educational review journal

On The Site

Harvard educational review.

Edited by Maya Alkateb-Chami, Jane Choi, Jeannette Garcia Coppersmith, Ron Grady, Phoebe A. Grant-Robinson, Pennie M. Gregory, Jennifer Ha, Woohee Kim, Catherine E. Pitcher, Elizabeth Salinas, Caroline Tucker, Kemeyawi Q. Wahpepah

Individuals

Institutions.

• Read the journal here

Journal Information

• ISSN: 0017-8055
• eISSN: 1943-5045
• Keywords: scholarly journal, education research
• First Issue: 1930
• Frequency: Quarterly

Description

The Harvard Educational Review (HER) is a scholarly journal of opinion and research in education. The Editorial Board aims to publish pieces from interdisciplinary and wide-ranging fields that advance our understanding of educational theory, equity, and practice. HER encourages submissions from established and emerging scholars, as well as from practitioners working in the field of education. Since its founding in 1930, HER has been central to elevating pieces and debates that tackle various dimensions of educational justice, with circulation to researchers, policymakers, teachers, and administrators.

Our Editorial Board is composed entirely of doctoral students from the Harvard Graduate School of Education who review all manuscripts considered for publication. For more information on the current Editorial Board, please see here.

A subscription to the Review includes access to the full-text electronic archives at our Subscribers-Only-Website .

Editorial Board

2023-2024 Harvard Educational Review Editorial Board Members

Maya Alkateb-Chami Development and Partnerships Editor, 2023-2024 Editor, 2022-2024 [email protected]

Maya Alkateb-Chami is a PhD student at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Her research focuses on the role of schooling in fostering just futures—specifically in relation to language of instruction policies in multilingual contexts and with a focus on epistemic injustice. Prior to starting doctoral studies, she was the Managing Director of Columbia University’s Human Rights Institute, where she supported and co-led a team of lawyers working to advance human rights through research, education, and advocacy. Prior to that, she was the Executive Director of Jusoor, a nonprofit organization that helps conflict-affected Syrian youth and children pursue their education in four countries. Alkateb-Chami is a Fulbright Scholar and UNESCO cultural heritage expert. She holds an MEd in Language and Literacy from Harvard University; an MSc in Education from Indiana University, Bloomington; and a BA in Political Science from Damascus University, and her research on arts-based youth empowerment won the annual Master’s Thesis Award of the U.S. Society for Education Through Art.

Jane Choi Editor, 2023-2025

Jane Choi is a second-year PhD student in Sociology with broad interests in culture, education, and inequality. Her research examines intra-racial and interracial boundaries in US educational contexts. She has researched legacy and first-generation students at Ivy League colleges, families served by Head Start and Early Head Start programs, and parents of pre-K and kindergarten-age children in the New York City School District. Previously, Jane worked as a Research Assistant in the Family Well-Being and Children’s Development policy area at MDRC and received a BA in Sociology from Columbia University.

Jeannette Garcia Coppersmith Content Editor, 2023-2024 Editor, 2022-2024 [email protected]

Jeannette Garcia Coppersmith is a fourth-year Education PhD student in the Human Development, Learning and Teaching concentration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. A former public middle and high school mathematics teacher and department chair, she is interested in understanding the mechanisms that contribute to disparities in secondary mathematics education, particularly how teacher beliefs and biases intersect with the social-psychological processes and pedagogical choices involved in math teaching. Jeannette holds an EdM in Learning and Teaching from the Harvard Graduate School of Education where she studied as an Urban Scholar and a BA in Environmental Sciences from the University of California, Berkeley.

Ron Grady Editor, 2023-2025

Ron Grady is a second-year doctoral student in the Human Development, Learning, and Teaching concentration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. His central curiosities involve the social worlds and peer cultures of young children, wondering how lived experience is both constructed within and revealed throughout play, the creation of art and narrative, and through interaction with/production of visual artifacts such as photography and film. Ron also works extensively with educators interested in developing and deepening practices rooted in reflection on, inquiry into, and translation of the social, emotional, and aesthetic aspects of their classroom ecosystems. Prior to his doctoral studies, Ron worked as a preschool teacher in New Orleans. He holds a MS in Early Childhood Education from the Erikson Institute and a BA in Psychology with Honors in Education from Stanford University.

Phoebe A. Grant-Robinson Editor, 2023-2024

Phoebe A. Grant-Robinson is a first year student in the Doctor of Education Leadership(EdLD) program at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Her ultimate quest is to position all students as drivers of their destiny. Phoebe is passionate about early learning and literacy. She is committed to ensuring that districts and school leaders, have the necessary tools to create equitable learning organizations that facilitate the academic and social well-being of all students. Phoebe is particularly interested in the intersection of homeless students and literacy. Prior to her doctoral studies, Phoebe was a Special Education Instructional Specialist. Supporting a portfolio of more than thirty schools, she facilitated the rollout of New York City’s Special Education Reform. Phoebe also served as an elementary school principal. She holds a BS in Inclusive Education from Syracuse University, and an MS in Curriculum and Instruction from Pace University.

Pennie M. Gregory Editor, 2023-2024

Pennie M. Gregory is a second-year student in the Doctor of Education Leadership (EdLD) program at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Pennie was born in Incheon, South Korea and raised in Gary, Indiana. She has decades of experience leading efforts to improve outcomes for students with disabilities first as a special education teacher and then as a school district special education administrator. Prior to her doctoral studies, Pennie helped to create Indiana’s first Aspiring Special Education Leadership Institute (ASELI) and served as its Director. She was also the Capacity Events Director for MelanatED Leaders, an organization created to support educational leaders of color in Indianapolis. Pennie has a unique perspective, having worked with members of the school community, with advocacy organizations, and supporting state special education leaders. Pennie holds an EdM in Education Leadership from Marian University.

Jennifer Ha Editor, 2023-2025

Jen Ha is a second-year PhD student in the Culture, Institutions, and Society concentration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Her research explores how high school students learn to write personal narratives for school applications, scholarships, and professional opportunities amidst changing landscapes in college access and admissions. Prior to doctoral studies, Jen served as the Coordinator of Public Humanities at Bard Graduate Center and worked in several roles organizing academic enrichment opportunities and supporting postsecondary planning for students in New Haven and New York City. Jen holds a BA in Humanities from Yale University, where she was an Education Studies Scholar.

Woohee Kim Editor, 2023-2025

Woohee Kim is a PhD student studying youth activists’ civic and pedagogical practices. She is a scholar-activist dedicated to creating spaces for pedagogies of resistance and transformative possibilities. Shaped by her activism and research across South Korea, the US, and the UK, Woohee seeks to interrogate how educational spaces are shaped as cultural and political sites and reshaped by activists as sites of struggle. She hopes to continue exploring the intersections of education, knowledge, power, and resistance.

Catherine E. Pitcher Editor, 2023-2025

Catherine is a second-year doctoral student at Harvard Graduate School of Education in the Culture, Institutions, and Society program. She has over 10 years of experience in education in the US in roles that range from special education teacher to instructional coach to department head to educational game designer. She started working in Palestine in 2017, first teaching, and then designing and implementing educational programming. Currently, she is working on research to understand how Palestinian youth think about and build their futures and continues to lead programming in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. She holds an EdM from Harvard in International Education Policy.

Elizabeth Salinas Editor, 2023-2025

Elizabeth Salinas is a doctoral student in the Education Policy and Program Evaluation concentration at HGSE. She is interested in the intersection of higher education and the social safety net and hopes to examine policies that address basic needs insecurity among college students. Before her doctoral studies, Liz was a research director at a public policy consulting firm. There, she supported government, education, and philanthropy leaders by conducting and translating research into clear and actionable information. Previously, Liz served as a high school physics teacher in her hometown in Texas and as a STEM outreach program director at her alma mater. She currently sits on the Board of Directors at Leadership Enterprise for a Diverse America, a nonprofit organization working to diversify the leadership pipeline in the United States. Liz holds a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a master’s degree in higher education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Caroline Tucker Co-Chair, 2023-2024 Editor, 2022-2024 [email protected]

Caroline Tucker is a fourth-year doctoral student in the Culture, Institutions, and Society concentration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Her research focuses on the history and organizational dynamics of women’s colleges as women gained entry into the professions and coeducation took root in the United States. She is also a research assistant for the Harvard and the Legacy of Slavery Initiative’s Subcommittee on Curriculum and the editorial assistant for Into Practice, the pedagogy newsletter distributed by Harvard University’s Office of the Vice Provost for Advances in Learning. Prior to her doctoral studies, Caroline served as an American politics and English teaching fellow in London and worked in college advising. Caroline holds a BA in History from Princeton University, an MA in the Social Sciences from the University of Chicago, and an EdM in Higher Education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Kemeyawi Q. Wahpepah Co-Chair, 2023-2024 Editor, 2022-2024 [email protected]

Kemeyawi Q. Wahpepah (Kickapoo, Sac & Fox) is a fourth-year doctoral student in the Culture, Institutions, and Society concentration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Their research explores how settler colonialism is addressed in K-12 history and social studies classrooms in the United States. Prior to their doctoral studies, Kemeyawi taught middle and high school English and history for eleven years in Boston and New York City. They hold an MS in Middle Childhood Education from Hunter College and an AB in Social Studies from Harvard University.

Submission Information

Click here to view submission guidelines .

Contact Information

Click here to view contact information for the editorial board and customer service .

Subscriber Support

Individual subscriptions must have an individual name in the given address for shipment. Individual copies are not for multiple readers or libraries. Individual accounts come with a personal username and password for access to online archives. Online access instructions will be attached to your order confirmation e-mail.

Institutional rates apply to libraries and organizations with multiple readers. Institutions receive digital access to content on Meridian from IP addresses via theIPregistry.org (by sending HER your PSI Org ID).

Online access instructions will be attached to your order confirmation e-mail. If you have questions about using theIPregistry.org you may find the answers in their FAQs. Otherwise please let us know at [email protected] .

How to Subscribe

To order online via credit card, please use the subscribe button at the top of this page.

To order by phone, please call 888-437-1437.

Checks can be mailed to Harvard Educational Review C/O Fulco, 30 Broad Street, Suite 6, Denville, NJ 07834. (Please include reference to your subscriber number if you are renewing. Institutions must include their PSI Org ID or follow up with this information via email to [email protected] .)

Permissions

Click here to view permissions information.

Article Submission FAQ

Submissions, question: “what manuscripts are a good fit for her ”.

Answer: As a generalist scholarly journal, HER publishes on a wide range of topics within the field of education and related disciplines. We receive many articles that deserve publication, but due to the restrictions of print publication, we are only able to publish very few in the journal. The originality and import of the findings, as well as the accessibility of a piece to HER’s interdisciplinary, international audience which includes education practitioners, are key criteria in determining if an article will be selected for publication.

