Data publication, citation, and altmetrics have been proposed as alternative routes to credit data generators, which could address these disadvantages. Their primary downsides are that they are not well-established, it is difficult to acquire evidence to support their implementation, and that they could be gamed or give rise to novel forms of research misconduct. Conclusions Alternative recognition mechanisms need to be more commonly used to generate evidence on their power to stimulate data sharing, and to assess where they fall short. There is ample discussion in policy documents on alternative crediting systems to work toward Open Science, which indicates that that there is an interest in working out more elaborate metascience programs.Background Meeting the needs of people bereaved by COVID-19 poses a substantial challenge to palliative care. The Pandemic Grief Scale (PGS) is a 5-item mental health screener to identify probable cases of dysfunctional grief during the pandemic. Objective The PGS has strong psychometric and diagnostic features. The objective was to examine the incremental validity of the PGS in identifying mourners at risk of harmful outcomes. Design A cross-sectional survey design involving sociodemographic questions and self-report measures of pandemic grief, generalized anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress, separation distress, functional impairment, meaning-making difficulties, and substance use coping. Setting/Subjects A sample of people bereaved through COVID-19 (N = 1065) in the United States. https://www.selleckchem.com/products/d-lin-mc3-dma.html Results Fully 56.6% of participants scored above the cut score of ≥7 on the PGS for clinically dysfunctional pandemic grief and 69.7% coped with their loss using drugs or alcohol for at least several days in past two weeks. PGS scores were not associated with time since loss. Hierarchical multiple regression models demonstrated that the PGS uniquely explained variance in functional impairment, meaning-making difficulties, and substance use coping, over relevant background factors, bereavement-related psychopathology, and separation distress. In the final model, the standardized regression coefficients for the PGS were 2-15 times larger than for the other competing measures in explaining each of the three outcomes. Conclusions The findings underscore the clinical utility of this short and easy-to-use measure in identifying risk of deleterious outcomes across a range of functional and behavioral domains.Purpose The number of bone allograft transplantations required in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is growing very quickly. No previous study has investigated the challenges clinical banks face to sustain operations or meet this demand. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the barriers to implementation and sustainability of clinical bone tissue banks in LMICs. Barriers identified in clinical bone banking can shed light on strategies for overcoming obstacles in other biobanking programs. Methods A systematic review protocol was registered with PROSPERO under identification number CRD42019136045. LMIC was defined using World Bank criteria. A search strategy targeting PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Health Library was used. Studies from the inception of bone banking until June 4, 2019, that discussed an identifiable barrier to bone banking were included. Study quality was assessed using The Critical Appraisals Skills Programme (CASP) Qualitative Checklist. Results Of studies identified, 33 studies were included in the final analysis. Based on the full-text review, the primary barriers identified were lack of regulation, low donor rates, and insufficient training and staffing. CASP analysis performed on the 24 qualitative articles showed an average of 3.6 qualitative measurements met. Conclusions As international organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) restructure their participation in global bone banking regulation, these barriers such as lack of regulation, low donor rates, and insufficient training and staffing could pose a challenge to meeting the rising demand for bone transplantation in LMICs. Articles with higher quality evidence are needed to better define barriers and propose evidence-based solutions.Background Informal caregivers may experience a significant burden while caring for cancer patients. Little is known about how caregiver burden varies across different palliative cancer care settings and the factors influencing it. Objectives We compared the severity of caregiver subjective stress burden (emotional impact) among caregivers of patients seen in the outpatient supportive care center (SCC) with those being cared for in the acute palliative care unit (PCU). Secondary aims were to compare other caregiver burden dimensions, quality of life, and any association of caregiver subjective stress burden to various patient and caregiver factors. Setting and Design Eligible patients and their informal caregivers in the SCC or PCU at a comprehensive cancer center in the USA were approached and enrolled. The Montgomery-Borgatta Caregiver Burden Scale and the Short-form 36 were used to measure burden and quality of life. Multivariate general linear regression was employed to evaluate the effect of covariates on subjective stress burden. Results Ninety-eight dyads in the SCC and 74 dyads in the PCU were enrolled. PCU caregivers reported worse subjective stress burden (p = 0.0029) and mental health (p = 0.0299). Multivariate analysis showed correlations between subjective stress burden and caregivers' objective burden (p = 0.0136), subjective demand burden (p ≤ 0.0001), mental health (p = 0.0074), duration of caregiving (p = 0.0680), education (p = 0.0192) and with patients' anxiety (p = 0.0003) and current/recent cancer treatment (p = 0.0579). Conclusion PCU caregivers demonstrated worse emotional burden and mental health than those in the SCC. More research is needed to tailor interventions for various caregiver burden dimensions. NCI Clinical Trial Registration Number ID NCI-2019-01197.