- Email: [email protected]
The Official Voice
EdITORIAL
The Official Voice Timothy Rowe, MB BS, FRCSC Editor-in-Chief
K
eeping JOGC’s image vibrant takes work. As our cover proclaims, we are the official voice of reproductive health care in Canada, and we must ensure that the voice remains relevant and pleasing to the ear. Periodic reinvention of a journal is critical for keeping the voice fresh and youthful, although it’s important also to keep notes of authority and experience in the background. We need to sound au courant, but we also need to sound sage and trustworthy. It’s not always easy. With this issue we begin our Healing Art feature. As John Jarrell and colleagues remind us in their Guest Editorial, such features have been used in other journals to balance the scientific content. I think we can all agree that not having such balance can quickly make us quite dull. Authoritative, scientifically accurate, medically sound, but dull. The Healing Art feature will certainly provide balance for readers, and we hope it will provide creative satisfaction for the artists and sculptors whose work is published. I have been greatly impressed by the skill of the colleagues whose works have already been submitted, and I feel certain that our readers will be equally impressed. Having something attractive and distracting at the end of each issue will give the journal increased balance, and it will show that members of the JOGC community (authors, publishers, and readers) can appreciate excellence in things besides reproductive health care. The members of the Editorial Board have been reviewing other means of refreshing the JOGC brand and expanding its range. Each issue of JOGC contains something of interest to just about anyone, professional or not, and the possibility of broadening JOGC’s reach through Internet social network sites has been proposed. The idea of using social networks (or social media) tends to divide those who know what it means into two distinct camps: those who are appalled by the idea, and those who think it would be a positive step. The use of the J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2011;33(1):11–12
Internet to provide communication and collaboration via social networks has been described as “Web 2.0,”1 and where the technologies have been applied to health care the terms “Health 2.0” and “Medicine 2.0” have been used.2 We cannot afford to ignore these advances. The first major social network site (SixDegrees.com) appeared in 1997; since then, the number of major and minor sites has grown to several hundred.3 Most of these sites have been developed for use in finite communities. Notable among the remainder are MySpace (which became so successful that it was bought by the News Corporation in 2005 for $580 million3) and Facebook. Facebook began in 2004 as a Harvard-only site, but began expanding in 2005 to include high-school students, corporate workers, and, eventually, everyone. 4 It has also accepted institutions such as medical journals as participants, and the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, to name two, are accessible through Facebook. How important this is for medical professionals remains to be seen, and whether or not JOGC should follow suit is unknown (and at present it is not practicable). However, it is worth noting that such social networks, defined in this context as Interactive Health Communication Applications, have been shown to have a largely positive effect for people with chronic diseases. According to a Cochrane review, such users tend to become more knowledgeable, feel better socially supported, and may have better behavioural and clinical outcomes than non-users.5 If we are to contribute to “Medicine 2.0,” we must also consider the options of podcasting and “vodcasting” (the former through iTunes and the latter through YouTube). Such technology, and even the terminology, makes some of us feel a little threatened. Less threatening is the possibility of JOGC’s editorial staff using Twitter, a means of disseminating short messages (of 140 characters or less) to large numbers of people. Twitter’s use to date has been largely associated with celebrities and pop culture, and whether or not it has any usefulness JANUARY JOGC JANVIER 2011 l 11
EDITORIAL
in clinical medicine is still doubtful.6 But it does have the ability to direct the attention of large numbers of people to a particular website with remarkable ease; thus as with Facebook, large-circulation journals have used Twitter to develop a community of readers who feel connected and informed. To date, we do not know if this is a good thing or not, nor do we know if such communities will expand or remain limited. But we’re watching. For better or worse, journals using social networking raise their public profile. Because JOGC’s subject matter can at times deal with sensitive and intimate issues, increasing our profile among non-professional readers carries some risk. We will therefore proceed with care as we explore our potential use of these tools—but we don’t want to be unhip, either. The official voice can still be cool.