We strongly recommend that prospective authors review the current and past issues of HER to see the types of articles we have published recently. If you are unsure whether your manuscript is a good fit, please reach out to the Content Editor at [email protected] .

Question: “What makes HER a developmental journal?”

Answer: Supporting the development of high-quality education research is a key tenet of HER’s mission. HER promotes this development through offering comprehensive feedback to authors. All manuscripts that pass the first stage of our review process (see below) receive detailed feedback. For accepted manuscripts, HER also has a unique feedback process called casting whereby two editors carefully read a manuscript and offer overarching suggestions to strengthen and clarify the argument.

Question: “What is a Voices piece and how does it differ from an essay?”

Answer: Voices pieces are first-person reflections about an education-related topic rather than empirical or theoretical essays. Our strongest pieces have often come from educators and policy makers who draw on their personal experiences in the education field. Although they may not present data or generate theory, Voices pieces should still advance a cogent argument, drawing on appropriate literature to support any claims asserted. For examples of Voices pieces, please see Alvarez et al. (2021) and Snow (2021).

Question: “Does HER accept Book Note or book review submissions?”

Answer: No, all Book Notes are written internally by members of the Editorial Board.

Question: “If I want to submit a book for review consideration, who do I contact?”

Answer: Please send details about your book to the Content Editor at [email protected].

Manuscript Formatting

Question: “the submission guidelines state that manuscripts should be a maximum of 9,000 words – including abstract, appendices, and references. is this applicable only for research articles, or should the word count limit be followed for other manuscripts, such as essays”.

Answer: The 9,000-word limit is the same for all categories of manuscripts.

Question: “We are trying to figure out the best way to mask our names in the references. Is it OK if we do not cite any of our references in the reference list? Our names have been removed in the in-text citations. We just cite Author (date).”

Answer: Any references that identify the author/s in the text must be masked or made anonymous (e.g., instead of citing “Field & Bloom, 2007,” cite “Author/s, 2007”). For the reference list, place the citations alphabetically as “Author/s. (2007)” You can also indicate that details are omitted for blind review. Articles can also be blinded effectively by use of the third person in the manuscript. For example, rather than “in an earlier article, we showed that” substitute something like “as has been shown in Field & Bloom, 2007.” In this case, there is no need to mask the reference in the list. Please do not submit a title page as part of your manuscript. We will capture the contact information and any author statement about the fit and scope of the work in the submission form. Finally, please save the uploaded manuscript as the title of the manuscript and do not include the author/s name/s.

Invitations

Question: “can i be invited to submit a manuscript how”.

Answer: If you think your manuscript is a strong fit for HER, we welcome a request for invitation. Invited manuscripts receive one round of feedback from Editors before the piece enters the formal review process. To submit information about your manuscript, please complete the Invitation Request Form . Please provide as many details as possible. The decision to invite a manuscript largely depends on the capacity of current Board members and on how closely the proposed manuscript reflects HER publication scope and criteria. Once you submit the form, We hope to update you in about 2–3 weeks, and will let you know whether there are Editors who are available to invite the manuscript.

Review Timeline

Question: “who reviews manuscripts”.

Answer: All manuscripts are reviewed by the Editorial Board composed of doctoral students at Harvard University.

Question: “What is the HER evaluation process as a student-run journal?”

Answer: HER does not utilize the traditional external peer review process and instead has an internal, two-stage review procedure.

Upon submission, every manuscript receives a preliminary assessment by the Content Editor to confirm that the formatting requirements have been carefully followed in preparation of the manuscript, and that the manuscript is in accord with the scope and aim of the journal. The manuscript then formally enters the review process.

In the first stage of review, all manuscripts are read by a minimum of two Editorial Board members. During the second stage of review, manuscripts are read by the full Editorial Board at a weekly meeting.

Question: “How long after submission can I expect a decision on my manuscript?”

Answer: It usually takes 6 to 10 weeks for a manuscript to complete the first stage of review and an additional 12 weeks for a manuscript to complete the second stage. Due to time constraints and the large volume of manuscripts received, HER only provides detailed comments on manuscripts that complete the second stage of review.

Question: “How soon are accepted pieces published?”

Answer: The date of publication depends entirely on how many manuscripts are already in the queue for an issue. Typically, however, it takes about 6 months post-acceptance for a piece to be published.

Submission Process

Question: “how do i submit a manuscript for publication in her”.

Answer: Manuscripts are submitted through HER’s Submittable platform, accessible here. All first-time submitters must create an account to access the platform. You can find details on our submission guidelines on our Submissions page.

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Review of Educational Research

Preview this book.

• Description
• Aims and Scope
• Editorial Board
• Abstracting / Indexing
• Submission Guidelines

The Review of Educational Research ( RER , quarterly, begun in 1931; approximately 640 pp./volume year) publishes critical, integrative reviews of research literature bearing on education. Such reviews should include conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of literature and scholarly work in a field broadly relevant to education and educational research. RER encourages the submission of research relevant to education from any discipline, such as reviews of research in psychology, sociology, history, philosophy, political science, economics, computer science, statistics, anthropology, and biology, provided that the review bears on educational issues. RER does not publish original empirical research unless it is incorporated in a broader integrative review. RER will occasionally publish solicited, but carefully refereed, analytic reviews of special topics, particularly from disciplines infrequently represented.

The Review of Educational Research publishes critical, integrative reviews of research literature bearing on education. Such reviews should include conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of literature and scholarly work in a field broadly relevant to education and educational research. RER encourages the submission of research relevant to education from any discipline, such as reviews of research in psychology, sociology, history, philosophy, political science, economics, computer science, statistics, anthropology, and biology, provided that the review bears on educational issues. RER does not publish original empirical research, and all analyses should be incorporated in a broader integrative review. RER will occasionally publish solicited, but carefully refereed, analytic reviews of special topics, particularly from disciplines infrequently represented. The following types of manuscripts fall within the journal’s purview:

Integrative reviews pull together the existing work on an educational topic and work to understand trends in that body of scholarship. In such a review, the author describes how the issue is conceptualized within the literature, how research methods and theories have shaped the outcomes of scholarship, and what the strengths and weaknesses of the literature are. Meta-analyses are of particular interest when they are accompanied by an interpretive framework that takes the article beyond the reporting of effect sizes and the bibliographic outcome of a computer search.

Theoretical reviews should explore how theory shapes research. To the extent that research is cited and interpreted, it is in the service of the specification, explication, and illumination of a theory. Theoretical reviews and integrative reviews have many similarities, but the former are primarily about how a theory is employed to frame research and our understandings, and refer to the research as it relates to the theory.

Methodological reviews are descriptions of research design, methods, and procedures that can be employed in literature reviews or research in general. The articles should highlight the strengths and weaknesses of methodological tools and explore how methods constrain or open up opportunities for learning about educational problems. They should be written in a style that is accessible to researchers in education rather than methodologists.

Historical reviews provide analyses that situate literature in historical contexts. Within these reviews, explanations for educational phenomena are framed within the historical forces that shape language and understanding.

Commissioned reviews and thematic issues. The editors may commission and solicit authors to review areas of literature. In all other respects, commissioned reviews are subject to the same review process as submitted reviews. The editors also encourage readers to propose thematic topics for special issues and, as potential guest editors, to submit plans for such issues.

In addition to review articles, RER will occasionally publish notes and responses which are short pieces of no more than 1,200 words on any topic that would be of use to reviewers of research. Typically, they point out shortcomings and differences in interpretation in RER articles and policy.

The standards and criteria for review articles in RER are the following:

1. Quality of the Literature. Standards used to determine quality of literature in education vary greatly. Any review needs to take into account the quality of the literature and its impact on findings. Authors should attempt to review all relevant literature on a topic (e.g., international literature, cross-disciplinary work, etc.).

2. Quality of Analysis. The review should go beyond description to include analysis and critiques of theories, methods, and conclusions represented in the literature. This analysis should also examine the issue of access—which perspectives are included or excluded in a body of work? Finally, the analysis should be reflexive—how does the scholars’ framework constrain what can be known in this review?

3. Significance of the Topic. The review should seek to inform and/or illuminate questions important to the field of education. While these questions may be broad-based, they should have implications for the educational problems and issues affecting our national and global societies.

4. Impact of the Article. The review should be seen as an important contribution and tool for the many different educators dealing with the educational problems and issues confronting society.

5. Advancement of the Field. The review should validate or inform the knowledge of researchers and guide and improve the quality of their research and scholarship.

6. Style. The review must be well written and conform to style of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th edition). Authors should avoid the use of unexplained jargon and parochialism.

7. Balance and Fairness. The review should be careful not to misrepresent the positions taken by others, or be disrespectful of contrary positions.

8. Purpose. Any review should be accessible to the broad readership of RER. The purpose of any article should be to connect the particular problem addressed by the researcher(s) to a larger context of education.

We also encourage all authors interested in submitting a manuscript to RER to read our Editorial Vision for more information on our publication aims.

• Academic Search - Premier
• Academic Search Alumni Edition
• Academic Search Elite
• Clarivate Analytics: Current Contents - Physical, Chemical & Earth Sciences
• EBSCO: MasterFILE Elite
• EBSCO: MasterFILE Premier
• EBSCO: Professional Development Collection
• EBSCO: Sales & Marketing Source
• EBSCOhost: Current Abstracts
• ERIC (Education Resources Information Center)
• Educational Research Abstracts Online (T&F)
• Higher Education Abstracts
• MasterFILE Select - EBSCO
• ProQuest Education Journals
• Social SciSearch
• Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science)
• Teacher Reference Center
• Wilson Education Index/Abstracts

1. Publication Standards 2. Submission Preparation Checklist 3. How to Get Help With the Quality of English in Your Submission 4. Copyright Information 5. For authors who use figures or other materials for which they do not own copyright 6. Right of Reply 7. Sage Choice and Open Access

The Review of Educational Research (RER) publishes comprehensive reviews of literature related to education and does not publish new empirical work, except in the context of meta-analytic reviews of an area. Please check the journal’s Aims and Scope to see if your manuscript is appropriate to submit to RER.

All manuscripts should be submitted electronically to the editorial team at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rer . For questions or inquiries about manuscripts, email us at [email protected] . Manuscripts may not be submitted via e-mail.

Publication Standards

Researchers who intend to submit studies for publication should consult the Standards for Research Conduct adopted by the AERA Council. We also recommend consulting (a) the Guidelines for Reviewers , which outline the criteria under which manuscripts are reviewed for publication by AERA and (b) recent previous editions of the journal. Individuals submitting systematic reviews or meta-analyses should also consult The PRISMA Statement ( http://www.prisma-statement.org ) as well the article on “Reporting Standards for Research in Psychology” in American Psychologist, 63 , 839 – 851 (doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.839).

