistics of each journal, open access model, governance structure, and process for editor selection or dismissal. Results: Of the 52 journal responses, 29 (55.8%) are society-owned journals with 19 (65.5%) primarily governed by a society board, while 18 (34.6%) have an advisory committee or alternative body. Most editor(s)-in-chief (56.9%) serve between 3- and 5-year terms, while 84.6% have the option of at least one renewal. Even though the selection, evaluation, and dismissal processes differed between the journals, generalized best practice recommendations were developed to help improve their overall organization and management. Conclusions: The oversight structure of dermatology journals varies, and some do not follow current best practice recommendations. Transparency regarding leadership, governance, and due process is needed to maintain editorial independence and integrity.

Objectives To describe the development, validation and reliability of the Oxford Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (OVHS), a new instrument to assess vaccine hesitancy in the general population.Design Cross-sectional validation study.Setting Internet-based study with participants in the UK and USA.Participants Demographically representative (stratified by age, sex and race) samples from the UK and USA recruited through the Prolific Academic platform.Main outcome measures To demonstrate OVHS development, exploratory factor analysis with categorical variables and a polychoric correlation matrix followed by promax oblique rotation on the UK sample was performed. Confirmatory factor analysis with a Satorra-Bentler scaled test statistic evaluating goodness of fit statistics including the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), standardised root mean squared residual (SRMR) and comparative fit index (CFI) was performed on the US sample. Reliability as internal consistency was assessed using McDonald’s omega. Evidence in support of the predictive, convergent and discriminant validity of the scale was assessed using logistic regression ORs of association (OR) or Pearson correlation coefficients.Results Data for factor analysis were obtained from 1004 respondents, 504 in the UK and 500 in the USA. A scree plot, minimum average partial correlation analysis and parallel analysis suggested a three-factor 13-item scale with domains of vaccine beliefs (seven items), pain (three items) and personal deliberation (three items). Responses were recorded on a Likert scale ranging from disagree completely to agree completely, with higher score reflecting greater hesitancy. Potential total scores ranged from 13 to 65. Goodness of fit was excellent, with RMSEA=0.044, SRMR=0.041 and CFI=0.977. Predictive validity for COVID-19 vaccination status was excellent, with logistic regression ORs of association (95% CI) of 0.07 (0.04, 0.13), p

Objectives To develop and validate the Oxford Needle Experience (ONE) scale, an instrument to assess needle fear, attitudes and expectations in the general population.Design Cross-sectional validation study.Setting Internet-based with participants in the UK and USA.Participants UK and US representative samples stratified by age, sex, and ethnicity using the Prolific Academic platform.Main outcome measures Exploratory factor analysis with categorical variables and a polychoric correlation matrix followed by promax oblique rotation on the UK sample for the ONE scale. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with a Satorra-Bentler scaled test statistic evaluating the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), standardised root mean squared residual (SRMR) and comparative fit index (CFI) on the US sample. Reliability as internal consistency using McDonald’s omega. Convergent validity using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Predictive and discriminant validity using logistic regression ORs of association (OR).Results The population included 1000 respondents, 500 in the UK and 500 in the USA. Minimum average partial correlation and a scree plot suggested four factors should be retained: injection hesitancy, blood-related hesitancy, recalled negative experiences and perceived benefits, yielding a 19-question scale. On CFA, the RMSEA was 0.070 (90% CI, 0.064 to 0.077), SRMR 0.053 and CFI 0.925. McDonald’s omega was 0.92 and 0.93 in the UK and US samples, respectively. Convergent validity with the four-item Oxford Coronavirus Explanations, Attitudes and Narratives Survey (OCEANS) needle fear scale demonstrated a strong correlation (r=0.83). Predictive validity with a single-question COVID-19 vaccination status question demonstrated a strong association, OR (95% CI) 0.97 (0.96 to 0.98), p

ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with sleep quality impairment and psychological distress, and the general public has responded to the pandemic and quarantine requirements in a variety of ways. We aimed to investigate whether sleep quality is low during a short-term (circuit break) quarantine restriction, and whether sleep quality is associated with respondents' overall attitudes to the pandemic using a validated scale.Design and SettingOnline cross-sectional study in England in November 2020.ParticipantsThe study included 502 respondents over the age of 18.MeasurementsSleep quality was assessed using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and pandemic attitudes were assessed using the Oxford Pandemic Attitudes Scale–COVID-19 (OPAS-C), a validated 20-item, 7-domain scale that assesses pandemic-related stress, fear, loneliness, sense of community, sense of exaggerated concern, non-pharmaceutical interventions, and vaccine hesitancy. Unadjusted and multivariable logistic regression odds ratios of association were assessed between the dependent variable of poor sleep quality (PSQI>5) and risk factors, including OPAS-C score, age, sex, educational status, and income.ResultsThe mean (SD) PSQI score was 7.62 (3.49). Overall, 68.9% of respondents met criteria for poor sleep quality using the PSQI cutoff of >5. The mean (SD) OPAS-C score was 60.3 (9.1). There was a significantly increased odds of poor sleep quality in the highest vs. lowest OPAS-C quartiles (OR 4.94, 95% CI [2.67, 9.13], p < 0.0001). Age, sex, income, political leaning, employment status, and education attainment were not associated with poor sleep quality.ConclusionsMore than two-thirds of respondents met criteria for poor sleep quality. The odds of poor sleep quality increased in a dose-response relationship with pandemic attitudes (such as higher levels of pandemic-related stress, fear, or loneliness). The association between poor sleep quality and pandemic attitudes suggests opportunities for public health and sleep medicine interventions, and highlights the need for further research.

Objectives To develop and validate the Oxford Pandemic Attitude Scale-COVID-19 (OPAS-C), a multidimensional scale that addresses seven domains over 20 items including stress, fear, loneliness, sense of community, belief that the pandemic is a hoax or exaggerated, the use of and attitude to non-pharmaceutical interventions and vaccine hesitancy, in a single measure.Design Cross-sectional validation study.Setting Internet based with respondents in the USA and UK.Participants General community respondents using the Prolific Academic platform.Main outcome measures Exploratory factor analyses with promax oblique rotation and confirmatory factor analysis including goodness of fit indices: root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) and comparative fit index (CFI). Reliability as internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha. Convergent and discriminant validity using Pearson correlation coefficients.Results The sample included 351 respondents in the USA and the factorial structure was confirmed using a separate set of 348 respondents in the UK. The OPAS-C had excellent goodness of fit characteristics, with an RMSEA of 0.047 (90% CI 0.037 to 0.056), SRMR of 0.043 and CFI of 0.962. Reliability was excellent, demonstrating Cronbach’s alpha of 0.87 in both the US and UK samples. Convergent validity showed correlation coefficients of 0.54 and 0.49 in the US and UK samples, respectively. Discriminant validity demonstrated correlations of 0.21 and 0.26 in the US and UK samples, respectively.Conclusions The OPAS-C represents the first validated scale that addresses mental health measures and public health-relevant responses to COVID-19, and may be a useful measure for use in future longitudinal and cross-sectional studies. Further international validation beyond the USA and UK may be helpful.

Previous research has suggested that the general public is divided over their willingness to consider consuming cultured meat (CM) products. As commercial backing for cultured meat startups increases and the public interest in the US, Europe, and developing countries expands, formally evaluating attitudes to these products will become increasingly important. Willingness to pay (WTP) may provide insight into the level of acceptability of CM products, highlight latent societal preferences, and suggest commercial opportunities. To date, no studies have evaluated the societal WTP for CM products. A cross-sectional internet-based survey was distributed to 300 respondents in the US general population using a survey panel design. The mean age was 30 (range: 18–76), and 47% of respondents were male. We presented respondents with a series of scenarios relating to CM products, framing CM burgers as environmentally friendly vs. as a better alternative to traditional burgers. Prior research has highlighted taste and price as areas of societal concern, but no studies have rigorously evaluated the intersection between these considerations. When CM products were framed as being equivalent in taste to conventional meat, and where their environmental benefits were stressed, respondents were willing to pay significantly more than for a traditional burger ($2.11 vs. $1.00). This WTP jumped to $2.66 when framing the CM burger as the best burger, reflecting a 266% premium that consumers were willing to pay for an appropriately framed CM burger. Framing CM burgers as a better alternative to traditional burgers, rather than focusing on their environmental impact, similarly led to the highest desirability ratings. These preferences were also reflected in a contingent valuation discrete choice experiment examining preferences for paying $1 for a traditional burger vs. $2 for a CM burger. These findings support our hypothesis regarding the existence of what we term the gold-standard bias, a cognitive bias that systematically favors a product or service framed as the best available choice over and above its marginal benefit, and has significant and broad implications for feasibility, pricing, and marketing, suggesting the need for further research in this area.

Pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may lead to significant mental health stresses, potentially with modifiable risk factors. We performed an internet-based cross-sectional survey of an age-, sex-, and race-stratified representative sample from the US general population. Degrees of anxiety, depression, and loneliness were assessed using the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale (GAD-7), the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire, and the 8-item UCLA Loneliness Scale, respectively. Unadjusted and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to determine associations with baseline demographic characteristics. A total of 1,005 finished surveys were returned of the 1,020 started, yielding a completion rate of 98.5% in the survey panel. The mean (standard deviation) age of the respondents was 45 (16) years, and 494 (48.8%) were male. Overall, 264 subjects (26.8%) met the criteria for an anxiety disorder based on a GAD-7 cutoff of 10; a cutoff of 7 yielded 416 subjects (41.4%), meeting the clinical criteria for anxiety. On multivariable analysis, male sex (odds ratio [OR] = 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.49, 0.87]), identification as Black (OR = 0.49, 95% CI [0.31, 0.77]), and living in a larger home (OR = 0.46, 95% CI [0.24, 0.88]) were associated with a decreased odds of meeting the anxiety criteria. Rural location (OR 1.39, 95% CI [1.03, 1.89]), loneliness (OR 4.92, 95% CI [3.18, 7.62]), and history of hospitalization (OR = 2.04, 95% CI [1.38, 3.03]) were associated with increased odds of meeting the anxiety criteria. Two hundred thirty-two subjects (23.6%) met the criteria for clinical depression. On multivariable analysis, male sex (OR = 0.71, 95% CI [0.53, 0.95]), identifying as Black (OR = 0.62, 95% CI [0.40, 0.97]), increased time outdoors (OR = 0.51, 95% CI [0.29, 0.92]), and living in a larger home (OR = 0.35, 95% CI [0.18, 0.69]) were associated with decreased odds of meeting depression criteria. Having lost a job (OR = 1.64, 95% CI [1.05, 2.54]), loneliness (OR = 10.42, 95% CI [6.26, 17.36]), and history of hospitalization (OR = 2.42, 95% CI [1.62, 3.62]) were associated with an increased odds of meeting depression criteria. Income, media consumption, and religiosity were not associated with mental health outcomes. Anxiety and depression are common in the US general population in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and are associated with potentially modifiable factors.

Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) represent the primary mitigation strategy for the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite this, many government agencies and members of the general public may be resistant to NPI adoption. We sought to understand public attitudes and beliefs regarding various NPIs and self-reported adoption of NPIs, and to explore associations between NPI performance and the baseline characteristics of respondents. We performed a cross-sectional age-, sex-, and race- stratified survey of the general US population. Of the 1,005 respondents, 37% (95% CI 34.0, 39.9) felt that NPIs were inconvenient, while only 0.9% (95% CI 0.3, 1.5) of respondents believed that NPIs would not reduce their personal risk of illness. Respondents were most uncertain regarding the efficacy of mask and eye protection use, with 30.6 and 22.1%, respectively, unsure whether their use would slow disease spread. On univariate logistic regression analyses, NPI adherence was associated with a belief that NPIs would reduce personal risk of developing COVID-19 [OR 3.06, 95% CI [1.25, 7.48], p = 0.014] and with a belief that NPIs were not difficult to perform [OR 1.79, 95% CI [1.38, 2.31], p < 0.0001]. Respondents were compliant with straightforward, familiar, and heavily-encouraged NPI recommendations such as hand-washing; more onerous approaches, such as avoiding face touching, disinfecting surfaces, and wearing masks or goggles, were performed less frequently. NPI non-adherence is associated with both outcome expectations (belief that NPIs are effective) and process expectations (belief that NPIs are not overly inconvenient); these findings have important implications for designing public health outreach efforts, where the feasibility, as well as the effectiveness, of NPIs should be stressed.