RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To determine the desirability of integrating financial services in pediatric primary care among caregivers and older adolescents. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional study among caregivers and late adolescents 18 years and older attending an urban, pediatric primary care clinic. RESULTS: The 221 participants had a mean age of 32.1 years, with 28% of the sample aged 18-25 years. The majority were African American (90.1%), female (83.3%), and single parents (55.1%). More than one-third of the participants (35.8%) reported no household earned income, and 26.7% had a yearly household total income of <$12,000. More than one-half (61.5%) reported financial stress in general, and 67.9% believed that the clinic should provide financial services, including financial education and job workshops. A greater proportion of those who desired clinic-based services were African American (94.7% vs 75%; P < .001) and had a low or middle subjective social status (95.7% vs 83.7%; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Clinic-based financial services are desired by caregivers and late adolescents in an urban pediatric primary care practice. Prospective studies are needed to assess the long-term impact of integrated services on childhood poverty and family well-being.
Asunto(s)
Instituciones de Atención Ambulatoria/economía , Atención Ambulatoria/economía , Atención a la Salud , Pobreza , Atención Primaria de Salud/organización & administración , Adolescente , Adulto , Atención Ambulatoria/organización & administración , Instituciones de Atención Ambulatoria/organización & administración , Estudios Transversales , Etnicidad/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud , Atención Primaria de Salud/economía , Estudios Prospectivos , Medición de Riesgo , Clase Social , Estados Unidos , Población Urbana/estadística & datos numéricos , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To describe h- and g-indices benchmarks in pediatric subspecialties and general academic pediatrics. Academic productivity is measured increasingly through bibliometrics that derive a statistical enumeration of academic output and impact. The h- and g-indices incorporate the number of publications and citations. Benchmarks for pediatrics have not been reported. STUDY DESIGN: Thirty programs were selected randomly from pediatric residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. The h- and g-indices of department chairs were calculated. For general academic pediatrics, pediatric gastroenterology, and pediatric nephrology, a random sample of 30 programs with fellowships were selected. Within each program, an MD faculty member from each academic rank was selected randomly. Google Scholar via Harzing's Publish or Perish was used to calculate the h-index, g-index, and total manuscripts. Only peer-reviewed and English language publications were included. For Chairs, calculations from Google Scholar were compared with Scopus. RESULTS: For all specialties, the mean h- and g-indices significantly increased with academic rank (all P < .05) with the greatest h-indices among Chairs. The h- and g-indices were not statistically different between specialty groups of the same rank; however, mean rank h-indices had large SDs. The h-index calculation using different bibliographic databases only differed by ±1. CONCLUSION: Mean h-indices increased with academic rank and were not significantly different across the pediatric specialties. Benchmarks for h- and g-indices in pediatrics are provided and may be one measure of academic productivity and impact.