Submission Preparation Checklist

When you upload your initial submission, upload (1) a separate title page that is not anonymized. Please format the title page as described by the 7th edition of the APA Manual and (2) the main manuscript, which includes an ANONYMIZED title page, an abstract with keywords at the bottom, and the rest of the document including tables and figures, and finally (c) Author Bios.

Please ensure that your manuscript complies with the “ RER Formatting Requirements and Common Formatting Errors ” (see PDF on the RER website). If your submission does not meet these requirements, it will be returned to you.

Additionally, your submission should meet the following guidelines:

1. The submission has not been previously published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere; or an explanation has been provided in the Cover Letter. Authors should indicate in the Author Note on the separate title page if sections of the manuscript have been published in other venues.

2. THE MANUSCRIPT CONTAINS NO IDENTIFYING INFORMATION, EVEN ON THE ANONYMIZED TITLE PAGE. Please anonymize any work of limited circulation (e.g., in press papers, manuscripts under submission) that would point to the author, both in the body of the manuscript and the reference list. More information on anonymizing is described subsequently. Please double check that the author’s name has been removed from the document’s Properties, which in Microsoft Word is found in the File menu (select “File,” “Properties,” “Summary,” and remove the author’s name; select “OK” to save).

3. The text conforms to APA style (currently the 7th ed.). Consult the guidelines spelled out under “Manuscript Style, Length, and Format” on this webpage and in the RER Formatting Requirements PDF included on our website.

4. The submission must be in Microsoft Word format (.doc or .docx), which will be converted into a PDF file. Please do not upload PDF files, or they will be returned to you.

5. All URL addresses and DOIs in the manuscript (e.g., http://www.aera.net ) should be activated and ready to click.

6. An abstract of 150 words maximum is included (both separately and on the second page of the main document after the ANONYMIZED title page). Please also include three to five keywords—the terms that researchers will use to find your article in indexes and databases.

Manuscript Style, Length, and Format

The style guide for the Review of Educational Research and all AERA journals is the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 7th ed., 2020. The manual is available for purchase here . Guidelines are also available on the APA website .

Manuscripts should NOT exceed 65 pages (or 15,000 words), including tables, figures, appendices, notes, and references, but excluding anonymized title page, abstract, and any supplementary files. Pages should be numbered consecutively in the top right-hand corner, with a fully capitalized running head in the top-left corner. All manuscripts should begin with the anonymized title page (p.1). Manuscripts should be typed for 8½” x 11” paper, in upper and lower case, with 1-inch margins on all sides. Manuscripts should be typed in 12-point Times New Roman font. Manuscripts that exceed 65 pages may be returned without review.

All text, from the title page to the end of the manuscript should be double-spaced , including the abstract, block quotations, bulleted text, and the reference list. Single-spacing is allowed in tables when it is useful in making the table clearer. Do not leave blank lines after paragraphs or before sub-headings. However, if a heading or subheading is the last line on a page, use a page break to move it to the top of the next page. The Abstract, Introduction (beginning with the title), the References, and all tables and figures begin on new pages.

Please use the five subheadings as appropriate based on the 7th edition of the APA style manual. In addition to being on the title page, the title should also be placed at the beginning of the Introduction (in lieu of the word, “Introduction,” which should not appear) and the title at the beginning of the Introduction should be a Level 1 heading.

Tables and figures are to be placed after the references—all tables precede all figures—and should not be included in the body of the text. Each figure and table should begin on a separate page. Do NOT use the “Place Table 5 here” or “Place Figure 1 here” convention. The tables and figures will be placed nearest to where they are mentioned as appropriate when copyediting is done.

Figures and tables should present data to the reader in a clear and unambiguous manner, and should be referred to in the text. If the illustration/table/figure and text are redundant, eliminate the illustration or reduce the amount of detail provided in text. The use of lines in tables is limited (please consult the APA style manual for formatting guidelines ). Figure captions should be placed at the bottom of the figure. One high-quality electronic version of each figure must be submitted with the manuscript. Tables will be typeset. Note that any figures and tables uploaded separately from the main manuscript will still count toward the total 65-page limit.

Italics can be used for emphasis or contrast in special situations but should be used sparingly. Ideally, sentence structure should be used for these issues. All words to be set in italics (e.g., book titles, journal names) should be typed in italics. There should be no underlined text . Abbreviations and acronyms should be spelled out the first time they are mentioned unless they are found as entries in their abbreviated form in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary , 11th ed., 2003 (e.g., “IQ” can be used without being spelled out). Mathematical symbols and symbols for vectors should be clearly formatted in italics and boldface, respectively.

You can use the footnote or endnote feature of Microsoft Word. However, notes are only for explanations or amplifications of textual material that cannot be incorporated into the regular text; they are not for reference information. Moreover, notes are distracting to readers and expensive to produce and should be used sparingly and avoided whenever possible.

The reference list should contain only references that are cited in the text. Its accuracy and completeness are the responsibility of the authors. Reference each publicly available dataset with its title, author, date, and a persistent Web identifier such as a digital object identifier (doi), a handle, or a uniform resource name (URN). If necessary, this last element may be replaced by a web address. Additionally, any references that were included in the analysis but not cited in-text in the main manuscript can be included in a separate reference list that is uploaded as a Supplementary File for Review (this may assist in meeting the page limit).

Authors should anonymize their manuscripts for review . Anonymizing does not mean removing all self-citations. Authors should only anonymize citations of limited circulation (e.g., forthcoming, in press, unpublished) that point to the author. Publications already in the extant literature (e.g., books, book chapters, journal articles) should be cited normally, but authors should include self-citations judiciously . When anonymizing, please use “Author” or “Authors” as in the examples below and place this alphabetically in the reference list and not where the author’s actual name would typically appear.

For examples of common types of references, consult the APA 7th edition manual, or visit the webpage here: https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/references

How to Get Help with the Quality of English in Your Submission

Authors who would like to refine the use of English in their manuscripts might consider using the services of a professional English-language editing company. We highlight some of these companies at  https://languageservices.sagepub.com/en/ .

Please be aware that Sage has no affiliation with these companies and makes no endorsement of them. An author's use of these services in no way guarantees that his or her submission will ultimately be accepted. Any arrangement an author enters into will be exclusively between the author and the particular company, and any costs incurred are the sole responsibility of the author.

Copyright Information Accepted authors will be asked to  assign copyright  to AERA, in return for which AERA grants several rights to authors.

Permission to reproduce your own published material

No written or oral permission is necessary to reproduce a table, a figure, or an excerpt of fewer than 500 words from this journal, or to make photocopies for classroom use. Authors are granted permission, without fee, to photocopy their own material or make printouts from the final pdf of their article. Copies must include a full and accurate bibliographic citation and the following credit line: “Copyright [year] by the American Educational Research Association; reproduced with permission from the publisher.” Written permission must be obtained to reproduce or reprint material in circumstances other than those just described. Please review Sage Publishing’s  Journal Permissions  for further information on policies and fees.

Permission to submit material for which you do not own copyright

Authors who wish to use material, such as figures or tables, for which they do not own the copyright must obtain written permission from the copyright holder (usually the publisher) and submit it along with their manuscript. However, no written or oral permission is necessary to reproduce a table, a figure, or an excerpt of fewer than 500 words from an AERA journal.

Copyright transfer agreements for accepted works with more than one author

This journal uses a transfer of copyright agreement that requires just one author (the corresponding author) to sign on behalf of all authors. Please identify the corresponding author for your work when submitting your manuscript for review. The corresponding author will be responsible for the following:

1. Ensuring that all authors are identified on the copyright agreement, and notifying the editorial office of any changes in the authorship.

2. Securing written permission (by letter or e-mail) from each co-author to sign the copyright agreement on the co-author’s behalf.

3. Warranting and indemnifying the journal owner and publisher on behalf of all co-authors. Although such instances are very rare, you should be aware that in the event that a co-author has included content in his or her portion of the article that infringes the copyright of another or is otherwise in violation of any other warranty listed in the agreement, you will be the sole author indemnifying the publisher and the editor of the journal against such violation.

Please contact the publications office at  AERA  if you have questions or if you prefer to use a copyright agreement for all coauthors to sign.

Right of Reply

The right of reply policy encourages comments on recently published articles in AERA publications. They are, of course, subject to the same editorial review and decision process as articles. If the comment is accepted for publication, the editor shall inform the author of the original article. If the author submits a reply to the comment, the reply is also subject to editorial review and decision. The editor may allot a specific amount of journal space for the comment (ordinarily about 1,500 words) and for the reply (ordinarily about 750 words). The reply may appear in the same issue as the comment or in a later issue (Council, June 1980).

If an article is accepted for publication in an AERA journal that, in the judgment of the editor, has as its main theme or thrust a critique of a specific piece of work or a specific line of work associated with an individual or program of research, then the individual or representative of the research program whose work is critiqued should be notified in advance about the upcoming publication and given the opportunity to reply, ideally in the same issue. The author of the original article should also be notified. Normal guidelines for length and review of the reply and publication of a rejoinder by the original article’s author(s) should be followed. Articles in the format “an open letter to …” may constitute prototypical exemplars of the category defined here, but other formats may well be used, and would be included under the qualifications for response prescribed here (Council, January 2002).

Sage Choice and Open Access

If you or your funder wish your article to be freely available online to nonsubscribers immediately upon publication (gold open access), you can opt for it to be included in Sage Choice, subject to payment of a publication fee. The manuscript submission and peer review procedure is unchanged. On acceptance of your article, you will be asked to let Sage know directly if you are choosing Sage Choice. To check journal eligibility and the publication fee, please visit  Sage Choice . For more information on open access options and compliance at Sage, including self author archiving deposits (green open access) visit  Sage Publishing Policies  on our Journal Author Gateway.

• Read Online
• Sample Issues
• Current Issue
• Email Alert
• Permissions
• Foreign rights
• Reprints and sponsorship
• Advertising

Individual Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)

Institutional Subscription, E-access

Institutional Subscription & Backfile Lease, E-access Plus Backfile (All Online Content)

Institutional Subscription, Print Only

Institutional Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)

Institutional Subscription & Backfile Lease, Combined Plus Backfile (Current Volume Print & All Online Content)

Institutional Backfile Purchase, E-access (Content through 1998)

Individual, Single Print Issue

Institutional, Single Print Issue

To order single issues of this journal, please contact SAGE Customer Services at 1-800-818-7243 / 1-805-583-9774 with details of the volume and issue you would like to purchase.