REFERENCES 1. Hansen MM. Versatile, immersive, creative and dynamic virtual 3-D healthcare learning environments: a review of the literature. J Med Internet Res 2008;10:e26. 2. Hughes B, Joshi I, Wareham J. Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: tensions and controversies in the field. J Med Internet Res 2008;10:e23. 3. Boyd DM, Ellison NB. Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. J Comput Mediat Commun 2008;13:210–30. 4. Cassidy J. Me media: how hanging out on the internet became big business. The New Yorker 2006;82:50. 5. Murray E, Burns J, See Tai S, Lai R, Nazareth I. Interactive Health Communication Applications for people with chronic disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005, Issue 4. Art. No.:CD004274. 6. Terry M. Twittering healthcare: social media and medicine. Telemed J E Health 2009;15:507–10.
Errata
Vause TDR, Cheung AP; SOGC Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility Committee. Ovulation induction in polycystic ovary syndrome. SOGC Clinical Practice Guideline No. 242, May 2010. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2010;32(5):495–502. Recommendation 6, page 500, was incorrectly provided as: “In vitro fertilization is reserved for women with PCOS who fail gonadotropin therapy or who have other indications for IVF treatment. (II-2A).” The recommendation should read “In vitro fertilization should be reserved for women with PCOS who fail gonadotropin therapy or who have other indications for IVF treatment. (II-2A).” The correct version is given in the Abstract, page 495. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology regrets the error and any inconvenience it may have caused. Epp A, Larochelle A; SOGC Urogynaecology Committee, SOGC Family Physicians Advisory Committee. Recurrent urinary tract infection. SOGC Clinical Practice Guideline No. 250, November 2010. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2010;32(11):1082–1090. Recommendation 12, pages 1083 and 1089, was incorrectly provided as: “Pregnant women at risk of recurrent urinary tract infection should be offered continuous or post-coital prophylaxis with nitrofurantoin or cephalexin, except during the last 4 months of pregnancy. (II-1B).” The recommendation should read “Pregnant women at risk of recurrent urinary tract infection should be offered continuous or post-coital prophylaxis with nitrofurantoin or cephalexin, except during the last 4 weeks of pregnancy. (II-1B).” The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology regrets the error and any inconvenience it may have caused.
12 l JANUARY JOGC JANVIER 2011
The Official Voice Timothy Rowe, MB BS, FRCSC Editor-in-Chief
K
eeping JOGC’s image vibrant takes work. As our cover proclaims, we are the official voice of reproductive health care in Canada, and we must ensure that the voice remains relevant and pleasing to the ear. Periodic reinvention of a journal is critical for keeping the voice fresh and youthful, although it’s important also to keep notes of authority and experience in the background. We need to sound au courant, but we also need to sound sage and trustworthy. It’s not always easy. With this issue we begin our Healing Art feature. As John Jarrell and colleagues remind us in their Guest Editorial, such features have been used in other journals to balance the scientific content. I think we can all agree that not having such balance can quickly make us quite dull. Authoritative, scientifically accurate, medically sound, but dull. The Healing Art feature will certainly provide balance for readers, and we hope it will provide creative satisfaction for the artists and sculptors whose work is published. I have been greatly impressed by the skill of the colleagues whose works have already been submitted, and I feel certain that our readers will be equally impressed. Having something attractive and distracting at the end of each issue will give the journal increased balance, and it will show that members of the JOGC community (authors, publishers, and readers) can appreciate excellence in things besides reproductive health care. The members of the Editorial Board have been reviewing other means of refreshing the JOGC brand and expanding its range. Each issue of JOGC contains something of interest to just about anyone, professional or not, and the possibility of broadening JOGC’s reach through Internet social network sites has been proposed. The idea of using social networks (or social media) tends to divide those who know what it means into two distinct camps: those who are appalled by the idea, and those who think it would be a positive step. The use of the J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2011;33(1):11–12
