METHODS/DESIGN: This is a randomized, single-blind, two-arm, controlled trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis visiting outpatient rheumatology clinics in Karachi, Pakistan. We will enroll patients with established diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis over 3 months. The patients would be randomized through a computer-generated list into the control group, i.e., usual care or into the intervention group, i.e., pharmaceutical care, in a ratio of 1:1, after providing signed written consent. The study will take place in two patient-visits over the course of 3 months. Patients in the intervention group would receive intervention from the pharmacist while those in the control group will receive usual care. Primary outcomes include change in mean score from baseline (week 0) and at follow up (week 12) in disease knowledge, adherence to medications and rehabilitation/physical therapy. The secondary outcomes include change in the mean direct cost of treatment, HRQoL and patient satisfaction with pharmacist counselling.
DISCUSSION: This is a novel study that evaluates the role of the pharmacist in improving treatment outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The results of this trial could set the foundation for future delivery of care for this patient population in Pakistan. The results of this trial would be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03827148 . Registered on February 2019.
METHODS: An online international survey of 800 early career researchers (ECRs) was conducted in 2022. A questionnaire was developed based on three rounds of interviews and distributed using multiple channels including publishers, social media, and direct email to ECRs.
RESULTS: The impact of the pandemic on career prospects, morale, job security, productivity, ability to network and collaborate, and quality and speed of peer review has on the whole been more negative than positive. A quarter of ECRs shifted their research focus to pandemic-related topics and half of those who did, benefited largely due to increased productivity and impact. The majority worked remotely/from home and more than two-thirds of those who did so benefitted from it. While virtual or hybrid conferences have been embraced by the majority of ECRs, around a third still preferred face-to-face only conferences. The use of library online platforms, Sci-Hub, ResearchGate, Google Scholar and smartphone to search and access full-text papers increased. ECRs prioritised journals with fast submission procedures for the publishing of their papers and spent more time on increasing the visibility of their research. Fees were a problem for publishing open access.
CONCLUSION: Although, generally, the pandemic negatively impacted many aspects of ECRs' work-life, certain research areas and individuals benefited from being more appreciated and valued, and, in some cases, resulted in increased resources, better productivity and greater impact. Changes, such as the use of digital technologies and remote working created new opportunities for some ECRs. While continuing work flexibility and hybrid conferences might benefit some ECRs, institutions should also take measures to help those ECRs whose career and productivity have been adversely impacted.
METHODS: All original research articles published in 2018 in the top 10 most-cited nutrition- and dietetics-related journals were analysed. We evaluated the proportion of articles that disclosed involvement from the food industry, including through author affiliations, funding sources, declarations of interest or other acknowledgments. Principal research findings from articles with food industry involvement, and a random sample of articles without food industry involvement, were categorised according to the extent to which they supported relevant food industry interests.
RESULTS: 196/1,461 (13.4%) articles reported food industry involvement. The extent of food industry involvement varied by journal, with The Journal of Nutrition (28.3%) having the highest and Paediatric Obesity (3.8%) having the lowest proportion of industry involvement. Processed food manufacturers were involved in the most articles (77/196, 39.3%). Of articles with food industry involvement, 55.6% reported findings favourable to relevant food industry interests, compared to 9.7% of articles without food industry involvement.
CONCLUSION: Food industry involvement in peer-reviewed research in leading nutrition-related journals is commonplace. In line with previous literature, this study has shown that a greater proportion of peer-reviewed studies involving the food industry have results that favour relevant food industry interests than peer-reviewed studies without food industry involvement. Given the potential competing interests of the food industry, it is important to explore mechanisms that can safeguard the integrity and public relevance of nutrition research.