The Review of Higher Education

Penny A. Pasque, The Ohio State University; Thomas F. Nelson Laird, Indiana University, Bloomington

Journal Details

The Review of Higher Education  is interested in empirical research studies, empirically-based historical and theoretical articles, and scholarly reviews and essays that move the study of colleges and universities forward. The most central aspect of  RHE  is the saliency of the subject matter to other scholars in the field as well as its usefulness to academic leaders and public policymakers. Manuscripts submitted for  RHE  need to extend the literature in the field of higher education and may connect across fields and disciplines when relevant. Selection of articles for publication is based solely on the merits of the manuscripts with regards to conceptual or theoretical frameworks, methodological accurateness and suitability, and/or the clarity of ideas and gathered facts presented. Additionally, our publications center around issues within US Higher Education and any manuscript that we send for review must have clear implications for US Higher Education. 

Guidelines for Contributors

Manuscripts should be typed, serif or san serif text as recommended by APA 7th edition (e.g., 11-point Calibri, 11-point Arial, and 10-point Lucida Sans Unicode, 12-point Times New Roman, 11-point Georgia, 10-point Computer Modern) double-spaced throughout, including block quotes and references. Each page should be numbered on the top right side of the page consecutively and include a running head. Please supply the title of your submission, an abstract of 100 or fewer words, and keywords as the first page of your manuscript submission (this page does not count towards your page limit). The names, institutional affiliations, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and a short biography of authors should appear on a separate cover page to aid proper masking during the review process. Initial and revised submissions should not run more than 32 pages (excluding abstract, keywords, and references; including tables, figures and appendices). Authors should follow instructions in the 7th edition Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association; any manuscripts not following all APA guidelines will not be reviewed. Please do not change fonts, spacing, or margins or use style formatting features at any point in the manuscript except for tables. All tables should be submitted in a mutable format (i.e. not a fixed image). Please upload your manuscript as a word document. All supporting materials (i.e., tables, figures, appendices) should be editable in the manuscript or a separate word document (i.e., do not embedded tables or figures). For a fixed image, please upload a separate high-resolution JPEG.

Authors should use their best judgment when masking citations. Masking some or all citations that include an author’s name can help prevent reviewers from knowing the identities of the authors. However, in certain circumstances masking citations is unnecessary or could itself reveal the identities of manuscript authors. Because authors are in the best position to know when masking citations will be effective, the editorial team will generally defer to them for these decisions.

Manuscripts are to be submitted in Word online at  mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rhe . (If you have not previously registered on this website, click on the “Register here” link to create a new account.) Once you log on, click on the “Author Center” link and then follow the printed instructions to submit your manuscript.

The term “conflict of interest” means any financial or other interest which conflicts with the work of the individual because it (1) could significantly impair the individual’s objectivity or (2) could create an unfair advantage for any person or organization. We recommend all authors review and adhere to the ASHE Conflict of Interest Policy before submitting any and all work. Please refer to the policy at  ashe.ws/ashe_coi

Please note that  The Review of Higher Education  does not require potential contributors to pay an article submission fee in order to be considered for publication.  Any other website that purports to be affiliated with the Journal and that requires you to pay an article submission fee is fraudulent. Do not provide payment information. Instead, we ask that you contact the  RHE  editorial office at  [email protected]  or William Breichner the Journals Publisher at the Johns Hopkins University Press  [email protected] .

Author Checklist for New Submissions

Page Limit.  Manuscripts should not go over 32 pages (excluding abstract, keywords, and references; including tables, figures and appendices.)

Masked Review.  All author information (i.e., name, affiliation, email, phone number, address) should appear on a separate cover page of the manuscript. The manuscript should have no indication of authorship. Any indication of authorship will result in your manuscript being unsubmitted.

Formatting.  Manuscripts should be typed, serif or san serif text as recommended by APA 7th edition (e.g., 11-point Calibri, 11-point Arial, and 10-point Lucida Sans Unicode, 12-point Times New Roman, 11-point Georgia, 10-point Computer Modern), double-spaced throughout, including block quotes and references, and each page should be numbered on the top right side of the page consecutively. Authors should follow instructions in the 7th edition Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association; this includes running heads, heading levels, spacing, margins, etc.. Any manuscripts not following APA 7th edition will be unsubmitted. [Please note, the  RHE  editorial team recommends 12-pt Times New Roman font to ensure proper format conversion within the ScholarOne system.]

Abstract.  All manuscripts must include an abstract of 100 words or fewer, and keywords as the first page of your manuscript submission (this page does not count towards your page limit).

Author Note.  An Author’s note may include Land Acknowledgments, Disclosure Statement (i.e., funding sources), or other acknowledgments. This should appear on your title page (not in the masked manuscript).  

Tables.  All tables should be editable. Tables may be uploaded in the manuscript itself or in a separate word document. All tables must be interpretable by readers without the reference to the manuscript. Do not duplicate information from the manuscript into tables. Tables must present additional information from what has already been stated in the manuscript.

Figures.  Figures should be editable in the manuscript or a separate word document (i.e., no embedded tables). For fixed images, please upload high-resolution JPEGs separately.

References.  The reference page should follow 7th edition APA guidelines and be double spaced throughout (reference pages do not count toward your page limit). 

Appendices.  Appendices should generally run no more than 3 manuscript pages. 

Additional Checklist for Revised Submissions

Revised manuscripts should follow the checklist above, with the following additional notes: 

Page Limit.  Revised manuscripts should stay within the page limit for new submissions (32 pages). However, we do realize that this is not always possible, and we may allow for a couple of extra pages for your revisions. Extensions to your page length will be subject to editor approval upon resubmission, but may not exceed 35 pages (excluding abstract, keywords, and references).

• Author Response to Reviewer Comments.  At the beginning of your revised manuscript file, please include a separate masked statement that indicates fully [1] all changes that have been made in response to the reviewer and editor suggestions and the pages on which those changes may be found in the revised manuscript and [2] those reviewer and editor suggestions that are not addressed in the revised manuscript and a rationale for why you think such revisions are not necessary. This can be in the form of a table or text paragraphs and must appear at the front of your revised manuscript document. Your response to reviewer and editor comments will not count toward your manuscript page limit. Please note that, because you will be adding your response to the reviewer and editor feedback to the beginning of your submission, this may change the page numbers of your document unless you change the pagination and start your manuscript itself on page 1. The choice is yours but either way, please ensure that you reference the appropriate page numbers within your manuscript in these responses. Additionally, when you submit your revised manuscript, there will be a submission box labeled “Author Response to Decision Letter”. You are not required to duplicate information already provided in the manuscript, but instead may use this to send a note to the reviewer team (e.g., an anonymous cover letter or note of appreciation for feedback). Please maintain anonymity throughout the review process by NOT including your name or by masking any potentially identifying information when providing your response to the reviewer's feedback (both in documents and the ScholarOne system).

Editorial Correspondence

Please address all correspondence about submitting articles (no subscriptions, please) to one or both of the following editors:

Dr. Penny A. Pasque, PhD Editor, Review of Higher Education 341 C Ramseyer Hall 29 W. Woodruff Avenue The Ohio State University Columbus, OH 43210 email:  [email protected]

Dr. Thomas F. Nelson Laird, PhD Editor, Review of Higher Education 201 North Rose Avenue Indiana University School of Education Bloomington, IN 47405-100 email:  [email protected]

Submission Policy

RHE publishes original works that are not available elsewhere. We ask that all manuscripts submitted to our journal for review are not published, in press or submitted to other journals while under our review. Additionally, reprints and translations of previously published articles will not be accepted.

Type of Preliminary Review

RHE utilizes a collaborative review process that requires several members of the editorial team to ensure that submitted manuscripts are suitable before being sent out for masked peer-review. Members of this team include a Editor, Associate Editor and Managing Editors. Managing Editors complete an initial review of manuscripts to ensure authors meet RHE ’s Author Guidelines and work with submitting authors to address preliminary issues and concerns (i.e., APA formatting). Editors and Associate Editors work together to decide whether it should be sent out for review and select appropriate reviewers for the manuscript.

Type of Review

When a manuscript is determined as suitable for review by the collaborative decision of the editorial team, Editors and/or Associate Editors will assign reviewers. Both the authors’ and reviewers’ are masked throughout the review and decision process.

Criteria for Review

Criteria for review include, but are not limited to, the significance of the topic to higher education, completeness of the literature review, appropriateness of the research methods or historical analysis, and the quality of the discussion concerning the implications of the findings for theory, research, and practice. In addition, we look for the congruence of thought and approach throughout the manuscript components.

Type of Revisions Process

Some authors will receive a “Major Revision” or “Minor Revision” decision. Authors who receive such decisions are encouraged to carefully attend to reviewer’s comments and recommendations and resubmit their revised manuscripts for another round of reviews. When submitting their revised manuscripts, authors are asked to include a response letter and indicate how they have responded to reviewer comments and recommendations. In some instances, authors may be asked to revise and resubmit a manuscript more than once.

Review Process Once Revised

Revised manuscripts are sent to the reviewers who originally made comments and recommendations regarding the manuscript, whenever possible. We rely on our editorial board and ad-hoc reviewers who volunteer their time and we give those reviewers a month to provide thorough feedback. Please see attached pdf for a visual representation of the RHE workflow .

Timetable (approx.)

• Managing Editor Technical Checks – 1-3 days
• Editor reviews and assigns manuscript to Associate Editors – 3-5 days
• Associate Editor reviews and invites reviewers – 3-5 days
• Reviewer comments due – 30 days provided for reviews
• Associate Editor makes a recommendation –  5-7 days
• Editor makes decision – 5-7 days
• If R&R, authors revise and resubmit manuscript – 90 days provided for revisions
• Repeat process above until manuscript is accepted or rejected -

Type of review for book reviews

Book reviews are the responsibility of the associate editor of book reviews. Decisions about acceptance of a book review are made by that associate editor.

The Hopkins Press Journals Ethics and Malpractice Statement can be found at the ethics-and-malpractice  page.

The Review of Higher Education expects all authors to review and adhere to ASHE’s Conflict of Interest Policy before submitting any and all work. The term “conflict of interest” means any financial or other interest which conflicts with the work of the individual because it (1) could significantly impair the individual’s objectivity or (2) could create an unfair advantage for any person or organization. Please refer to the policy at ashe.ws/ashe_coi .

Guidelines for Book Reviews

RHE publishes book reviews of original research, summaries of research, or scholarly thinking in book form. We do not publish reviews of books or media that would be described as expert opinion or advice for practitioners.

The journal publishes reviews of current books, meaning books published no more than 12 months prior to submission to the associate editor in charge of book reviews.

If you want to know whether the RHE would consider a book review before writing it, you may email the associate editor responsible for book reviews with the citation for the book.

Reviewers should have scholarly expertise in the higher education research area they are reviewing.

