Amanda Haberstroh

Introduction: An estimated 5.6 million individuals in the U.S. experience limb loss and absence, but national estimates exclude Military Health System (MHS) beneficiaries. The purpose of this study is to characterize MHS beneficiaries with limb loss and absence and estimate incidence and prevalence. Material and Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the MHS Information Platform. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study population, including demographics, level of limb loss and absence, and etiology. Bivariate analyses between demographic characteristics and level of limb loss were conducted using analysis of variance and chi-square tests. The sample includes MHS beneficiaries diagnosed with limb loss or absence from 2005 to 2023. The study was determined exempt human subjects research by the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences Institutional Review Board. Results: The cohort (118,587) was 64.6% male and 35.4% female, with mean age 58 years (SD = 23.4). Racial distribution included 49.8% White, 6.4% Black, and approximately 42.1% other or unknown. Service branches were Army (41.0%), Air Force (26.7%), Navy (19.7%), Marine Corps (7.0%), other (3.9%), Coast Guard (1.7%), and Space Force (0%). The majority were retired (46.2%) or other (32.0%), with a smaller portion active duty (12.0%) and dependents (9.9%). Levels of limb loss were 72% lower limb, 26.1% upper limb, and 2% unspecified. Causes included acquired absence (53.8%), traumatic amputation (34%), and congenital absence (12.1%). Bivariate analysis showed significant associations between demographics and limb loss levels (P = .000). Incidence (z = −2.43, P = .015) and prevalence (z = −13.69, P = .000) rates declined over 19 and 8 years, respectively. Conclusion: This study highlights demographic characteristics, causes, and declining rates of limb loss and absence among MHS beneficiaries, providing a foundation for future research and informing clinical practices and policies to enhance care and resource allocation.

Academic health sciences libraries (“libraries”) offer services that span the entire research lifecycle, positioning them as natural partners in advancing clinical and translational science. Many libraries enjoy active and productive collaborations with Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program hubs and other translational initiatives like the IDeA Clinical & Translational Research Network. This article explores areas of potential partnership between libraries and Translational Science Hubs (TSH), highlighting areas where libraries can support the CTSA Program’s five functional areas outlined in the Notice of Funding Opportunity. It serves as a primer for TSH and libraries to explore potential collaborations, demonstrating how libraries can connect researchers to services and resources that support the information needs of TSH.

Objectives: Nurses have long received recommendations to employ self‐care behaviors to ensure their ability to remain in the profession; however, nurses are rarely asked what self‐care behaviors are beneficial. This literature review aimed to map studies on nurses' self‐care strategies to provide an understanding of how these strategies are addressed in the literature and to identify gaps in need of additional exploration.Method: Searches were conducted in accordance with published mapping review methodologies across MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and identified influential nursing journals. Included studies were from the United States, peer‐reviewed, and described self‐care strategies related to nurses or the nursing profession.Results: Thirty‐five articles were identified for inclusion and were evaluated based on agreed‐upon criteria to define how the concept of self‐care was studied and applied to nurses. Three main categories were identified in this review: self‐care and stress; self‐care and burnout; and self‐care and leadership, workplace factors, and physical activity.Linking Evidence to Action: This mapping review revealed an abundance of literature related to self‐care recommendations for nurses; however, there remains a dearth of studies investigating how nurses utilize self‐care behaviors independently to improve their own professional well‐being. Recommendations for next steps in research in this area are included.

Objective: Health sciences librarians frequently engage in scholarly publication, both with other librarians undertaking intradisciplinary scholarship, and increasingly as members of research teams centered in other disciplines. We sought to assess the emotional and institutional context of authorship among health sciences librarians, including emotions experienced during authorship negotiation, the frequency with which authorship is denied, and the correlation of perceived support from supervisors and the research community with the number of publications produced. Methods: 342 medical and health sciences librarians took an online survey of 47 questions regarding emotions experienced when asking for authorship, denial of authorship, if they have been given authorship without asking, and the extent to which they felt supported to conduct research in their current job. Results: Authorship negotiation creates varied and complex emotions among librarians. The emotions reported differed when negotiating authorship with librarian colleagues and when negotiating authorship with professionals in another field. Negative emotions were reported when asking either type of colleague for authorship. Respondents reported feeling mostly supported and encouraged by their supervisors, research communities, and workplaces. Nearly one quarter (24.4%) of respondents reported being denied authorship by colleagues outside of their departments. Perceived research appreciation and support by the research community is correlated with the total number of articles or publications produced by librarians. Conclusions: Authorship negotiation among health sciences librarians involves complex and frequently negative emotions. Denial of authorship is frequently reported. Institutional and professional support appear to be critical to publication among health sciences librarians.

Structural competency training provides guidance to healthcare providers on recognizing and addressing structural factors leading to health inequities. To inform the evidence-based progression of structural competency curriculum development, this study was designed to map the current state of the literature on structural competency training with pre-health students, healthcare professional students, and/or healthcare professionals. We performed a scoping review and identified peer-reviewed, primary research articles assessing structural competency training interventions. The category of learners, timing of the structural competency training, types of teaching and learning activities used, instruments used to measure training outcomes, and evaluation criteria were examined. Eleven (n = 11) articles met inclusion criteria, addressing all training levels, and largely focused on medical education. Active learning strategies and researcher-developed instruments to measure training outcomes were most used. Evaluation criteria largely focused on trainees’ affective reactions, utility assessments, and direct measure of the trainee learning. We suggest designing interprofessional structural competency education with an emphasis on active learning strategies and standardized training curricula. Evaluation instruments integrated at different points in the health professional learning trajectory are important for evidence-based progression in curriculum development focused on achieving structural competency.