[afro-nets] How can we make health information relevant to those using it?

["Claudio Schuftan" <claudio@hcmc.netnam.vn>]

How can we make health information relevant to those using it?
-------------------------------------------------------------

>From 'Open Access' to 'Open Discourse'

What is the point of 'health information for all' if the health information itself is 'useless for all'?

The following is an excerpt from a recent article that I thought the group would have interest in... as it provides a way to extract, highlight, and explore cost effective, practical applications of published literature to countries with limited resources.  It is also a great way for medical practitioners in these countries to engage experts around the world, and find quick, knowledgeable, and *free* answers to questions they might have about published literature:

Beyond open access: open discourse, the next great equalizer
Andrew I Dayton. Retrovirology 2006, 3: 55 doi:10.1186/1742-4690-3-55 

"The Open Access movement in scientific publishing reduces the great divide between the haves and have-nots of the scientific world, allowing anyone, anywhere on the planet with internet access to read with full text and graphics the latest scientific reports, unfettered by prohibitive subscription fees or lack of affiliation with a major institution to pay for them. That the process directly delivers to the public a product paid for by their taxes can only be considered a just and additional benefit. But access to cutting edge knowledge is not the only divide between the haves and the have-nots. Even Open Access leaves a vast inequality in scientific discourse. If you can't afford to attend the latest scientific meetings or are not a member of a prestigious institution, you can be frozen out of cutting edge scientific discussions. You can neither query the major players nor contribute to the debates, unless your prestige or the media value of the subject matter is such to garner you a published letter to the editor. You can't even witness the debates until they are published in review articles, by which time they are mostly over.

 "How often have you asked yourself how a certain study was published unchallenged, without the results of a key control? How often have you wondered whether a paper's authors performed a specific procedure correctly? How often have you had the opportunity to question authors about previously published or opposing results they failed to cite, or discuss the difficulties of reproducing certain results? How often have you had the opportunity to command a discussion of an internal contradiction the referees seemed to have missed? The haves of science, who benefit from the *status quo* they shepherd, have seldom felt the need to redress such grievances. The have nots have basically been stuck with their lot - until now.

 "Enter *JournalReview.org*, a website forum for open peer review and discussion/criticism of medical literature. Essentially an online journal club with free membership, JournalReview.org provides a venue which will improve communication among physicians and scientists and foster comment and criticism about published scientific research. The goal is a better understanding and interpretation of medical literature..."

HIFA2015 profile: Jeff Ellis is a medical doctor based in New York, USA. He is president of JournalReview.org, which is an annotated version of PubMed that allows any visitor to post a question about any published medical article.  Once a question is posted, the author and experts are notified, facilitating timely discussion and knowledgeable response.

Jeff Ellis <doctorellis@gmail.com>

--
Vern Weitzel
mailto:vern@coombs.anu.edu.au