Graduate students are welcome to co-author book reviews, but with faculty or seasoned research professionals as first authors.

Please email the review to the associate editor in charge of book reviews (Timothy Reese Cain, [email protected] ), who will work through necessary revisions with you if your submission is accepted for publishing.

In general, follow the APA Publication Manual, 7th edition.

Provide a brief but clear description and summary of the contents so that the reader has a good idea of the scope and organization of the book. This is especially important when reviewing anthologies that include multiple sections with multiple authors.

Provide an evaluation of the book, both positive and negative points. What has been done well? Not so well? For example the following are some questions that you can address (not exclusively), as appropriate:

What are the important contributions that this book makes?

What contributions could have been made, but were not made?

What arguments or claims were problematic, weak, etc.?

How is the book related to, how does it supplement, or how does it complicate current work on the topic?

To which audience(s) will this book be most helpful?

How well has the author achieved their stated goals?

Use quotations efficiently to provide a flavor of the writing style and/or statements that are particularly helpful in illustrating the author(s) points. 

If you cite any other published work, please provide a complete reference.

Please include a brief biographical statement immediately after your name, usually title and institution. Follow the same format for co authored reviews. The first author is the contact author.

Please follow this example for the headnote of the book(s) you are reviewing: Stefan M. Bradley. Upending the Ivory Tower: Civil Rights, Black Power, and the Ivy League. New York: New York University Press, 2018. 465 pp. $35. ISBN 97814798739999.

Our preferred length is 2,000–2,500 words in order for authors to provide a complete, analytical, review. Reviews of shorter books may not need to be of that length.

The term “conflict of interest” means any financial or other interest which conflicts with the work of the individual because it (1) could significantly impair the individual’s objectivity or (2) could create an unfair advantage for any person or organization. We recommend all book reviewers read and adhere to the ASHE Conflict of Interest Policy before submitting any and all work. Please refer to the policy at ashe.ws/ashe_coi

NOTE: If the Editor has sent a book to an author for review, but the author is unable to complete the review within a reasonable timeframe, we would appreciate the return of the book as soon as possible; thanks for your understanding.

Please send book review copies to the contact above. Review copies received by the Johns Hopkins University Press office will be discarded.

Penny A. Pasque,         The Ohio State University

Thomas F. Nelson Laird,         Indiana University-Bloomington

Associate Editors

Angela Boatman,         Boston College

Timothy Reese Cain (including Book Reviews),         University of Georgia

Milagros Castillo-Montoya,         University of Connecticut

Tania D. Mitchell,         University of Minnesota

Chrystal A. George Mwangi       George Mason University

Federick Ngo,        University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Managing Editors

Stephanie Nguyen,         Indiana University Bloomington

Monica Quezada Barrera,         The Ohio State University

Editorial Board

Sonja Ardoin,         Clemson University

Peter Riley Bahr,        University of Michigan

Vicki Baker,      Albion College

Allison BrckaLorenz,        Indiana University Bloomington

Nolan L. Cabrera,        The University of Arizona

Brendan Cantwell,        Michigan State University

Rozana Carducci,        Elon University

Deborah Faye Carter,         Claremont Graduate University

Ashley Clayton,         Louisiana State University

Regina Deil-Amen,         The University of Arizona 

Jennifer A. Delaney,     University of Illinois Urbana Champaign

Erin E. Doran,    Iowa State University

Antonio Duran,   Arizona State University 

Michelle M. Espino,        University of Maryland 

Claudia García-Louis,        University of Texas, San Antonio

Deryl Hatch-Tocaimaza,        University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Nicholas Hillman,        University of Wisconsin-Madison

Cindy Ann Kilgo,        Indiana University-Bloomington

Judy Marquez Kiyama,  University of Arizona

Román Liera,        Montclair State University

Angela Locks,        California State University, Long Beach

Demetri L. Morgan,  Loyola University Chicago

Rebecca Natow,         Hofstra University 

Z Nicolazzo,        The University of Arizona

Elizabeth Niehaus,        University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Robert T. Palmer,        Howard University

Rosemary Perez,        University of Michigan

OiYan Poon,         Spencer Foundation 

Kelly Rosinger,        The Pennsylvania State University

Vanessa Sansone,         The University of Texas at San Antonio

Tricia Seifert,        Montana State University

Barrett Taylor,         University of North Texas 

Annemarie Vaccaro,  University of Rhode Island

Xueli Wang,        University of Wisconsin-Madison

Stephanie Waterman,         University of Toronto 

Rachelle Winkle-Wagner,         University of Wisconsin-Madison

Association for the Study of Higher Education Board of Directors

The Review of Higher Education is the journal of Association for the Study Higher Education (ASHE) and follows the ASHE Bylaws and Statement on Diversity. 

ASHE Board of Directors

Abstracting & Indexing Databases

• Current Contents
• Web of Science
• Dietrich's Index Philosophicus
• IBZ - Internationale Bibliographie der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Zeitschriftenliteratur
• Internationale Bibliographie der Rezensionen Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlicher Literatur
• Academic Search Alumni Edition, 9/1/2003-
• Academic Search Complete, 9/1/2003-
• Academic Search Elite, 9/1/2003-
• Academic Search Premier, 9/1/2003-
• Current Abstracts, 9/1/2003-
• Education Research Complete, 3/1/1997-
• Education Research Index, Sep.2003-
• Education Source, 3/1/1997-
• Educational Administration Abstracts, 3/1/1991-
• ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), 1977-
• MLA International Bibliography (Modern Language Association)
• Poetry & Short Story Reference Center, 3/1/1997-
• PsycINFO, 2001-, dropped
• Russian Academy of Sciences Bibliographies
• TOC Premier (Table of Contents), 9/1/2003-
• Scopus, 1996-
• Gale Academic OneFile
• Gale OneFile: Educator's Reference Complete, 12/2001-
• Higher Education Abstracts (Online)
• ArticleFirst, vol.15, no.3, 1992-vol.35, no.2, 2011
• Electronic Collections Online, vol.20, no.1, 1996-vol.35, no.2, 2011
• Periodical Abstracts, v.26, n.4, 2003-v.33, n.3, 2010
• PsycFIRST, vol.24, no.3, 2001-vol.33, no.1, 2009
• Personal Alert (E-mail)
• Education Collection, 7/1/2003-
• Education Database, 7/1/2003-
• Health Research Premium Collection, 7/1/2003-
• Hospital Premium Collection, 7/1/2003-
• Periodicals Index Online, 1/1/1981-7/1/2000
• Professional ProQuest Central, 07/01/2003-
• ProQuest 5000, 07/01/2003-
• ProQuest 5000 International, 07/01/2003-
• ProQuest Central, 07/01/2003-
• Psychology Database, 7/1/2003-
• Research Library, 07/01/2003-
• Social Science Premium Collection, 07/01/2003-
• Educational Research Abstracts Online
• Research into Higher Education Abstracts (Online)
• Studies on Women and Gender Abstracts (Online)

Abstracting & Indexing Sources

• Contents Pages in Education   (Ceased)  (Print)
• Family Index   (Ceased)  (Print)
• Psychological Abstracts   (Ceased)  (Print)

Source: Ulrichsweb Global Serials Directory.

1.8 (2022) 3.2 (Five-Year Impact Factor) 0.00195 (Eigenfactor™ Score) Rank in Category (by Journal Impact Factor): 185 of 269 journals, in “Education & Educational Research”

© Clarivate Analytics 2023

Published quarterly

Readers include: Scholars, academic leaders, administrators, public policy makers involved in higher education, and all members of the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE)

Print circulation: 761

Print Advertising Rates

Full Page: (4.75 x 7.5") - $450.00

Half Page: (4.75 x 3.5") - $338.00

2 Page Spread - $675.00

Print Advertising Deadlines

September Issue – July 15

December Issue – October 15

March Issue – January 15

June Issue – April 15

Online Advertising Rates (per month)

Promotion (400x200 pixels) – $338.00

Online Advertising Deadline

Online advertising reservations are placed on a month-to-month basis.

All online ads are due on the 20th of the month prior to the reservation.

General Advertising Info

For more information on advertising or to place an ad, please visit the Advertising page. 

eTOC (Electronic Table of Contents) alerts can be delivered to your inbox when this or any Hopkins Press journal is published via your ProjectMUSE MyMUSE account. Visit the eTOC instructions page for detailed instructions on setting up your MyMUSE account and alerts.  

Also of Interest

Vasti Torres, Indiana University

Patti Duncan, Oregon State University

Georgia L. Irby, College of William & Mary

Benjamin Fraser, The University of Arizona

Jeraldine Kraver, University of Northern Colorado; Peter Kratzke, University of Colorado, Boulder

Chrysogonus Siddha Malilang, Malmö University, Sweden

Carine Bourget, University of Arizona

Megan Corbin, West Chester University

Joseph Michael Sommers, Central Michigan University

Hopkins Press Journals

Educational Review

Subject Area and Category

Publication type.

00131911, 14653397

Information

How to publish in this journal

The set of journals have been ranked according to their SJR and divided into four equal groups, four quartiles. Q1 (green) comprises the quarter of the journals with the highest values, Q2 (yellow) the second highest values, Q3 (orange) the third highest values and Q4 (red) the lowest values.

The SJR is a size-independent prestige indicator that ranks journals by their 'average prestige per article'. It is based on the idea that 'all citations are not created equal'. SJR is a measure of scientific influence of journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals where such citations come from It measures the scientific influence of the average article in a journal, it expresses how central to the global scientific discussion an average article of the journal is.

Evolution of the number of published documents. All types of documents are considered, including citable and non citable documents.

This indicator counts the number of citations received by documents from a journal and divides them by the total number of documents published in that journal. The chart shows the evolution of the average number of times documents published in a journal in the past two, three and four years have been cited in the current year. The two years line is equivalent to journal impact factor ™ (Thomson Reuters) metric.

Evolution of the total number of citations and journal's self-citations received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. Journal Self-citation is defined as the number of citation from a journal citing article to articles published by the same journal.

Evolution of the number of total citation per document and external citation per document (i.e. journal self-citations removed) received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. External citations are calculated by subtracting the number of self-citations from the total number of citations received by the journal’s documents.

International Collaboration accounts for the articles that have been produced by researchers from several countries. The chart shows the ratio of a journal's documents signed by researchers from more than one country; that is including more than one country address.

Not every article in a journal is considered primary research and therefore "citable", this chart shows the ratio of a journal's articles including substantial research (research articles, conference papers and reviews) in three year windows vs. those documents other than research articles, reviews and conference papers.

Ratio of a journal's items, grouped in three years windows, that have been cited at least once vs. those not cited during the following year.

Evolution of the percentage of female authors.

