Search

Background: There is a health crisis in Turkmenistan similar to, but more severe than, in other Central Asian countries. This paper asks whether the health crisis in Turkmenistan is attributable to the consequences of the dictatorship under president Niyazov, who died in 2006. Methods: The basis for this paper was a series of semi-structured in-depth interviews with key informants complemented by an iterative search of internet sites, initially published as a report in April 2005, and subsequently updated with feedback on the report as well as a comprehensive search of secondary information sources and databases. Results: This paper describes in depth three areas in which the dictatorship in Turkmenistan had a negative impact on population health: the regime's policy of secrecy and denial, which sees the "solution" to health care problems in concealment rather than prevention; its complicity in the trafficking of drugs from Afghanistan; and the neglect of its health care system. Conclusion: The paper concludes that dictatorship has contributed to the health crisis facing Turkmenistan. One of the first tests of the new regime will be whether it can address this crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What does the future of medicine hold? We asked six researchers to share their most ambitious and optimistic views of the future, grounded in the present but looking out a decade or more from now to consider what's possible. They paint a picture of a connected and data-driven world in which patient value, patient feedback, and patient empowerment shape a continually learning system that ensures each patient's experience contributes to the improved outcome of every patient like them, whether it be through clinical trials, data from consumer devices, hacking their medical devices, or defining value in thoughtful new ways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is clear guidance on the responsibilities of editors to ensure that the research they publish is of the highest possible quality. Poor reporting is unethical and directly impacts patient care. Reporting guidelines are a relatively recent development to help improve the accuracy, clarity, and transparency of biomedical publications. They have caught on, with hundreds of reporting guidelines now available. Some journals endorse reporting guidelines while a smaller number have used various approaches to implement them. Yet challenges remain - biomedical research is still not optimally reported despite the abundance of reporting guidelines. Electronic algorithms are now being developed to facilitate the choice of correct reporting guideline(s), while other tools are being integrated into journal editorial management processes. Universities need to consider whether it is responsible to advance careers of faculty based on poorly reported research which is of little societal value. If journals embraced auditing of the quality of articles they publish this would give them and their readers essential feedback from which to improve their product. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]