Importance: A core component of delivering care of head and neck diseases is an adequate workforce. The World Health Organization report, Multi-Country Assessment of National Capacity to Provide Hearing Care, captured primary workforce estimates from 68 member states in 2012, noting that response rates were a limitation and that updated more comprehensive data are needed.Objective: To establish comprehensive workforce metrics for global otolaryngology–head and neck surgery (OHNS) with updated data from more countries/territories.Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional electronic survey characterizing the OHNS workforce was disseminated from February 10 to June 22, 2022, to professional society leaders, medical licensing boards, public health officials, and practicing OHNS clinicians.Main Outcome: The OHNS workforce per capita, stratified by income and region.Results: Responses were collected from 121 of 195 countries/territories (62%). Survey responses specifically reported on OHNS workforce from 114 countries/territories representing 84% of the world’s population. The global OHNS clinician density was 2.19 (range, 0-61.7) OHNS clinicians per 100 000 population. The OHNS clinician density varied by World Bank income group with higher-income countries associated with a higher density of clinicians. Regionally, Europe had the highest clinician density (5.70 clinicians per 100 000 population) whereas Africa (0.18 clinicians per 100 000 population) and Southeast Asia (1.12 clinicians per 100 000 population) had the lowest. The OHNS clinicians deliver most of the surgical management of ear diseases and hearing care, rhinologic and sinus diseases, laryngeal disorders, and upper aerodigestive mucosal cancer globally.Conclusion and Relevance: This cross-sectional survey study provides a comprehensive assessment of the global OHNS workforce. These results can guide focused investment in training and policy development to address disparities in the availability of OHNS clinicians.

Introduction: With many anonymization algorithms developed for structured medical health data (SMHD) in the last decade, our systematic review provides a comprehensive bird’s eye view of algorithms for SMHD anonymization.Methods: This systematic review was conducted according to the recommendations in the Cochrane Handbook for Reviews of Interventions and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Eligible articles from the PubMed, ACM digital library, Medline, IEEE, Embase, Web of Science Collection, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertation, and Theses Global databases were identified through systematic searches. The following parameters were extracted from the eligible studies: author, year of publication, sample size, and relevant algorithms and/or software applied to anonymize SMHD, along with the summary of outcomes.Results: Among 1,804 initial hits, the present study considered 63 records including research articles, reviews, and books. Seventy five evaluated the anonymization of demographic data, 18 assessed diagnosis codes, and 3 assessed genomic data. One of the most common approaches was k-anonymity, which was utilized mainly for demographic data, often in combination with another algorithm; e.g., l-diversity. No approaches have yet been developed for protection against membership disclosure attacks on diagnosis codes.Conclusion: This study reviewed and categorized different anonymization approaches for MHD according to the anonymized data types (demographics, diagnosis codes, and genomic data). Further research is needed to develop more efficient algorithms for the anonymization of diagnosis codes and genomic data. The risk of reidentification can be minimized with adequate application of the addressed anonymization approaches.Systematic Review Registration: [http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero], identifier [CRD42021228200].

Recent studies have indicated the potential detrimental psychological effects of Instagram use (IU) and problematic Instagram use (PIU). PIU and IU have been associated with depression, anxiety, and negative general well-being. This study aimed to investigate that correlation through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Seven databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, were explored in February of 2023. Studies that assessed the association between IU and/or PIU with depression, anxiety, other psychological distresses, and/or general well-being were deemed eligible. The Hunter–Schmidt random effects model and multilevel meta-analysis were applied to assess the outcomes of interest. A total of 1,927 hits were identified with 37 studies included in the quantitative analysis after removal of duplicates and screening of abstracts and full texts, with the total number of participants at 14,305. The obtained correlations between PIU and depression, anxiety, and well-being with 95% confidence interval were found to be r = 0.35, [0.25, 0.44], r = 0.31, [0.22, 0.40], r = −0.17, [−0.24, −0.10], respectively. Similarly, for IU and depression r = 0.11, [0.06, 0.16], p < 0.05 for all of the aforementioned results. The association between IU and anxiety was found to be r = 0.12, [0.04, 0.21], p < 0.05. The present meta-analysis found significant conceptual heterogeneity across the studies included due to different study designs and population heterogeneity. The results show a positive association of PIU and IU with depression, anxiety, and other psychological distress(es). There is a need for robust designed longitudinal research to explore this association.