Evolution of the number of documents cited by public policy documents according to Overton database.

Evoution of the number of documents related to Sustainable Development Goals defined by United Nations. Available from 2018 onwards.

Leave a comment

Name * Required

Email (will not be published) * Required

* Required Cancel

The users of Scimago Journal & Country Rank have the possibility to dialogue through comments linked to a specific journal. The purpose is to have a forum in which general doubts about the processes of publication in the journal, experiences and other issues derived from the publication of papers are resolved. For topics on particular articles, maintain the dialogue through the usual channels with your editor.

Follow us on @ScimagoJR Scimago Lab , Copyright 2007-2024. Data Source: Scopus®

Cookie settings

Cookie Policy

Legal Notice

Privacy Policy

Educational Psychology Review

Special Issues can be accessed through the Collections link on the right-hand side Educational Psychology Review is an international forum for the publication of peer-reviewed integrative review articles, special thematic issues, reflections or comments on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners - all pertaining to the field of educational psychology. The contents provide breadth of coverage appropriate to a wide readership in educational psychology and sufficient depth to inform the most learned specialists in the discipline.

This is a transformative journal , you may have access to funding.

Latest articles

Psychometric properties of statistics anxiety measures: a systematic review.

• Palmira Faraci
• Gaia Azzurra Malluzzo

A Motivational Perspective on (Anticipated) Mental Effort Investment: The Biopsychosocial Model of Challenge and Threat

• Tamara van Gog
• Eva Janssen
• Maaike Taheij

Cracking Chicken-Egg Conundrums: Juxtaposing Contemporaneous and Lagged Reciprocal Effects Models of Academic Self-Concept and Achievement’s Directional Ordering

• Herbert W. Marsh
• Fernando Núñez-Regueiro

Investigating Success in the Transition to University: A Systematic Review of Personal Risk and Protective Factors Influencing Academic Achievement

• Isabelle Ball
• Moitree Banerjee
• Ian Tyndall

The Development, Testing, and Refinement of Eccles, Wigfield, and Colleagues’ Situated Expectancy-Value Model of Achievement Performance and Choice

• Jacquelynne S. Eccles
• Allan Wigfield

Journal information

• Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences
• Google Scholar
• Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals and Series
• OCLC WorldCat Discovery Service
• Social Science Citation Index
• TD Net Discovery Service
• UGC-CARE List (India)

Rights and permissions

Editorial policies

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Education Quarterly Reviews

Issn 2621-5799 (online), issn 2657-215x (print).

Education Journal

International journal, international education journal, scopus education journal, jurnal internasional, jurnal gratis, special education journal, publish articles, best education journal, list of education journals, education journals america.

CALL FOR PAPERS: Vol. 7, No.2 June 2024 Submission Deadline: 15 June  2024 Publication Date: 30 June 2024   All accepted manuscripts will be published online one week after a manuscript has been accepted

Frequency: quarterly  (four issues per year), submission:  online submission, language: english, the asian institute of research education quarterly reviews is a peer-reviewed international journal of the asian institute of research. t he journal covers scholarly articles in the fields of education, linguistics, literature, educational theory, research, and methodologies, curriculum, elementary and secondary education, higher education, foreign language education, teaching and learning, teacher education, education of special groups, and other fields of study related to education. the education quarterly reviews is an open access journal that can be accessed and downloaded online for free. thus, ensuring high visibility and increase of citations for all research articles published.  the journal aims to facilitate scholarly work on recent theoretical and practical aspects of education. academics, policymakers, and researchers are open to submit their manuscript at any time., the asian institute of research education quarterly reviews upholds the value of diversity, therefore have recruited editors from diverse national backgrounds. below is our editorial team:, editor-in-chief.

Prof. dr. Remigiusz Kijak

Faculty of education,, university of warsaw, poland, editorial board, josé alberto lencastre, ph.d., department of curricular studies and, e ducational technology,,  university of minho, portugal, prof. panagiotis vlamos, head of the department of informatics,, ionian university, greece, dibakar sarangi, m ed, m phil, ph d, pm institute of advanced study in, education, india.

Assoc. Prof. Iosif Fragkoulis

Department of education,, greece tutor hellenic open university.

Dr. Veronica Odiri Amatari

Department of educational foundations,, niger delta university, nigeria, dr. siti noor binti ismail, school of education and modern languages,, universiti utara malaysia, malaysia, assistant prof. ching-chung guey, department of applied english,, i-shou university, taiwan, assoc. prof. ali s.m. al-issa  , department of curriculum & instruction,, sultan qaboos university, oman.

Dr. Froilan D. MOBO

General education unit, philippine merchant, marine academy, philippines, assoc. prof. daniela maria cretu, teacher training department, lucian blaga university of sibiu, romania, manjet kaur mehar, ph.d., school of languages, literacies, and, translation,  universiti sains malaysia, dr. man fung lo faculty of education, the university of hong kong .

Dr. Ashraf Atta Mohamed Safein Salem

 department of languages,   sadat academy, for management sciences, egypt, prof. patrizia ghislandi, department of psychology and cognitive, science, university of trento, italy, jonathan adedayo odukoya, ph.d, department of psychology,, covenant university, assoc. prof. erlane k ghani, accounting research institute, universiti teknologi mara, malaysia, index copernicus value 2022:, all accepted articles will be submitted for indexing in the following databases:.

Coverage: 2018-2022

Officially Registered in:

E-Publication

Articles that have been peer-reviewed and accepted will be published online in approximately four weeks., publication fee.

The publication fee for accepted manuscripts is USD 175.00, with the addition of transaction fees depending on the service used

Each published paper will be assigned a DOI (Digital Object Identifier) number, to ensure a persistent link to its location on the internet

Aior journals are proofread with grammarly, to ensure the quality of papers.

Alis bin Puteh

Senior lecturer department of , education, universiti utara malaysia, shamil sheymardanov, senior lecturer, elabuga institute,, kazan federal university, russia.

Prof. Ratko Pavlović

 faculty of physical education and sport,, university of east sarajevo, bosnia and, herzegovina.

Dr. Öznur ATAŞ AKDEMİR

Firat university, turkey.

Assoc. Prof. Elena Savu

"politechnica" technical university of, bucuresti, romania, assoc. prof. ryan v. dio, director of research and development services,, sorsogon state college, philippines.

Prof. Fátima Pereira da Silva

Invited professor-  higher education school, (esec), polytechnic institute of coimbra (ipc),.

Dr. Vasiliki Brinia

Head of teacher education program, athens, university of economics & business, greece.

Assoc. Prof. Amuche Christian Igomu Taraba State University Jalingo,

Milagros elena rodriguez, ph.d. universidad de oriente,.

Dr. Ali Sorayyaei Azar Department of Education, School of Education and Social Sciences, Management and Science University, Malaysia

Dr. Ari Ambarwati University of Islam Malang,

Prof. Dr. Mahmud Arif State Islamic University of Sunan Kalijaga, Indonesia

Prof. kofi poku quan-baffour department of adult community & continuing education, university of south africa.

• Entertainment
• Investigations
• Latest Headlines
• Election 2024
• What Are They Hiding?
• 2024 Election
• Clark County
• Nation and World
• Science and Technology
• Road Warrior
• Las Vegas Weather
• East Valley
• North Las Vegas
• Summerlin/Centennial Hills
• Remembering Oct. 1, 2017
• Deborah Wall
• Natalie Burt
• Remembering Jeff German
• Police Accountability
• Alpine Fire
• 100 Years of Growth
• Dangerous Driving
• Raiders News
• Golden Knights
• UNLV Football
• UNLV Basketball
• Nevada Preps
• Sports Betting 101
• Las Vegas Sportsbooks
• National Finals Rodeo
• Where Are They Now?
• On TV/Radio
• MMA and UFC
• Casinos & Gaming
• Conventions
• Inside Gaming
• Entrepreneurs
• Real Estate News
• Business Press
• Sheldon Adelson (1933-2021)
• Debra J. Saunders
• Michael Ramirez cartoons
• Victor Joecks
• Richard A. Epstein
• Victor Davis Hanson
• Drawing Board
• Homicide Tracker
• Faces of Death Row
• Kats’ Cool Hangs
• Arts & Culture
• Home and Garden
• Las Vegas Hiking Guide
• RJ Magazine
• Today’s Obituaries
• Submit an obit
• Dealer News
• Classifieds
• Place a Classified Ad
• Provided Content
• Real Estate Millions
• Internships
• Service Directory
• Transportation
• Merchandise
• Legal Information
• Real Estate Classifieds
• Garage Sales
• Contests and Promotions
• Best of Las Vegas
• Nevada State Bank
• Verizon Business
• P3 Health Partners
• Adult Health
• Star Nursery
• Partner Articles
• Ignite Funding
• Supplements
• Travel Nevada
• Subscriptions
• Newsletters
• Advertise with Us

• >> Local
• >> Education

‘Very special’: Education, job training hub coming to Historic Westside

Officials broke ground in Las Vegas’ Historic Westside for a College of Southern Nevada facility designed to help people get into high-demand industries.

A higher education and job training facility is coming to Las Vegas’ Historic Westside.

For now, the site of the College of Southern Nevada’s future Historic Westside Education and Training Center is a vacant lot adjacent to the Historic Westside School.

But officials on Tuesday morning dug into a pile of dirt to signify a major hurdle cleared: an official groundbreaking ceremony.

“We needed higher education in our community,” said Las Vegas Councilman Cedric Crear, who represents the neighborhood. “We needed to say ‘CSN’ on the side of the building.”

That building will be a 15,000-square-foot hub for credentialed job training in manufacturing, health care, technology and construction trades, officials said.

“The training programs are focused on key high-demand, high-wage industries that will provide participants with pathways directly into career fields, and align with college degree programs,” according to the city.

The center, which is being constructed by Builders United, has a price tag of $16.4 million, the city said. Part of that funding came from a multimillion-dollar grant from the U.S. Economic Development Administration, officials noted.

‘Building up communities’

“Today is about building up communities, not tearing them down,” said Rep. Steven Horsford, D-Nev., at the ceremony, which was attended by about 100 people. He pointed out how the attention to development in the Las Vegas Valley has historically been focused on the Strip.

“For too long, the projects got built on the other side of the freeway and not on this side,” Horsford said about the long-neglected, impoverished and predominantly Black Historic Westside. “For too long there were projects that were proposed and they always made their way to other places.”

CSN’s satellite campus forms part of the city’s 100th Plan, spearheaded by Crear for the neighborhood.

The councilman, who is running for mayor, noted other investments, such as the upcoming mammoth library being built in the area, housing units and funding from the city and Clark County towards the new and expanded Mario’s Westside Market.

Crear said the center’s location is vital for neighborhood residents, noting that longer commutes to higher education campuses are an impediment for some.