Internet to provide communication and collaboration via social networks has been described as “Web 2.0,”1 and where the technologies have been applied to health care the terms “Health 2.0” and “Medicine 2.0” have been used.2 We cannot afford to ignore these advances. The first major social network site (SixDegrees.com) appeared in 1997; since then, the number of major and minor sites has grown to several hundred.3 Most of these sites have been developed for use in finite communities. Notable among the remainder are MySpace (which became so successful that it was bought by the News Corporation in 2005 for $580 million3) and Facebook. Facebook began in 2004 as a Harvard-only site, but began expanding in 2005 to include high-school students, corporate workers, and, eventually, everyone. 4 It has also accepted institutions such as medical journals as participants, and the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, to name two, are accessible through Facebook. How important this is for medical professionals remains to be seen, and whether or not JOGC should follow suit is unknown (and at present it is not practicable). However, it is worth noting that such social networks, defined in this context as Interactive Health Communication Applications, have been shown to have a largely positive effect for people with chronic diseases. According to a Cochrane review, such users tend to become more knowledgeable, feel better socially supported, and may have better behavioural and clinical outcomes than non-users.5 If we are to contribute to “Medicine 2.0,” we must also consider the options of podcasting and “vodcasting” (the former through iTunes and the latter through YouTube). Such technology, and even the terminology, makes some of us feel a little threatened. Less threatening is the possibility of JOGC’s editorial staff using Twitter, a means of disseminating short messages (of 140 characters or less) to large numbers of people. Twitter’s use to date has been largely associated with celebrities and pop culture, and whether or not it has any usefulness JANUARY JOGC JANVIER 2011 l 11
EDITORIAL
in clinical medicine is still doubtful.6 But it does have the ability to direct the attention of large numbers of people to a particular website with remarkable ease; thus as with Facebook, large-circulation journals have used Twitter to develop a community of readers who feel connected and informed. To date, we do not know if this is a good thing or not, nor do we know if such communities will expand or remain limited. But we’re watching. For better or worse, journals using social networking raise their public profile. Because JOGC’s subject matter can at times deal with sensitive and intimate issues, increasing our profile among non-professional readers carries some risk. We will therefore proceed with care as we explore our potential use of these tools—but we don’t want to be unhip, either. The official voice can still be cool.
REFERENCES 1. Hansen MM. Versatile, immersive, creative and dynamic virtual 3-D healthcare learning environments: a review of the literature. J Med Internet Res 2008;10:e26. 2. Hughes B, Joshi I, Wareham J. Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: tensions and controversies in the field. J Med Internet Res 2008;10:e23. 3. Boyd DM, Ellison NB. Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. J Comput Mediat Commun 2008;13:210–30. 4. Cassidy J. Me media: how hanging out on the internet became big business. The New Yorker 2006;82:50. 5. Murray E, Burns J, See Tai S, Lai R, Nazareth I. Interactive Health Communication Applications for people with chronic disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005, Issue 4. Art. No.:CD004274. 6. Terry M. Twittering healthcare: social media and medicine. Telemed J E Health 2009;15:507–10.
Errata
Vause TDR, Cheung AP; SOGC Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility Committee. Ovulation induction in polycystic ovary syndrome. SOGC Clinical Practice Guideline No. 242, May 2010. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2010;32(5):495–502. Recommendation 6, page 500, was incorrectly provided as: “In vitro fertilization is reserved for women with PCOS who fail gonadotropin therapy or who have other indications for IVF treatment. (II-2A).” The recommendation should read “In vitro fertilization should be reserved for women with PCOS who fail gonadotropin therapy or who have other indications for IVF treatment. (II-2A).” The correct version is given in the Abstract, page 495. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology regrets the error and any inconvenience it may have caused. Epp A, Larochelle A; SOGC Urogynaecology Committee, SOGC Family Physicians Advisory Committee. Recurrent urinary tract infection. SOGC Clinical Practice Guideline No. 250, November 2010. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2010;32(11):1082–1090. Recommendation 12, pages 1083 and 1089, was incorrectly provided as: “Pregnant women at risk of recurrent urinary tract infection should be offered continuous or post-coital prophylaxis with nitrofurantoin or cephalexin, except during the last 4 months of pregnancy. (II-1B).” The recommendation should read “Pregnant women at risk of recurrent urinary tract infection should be offered continuous or post-coital prophylaxis with nitrofurantoin or cephalexin, except during the last 4 weeks of pregnancy. (II-1B).” The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology regrets the error and any inconvenience it may have caused.
12 l JANUARY JOGC JANVIER 2011