“This center exemplifies how higher education can adapt to meeting the needs to our community,” said Nevada System of Higher Education Chancellor Patty Charlton. “This is a great start.”

CSN President Federico Zaragoza spearheaded the project, which is similar to one he implemented in San Antonio as a college administrator.

Crear said city officials visited the Texas city to look at the fruits of Zaragoza’s initiative.

Zaragoza said higher education institutions typically “run away” from underprivileged neighborhoods.

“This is an important journey in all higher education,” he said. “We need to be in locations like this.”

Zaragoza will soon retire from CSN.

“This to me is very special for so many ways, but more importantly because it is the one project that I was hoping I could get past the gate before I left,” he concluded.

Contact Ricardo Torres-Cortez at [email protected] .

The children who suffered sexual abuse at the hands of a Clark County School District bus driver have, through their parents, filed a lawsuit alleging that the district either knew or should have known the risk they faced.

The resignation of Sharon Knafo, head of Shenker Academy, was announced May 24, a week after the arrest of teacher Eryka Westover.

The Board of School Trustees decided on an Illinois-based search firm to recommend candidates for the office.

Researchers are looking for people in the Las Vegas Valley with loved ones who have the disease also known as juvenile diabetes.

The order reverses a CCSD policy that blocked members appointed by Clark County, Henderson, Las Vegas and North Las Vegas from filing motions at board meetings.

The school’s teams will have a new nickname in August after an agreement with Arizona State to use the Sundevils moniker and the Sparky mascot was discontinued.

The student’s lawyers claim he was threatened, discriminated against at UNLV, amid taunts from pro-Palestinian protesters and inaction by the administration and Board of Regents.

A two-story, 40,000-square-foot STEM university building that will include classrooms and a large lecture hall was unveiled by Spaceport CEO Robert Lauer.

NHSE Regents expressed doubt that UNLV’s plans to enter into a 99-year lease for 42 acres of land near the Las Vegas Strip is the most productive option for the university.

Speakers at a Board of Regents meeting expressed disappointment in a lack of response from the board and UNLV leadership on a recent commencement speech.

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 31.5.2024 in Vol 26 (2024)

Patients’ Perspectives on the Data Confidentiality, Privacy, and Security of mHealth Apps: Systematic Review

Authors of this article:

• Nasser Alhammad 1, 2 , MSc   ; 
• Mohannad Alajlani 1 , PhD   ; 
• Alaa Abd-alrazaq 3 , PhD   ; 
• Gregory Epiphaniou 1 , PhD   ; 
• Theodoros Arvanitis 4 , PhD  

1 Institute of Digital Healthcare, WMG, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom

2 Health Informatics, Saudi Electronic University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

3 AI Center for Precision Health, Weill Cornell Medicine, Doha, Qatar

4 School of Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom

Corresponding Author:

Nasser Alhammad, MSc

Institute of Digital Healthcare, WMG

University of Warwick

Millburn House

Coventry, CV47AL

United Kingdom

Phone: 66 558885007

Email: [email protected]

Background: Mobile health (mHealth) apps have the potential to enhance health care service delivery. However, concerns regarding patients’ confidentiality, privacy, and security consistently affect the adoption of mHealth apps. Despite this, no review has comprehensively summarized the findings of studies on this subject matter.

Objective: This systematic review aims to investigate patients’ perspectives and awareness of the confidentiality, privacy, and security of the data collected through mHealth apps.

Methods: Using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted in 3 electronic databases: PubMed, Ovid, and ScienceDirect. All the retrieved articles were screened according to specific inclusion criteria to select relevant articles published between 2014 and 2022.

Results: A total of 33 articles exploring mHealth patients’ perspectives and awareness of data privacy, security, and confidentiality issues and the associated factors were included in this systematic review. Thematic analyses of the retrieved data led to the synthesis of 4 themes: concerns about data privacy, confidentiality, and security; awareness; facilitators and enablers; and associated factors. Patients showed discordant and concordant perspectives regarding data privacy, security, and confidentiality, as well as suggesting approaches to improve the use of mHealth apps (facilitators), such as protection of personal data, ensuring that health status or medical conditions are not mentioned, brief training or education on data security, and assuring data confidentiality and privacy. Similarly, awareness of the subject matter differed across the studies, suggesting the need to improve patients’ awareness of data security and privacy. Older patients, those with a history of experiencing data breaches, and those belonging to the higher-income class were more likely to raise concerns about the data security and privacy of mHealth apps. These concerns were not frequent among patients with higher satisfaction levels and those who perceived the data type to be less sensitive.

Conclusions: Patients expressed diverse views on mHealth apps’ privacy, security, and confidentiality, with some of the issues raised affecting technology use. These findings may assist mHealth app developers and other stakeholders in improving patients’ awareness and adjusting current privacy and security features in mHealth apps to enhance their adoption and use.

Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023456658; https://tinyurl.com/ytnjtmca

Introduction

In recent years, the use of mobile health (mHealth) apps by both the public and health care professionals (HCPs) has significantly increased with the introduction of smartphones [ 1 ] and growing interest in the health care industry and research field [ 2 ]. The COVID-19 pandemic has further accelerated reliance on digital health [ 3 ]. mHealth apps are used by patients to manage diseases, self-monitor, gather health information, supervise behavior changes, manage fitness, and remind them of their medication and rehabilitation schedules [ 4 ]. From HCPs’ point of view, mHealth apps help manage health records, provide easy access to health records, and provide a path to conduct mobile consultations and remote monitoring during and after treatment [ 5 ]. In addition, mHealth apps provide easy access to HCPs by connecting them to clinical information system resources such as electronic health records [ 6 ]. Although mHealth apps could provide evidence-based and cost-effective health data and 2-way communication between patients and their HCPs in a remote setting, a few barriers have blocked the expansion of mHealth apps in the health care industry. Data confidentiality, privacy, and security and the regulatory supervision of the apps are some known barriers that hinder mHealth adoption in the health care field.

Despite various benefits of mHealth apps, data confidentiality, privacy, and security issues have caused patients or the public to display less interest and low confidence in mHealth app practice [ 7 ]. It could be due to the uncertainty about the information gathered or kept in mHealth apps, the function of the stored data, and who can view or access the data [ 4 ]. The term “confidentiality” is defined as the responsibility of those who obtain data (app providers) to uphold the concerns of those to whom the information is related (consumers) [ 8 ]. The study by Bhuyan et al [ 9 ] mentioned that the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics defined privacy as an individual legal right or freedom to protect or disclose their health information, and security is defined as personal, mechanical, or authority protection tools used to guard health information against unwanted people or access, whereas privacy is defined as the physical, mechanical, or legislative mechanism or tools to shield personal health information from unauthorized disclosure [ 10 ].

Confidentiality, privacy, and security act as challenges in boosting mHealth app adoption. Patients’ perceptions of these issues may influence their adoption of mHealth apps, but such events are context dependent. While users are more likely to raise concerns about privacy or confidentiality issues when probed about mHealth apps, such perceptions may not ultimately influence their behavior regarding the actual use or adoption of such apps. Thus, it is pertinent to explore whether privacy concerns are prioritized by users when they engage with mHealth apps and whether such concerns affect their decision to use the apps or not.

There are several reasons for data protection in mHealth apps, particularly to address the risk of any unauthorized to keyed-in information and stored data by hackers [ 9 ]. In addition, data management and storage, data privacy disclosure, data integration, data encryption, app operability, and authentication are established factors contributing to data breaches [ 9 ].

Several studies have highlighted the connection between patients’ awareness and the risk of data breaches. End users have an obligation for the security and privacy of their data to be maintained [ 4 ]. As the main stakeholders of the health care system, patients have a contractual relationship with health care providers as the latter are expected to ensure the safety and confidentiality of patients’ health information. Health care app developers must protect sensitive patient data by complying with data privacy regulations such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act). To ensure data privacy and security, mHealth apps are encouraged to incorporate data encryption, implement secure authentications, and perform regular risk assessments [ 10 ]. While HIPAA encompasses physical, administrative, and technical aspects to ensure the security of personal health information, the GDPR requires health centers or organizations to collect detailed consent from users before recording their personal data and giving them the right to access, amend, delete, or restrict the processing of their data. These privacy requirements for app security are known not only by mHealth app providers but also by patients and users [ 10 , 11 ]. This represents another dimension that may influence patients’ perspectives on and adoption of mHealth apps.

Despite the pivotal role of patients’ views and awareness in the successful implementation of mHealth apps, as demonstrated in several studies, the findings are yet to be summarized to elucidate the barriers and facilitators, which may assist clinicians, HCPs, policy makers, and other stakeholders in their decision-making processes. A previous systematic review on the security and privacy of mHealth apps was conducted almost a decade ago and did not focus on any specific stakeholders [ 12 ]. Meanwhile, 2 other reviews related to this topic were a narrative and a scoping review [ 13 , 14 ], which are open to bias as the methods used in retrieving the reviewed articles were not succinctly described. This study aimed to fill the research gap by conducting a systematic review to elucidate patients’ perspectives and awareness of the privacy, security, and confidentiality of mHealth apps, as well as the associated factors.

This study was conducted using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines [ 15 ]. This systematic review was retrospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023456658).

Search Strategy

The systematic article search was conducted using 3 electronic databases: PubMed, PsycNet, and ScienceDirect. PsycNet was accessed via Ovid as a search interface. These databases were selected given their suitability and specificity for research in health and medical sciences, thus increasing the chances of retrieving articles relevant to the research topic. The first author of this systematic review performed the literature search from February 2022 to April 2022. Articles published between 2014 and 2022 and written in English were considered in the literature search. We focused on studies published from 2014 to 2022 given the growing interest in the use of mHealth apps in the last decade [ 2 ].

Aligning with the objectives of this review, the search terms were broadly categorized into 3 components or groups of keywords. Alternative keywords were permitted for each component as denoted using the Boolean operator “OR.” The separator “AND” was then used to combine each component with other wordings. The search query for each of the databases is presented in Table 1 .

Study Eligibility Criteria

The inclusion and exclusion criteria of the review are presented in Table 2 . The first inclusion criterion was the document type, whereby only published original articles were considered. Other document types, such as review articles, chapters in books, books, and conference proceedings, were all excluded. The next inclusion criterion was the publication year, whereby only articles published from 2014 to 2022 were selected. The inclusion or exclusion of retrieved articles was based on agreement among the authors. Issues arising during the process were resolved through consensus.

a mHealth: mobile health.

b CIS: clinical information system.

c HCP: health care professional.

Study Selection

In total, 2 researchers performed the study selection independently. Articles retrieved from the primary literature search from each database were sent to the researchers’ email repositories and stored for future reference. The screening process was carried out using the filter feature available in all 3 databases. The initial search results were checked for duplicates, which were then identified and removed accordingly. The last screening stage was full-text reading.

Data Extraction

The final articles included in this study were assessed, reviewed, and examined upon completing the eligibility process. An Excel (Microsoft Corp) spreadsheet form was created to use in data extraction. The data extracted from the studies were as follows: first author; year of publication; study location; study design; types and purposes of mHealth apps; issues related to the privacy, security, and confidentiality of mHealth apps; and the main findings. Data extraction was performed by the first author, and thus, the intercoder agreement was not assessed.

Quality Appraisal

Quality appraisal was not performed in the review due to the heterogeneity of the research objectives, designs, and methodology used in the included studies [ 16 ].

Data Synthesis

A narrative synthesis was considered in this review due to the heterogeneity of the designs used in the studies. Specifically, thematic analysis was conducted to summarize the findings of the included studies. The data extracted were analyzed thematically. All the authors participated in the discussion to determine the themes that would be synthesized from the analysis. The themes decided on were (1) barriers to and facilitators of using mHealth apps and (2) recommendations to increase the use of mHealth apps by addressing privacy, security, and confidentiality issues. Any further analysis and reassessment of the themes and subthemes was conducted continuously.

Search Outcomes

A total of 1696 articles were retrieved from the initial searches on PubMed (n=659, 38.86%), ScienceDirect (n=172, 10.14%), and Ovid (n=865, 51%). Of the 1696 search results, 425 (25.06%) were removed from the list as duplicates ( Figure 1 ), whereas 1121 (66.1%) were considered ineligible upon screening the titles and abstracts. The 150 remaining articles were then subjected to a full-text review, which led to the final selection of 33 (22%) articles for the systematic review based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria ( Figure 1 ).

Characteristics of the Studies

As shown in Table 3 , the highest number of studies was published in 2021 (9/33, 27%) and 2019 (7/33, 21%). The included studies were quantitative (13/33, 39%), qualitative (11/33, 33%), and mixed methods (9/33, 27%). In terms of study location, most of the studies were conducted in countries with countries with sufficient resources (26/33, 79%) compared to those undertaken in resource-limited countries (7/33, 21%). While 9% (3/33) of the articles emphasized the general use of mHealth apps for routine health records, 36% (12/33) of the articles focused on specific mHealth apps for collecting patients’ health data and management of various medical conditions, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [ 17 ], cancer [ 18 - 21 ], and diabetes [ 22 ], and pregnancy care [ 23 , 24 ] ( Table 4 ).

a EHR: electronic health record.

b HCP: health care professional.

c mHealth: mobile health.

d PSSUQ: Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire.

e AI: artificial intelligence.

f RVC: remote videoconferencing.

g ADR: adverse drug reaction.

h AYP: Ask Your Pharmacy.

mHealth Apps for Specific Interventions

A total of 36% (12/33) of the studies included in this review reported the use of mHealth apps for patient health data collection and management of specific health conditions. In total, 9% (3/33) of the studies entailed the use of specific mHealth apps for assessing patient treatment progress [ 25 , 29 , 35 ]. PhotoExam apps [ 25 ] entailed the collection of patients’ photos, which were then assessed for patient response to the treatment provided. Glauser et al [ 29 ] developed an app named “NeuroPath” with the support of Apple, the Institutional Department of Neurosurgery, and the Department of Information Technology. The areas targeted by the app included patient surgical preparation, prevention of perioperative risk, wound care, activity monitoring, and opioid use management. Meanwhile, Sanger et al [ 35 ] focused on mHealth apps for postacute care.

Regarding specific medical conditions, 9% (3/33) of the studies focused on mHealth apps for pregnancy management, such as a patient engagement pregnancy app (PRELAX) [ 33 ], pregnancy care [ 24 ], and support for postabortion care [ 14 ]. Other studies involved mHealth apps for real-time videoconferencing for patients with cancer [ 19 ], mental health interventions [ 47 ], support for collaborative care [ 32 ], and teleconsultation for pharmaceutical services [ 43 ].

Finally, 6% (2/33) of the studies emphasized the security of mHealth apps without focusing on medical conditions or groups of patients. Zhou et al [ 30 ] developed a security simulator named SecSim to reveal the consequences of selecting different security options available in the security settings of mHealth apps. Meanwhile, Biswas et al [ 37 ] used a specific artificial intelligence–enabled mHealth app rating scale, ACCU3RATE, to obtain users’ feedback on the security features. The influence of these interventions on patient perception on the security, confidentiality, and privacy of data collected via mHealth apps is presented in the thematic analysis.

Results of the Thematic Analysis

The thematic analysis generated four broad themes from the findings of the studies: (1) privacy, confidentiality, and security; (2) awareness of privacy, security, and confidentiality; (3) facilitators and enablers; and (4) associated factors. The following subsections present more detailed information about the synthesized themes.

Theme 1: Privacy, Confidentiality, and Security

As expected, all the included studies (33/33, 100%) investigated privacy, confidentiality, and security issues related to patients’ use of mHealth. Different levels of privacy and confidentiality concerns were reflected in the studies. In 15% (5/33) of the studies, less than half of the patients expressed concerns about the privacy or confidentiality of the various data required by mHealth apps [ 19 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 33 ]. Meanwhile, in 6% (2/33) of the studies, >50% of the respondents raised diverse issues regarding the privacy and confidentiality of their data [ 4 , 34 ]. In terms of data security, 9% (3/33) of the studies, which used a quantitative design, revealed that a higher proportion of patients (>50%) acknowledged issues related to data security [ 29 , 30 , 34 ].

This theme was also depicted in several qualitative and mixed methods studies [ 4 , 20 , 22 - 24 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 45 , 48 ]. For instance, patients opined that the privacy protection level in mHealth apps needed to be improved [ 4 , 29 , 38 ]. Meanwhile, patients felt that their data were not completely secure and were concerned about data breaches [ 21 , 32 ]. In 9% (3/33) of the studies, issues related to privacy, confidentiality, and security were identified as barriers to mHealth use [ 24 , 38 , 40 ]. Meanwhile, Biswas et al [ 37 ] found that respondents were satisfied with the apps’ features for the protection and privacy of patient data.

Theme 2: Awareness of Privacy, Security, and Confidentiality

Patients’ awareness of mHealth apps’ privacy, security, and confidentiality was highlighted in 12% (4/33) of the studies [ 4 , 25 , 26 , 28 ]. Nevertheless, the awareness level differed across the studies.

Natsiavas et al [ 26 ] found that 12% of patients in their study were unaware of the possibility of health data risks, whereas a higher percentage of participants (61%) in the study by Özkan et al [ 28 ] did not know who had the right to access their medical records. Thematic analysis of the data gathered by Bauer et al [ 32 ] revealed that patients opted for a better understanding of other parties who have access to their health information and their capacity to regulate such access. Meanwhile, Alwashmi et al [ 17 ] and Zhang et al [ 39 ] identified awareness of privacy and confidentiality issues as barriers to adopting mHealth apps and raised concerns about data privacy, respectively.

Theme 3: Facilitators and Enablers

The third theme synthesized in this systematic literature review is the facilitators of increased use or adoption of mHealth apps among patients based on the perceived benefits of mHealth apps and recommendations to address data privacy, security, and confidentiality issues. In total, 18% (6/33) of the studies reported the perceived benefits of mHealth apps that may reduce patients’ concerns about issues related to data privacy and security, thus improving the adoption rate of such apps [ 17 , 21 - 24 , 30 ]. Some of the benefits highlighted by patients included improved health status by reducing the rate of hospitalization [ 17 ], increased trust, better patient-HCP relationships [ 22 , 23 ], and exchange of information in real time [ 21 ]. Overall, patients viewed mHealth apps installed on smartphones as an added value, which assisted in improving the confidentiality of their data, their trust, and their relationship with health care personnel.

As for recommendations and facilitating conditions to address data privacy, security, and confidentiality issues related to mHealth, the consistent points raised in the studies were the protection of personal data, ensuring that health status or medical conditions are not mentioned, brief training or education on data security, and assuring data confidentiality and privacy [ 21 , 24 , 30 ]. Gill et al [ 21 ] found that participants prioritized privacy and confidentiality by preferring discrete mHealth designs that did not mention the specific medical condition that prompted them to visit the clinic.

Theme 4: Associated Factors

The last theme gleaned from this review was the factors associated with patients’ concerns regarding issues related to data confidentiality, privacy, and security when using mHealth apps. This theme was synthesized from the findings reported in 15% (5/33) of the articles [ 4 , 31 , 36 , 39 , 42 ], which comprised patients’ sociodemographic factors, satisfaction with mHealth, data type and stage, and experience with mHealth apps.

In terms of sociodemographic factors, Zhou et al [ 4 ] found that married patients showed higher information security and privacy concerns and desired more stringent security protection compared to single patients. The weakest concerns about privacy and security were exhibited by users with <US $10,000 in annual income compared to patients who earned >US $75,000 annually. Similarly, patients in the older age group (51-65 years) reflected a higher level of concern about privacy in mHealth apps relative to the younger age group (18-28 years). In terms of experience, participants who had previously used mHealth apps had greater concerns about data security and privacy despite still being interested in continuing to use the technology.

Only 3% (1/33) of the studies reported the association between satisfaction levels with mHealth apps and privacy concerns [ 31 ]. Specifically, a positive relationship was observed between user satisfaction levels with mHealth apps and privacy concerns. Meanwhile, Dang et al [ 36 ] found that a higher perceived health information sensitivity heightened the privacy concerns (β path coefficient=0.505; P <.001) raised by patients regarding mHealth apps. The provision of informational support moderated the association between privacy concerns and health information sensitivity.

Zhang et al [ 39 ] revealed the diverse levels of privacy concerns depending on data type, data stage, and privacy victimization experience. For instance, privacy concerns were higher for patients’ social interaction, self-reported, and biometric data. Users were less concerned about privacy issues during data collection compared to the data transmission and sharing stages. These events had negative impacts on the continuous intention to use mHealth apps [ 39 ]. Ermakova et al [ 42 ] also found that patients’ acceptance of health clouds for nonsensitive medical data was not significantly affected by confidentiality assurance; however, this relationship was significant for sensitive medical data.

Principal Findings

This systematic review evaluated patients’ perspectives and understanding of the data confidentiality, privacy, and security of mHealth apps connected to clinical information systems. A total of 33 relevant articles were extracted and included in this systematic review using the PRISMA guidelines. Descriptive analyses revealed that most of the studies (26/33, 79%) were conducted in high-income countries compared to those undertaken in middle- to low-income countries (7/33, 21%). These findings reflect the disparity in the implementation and adoption of mHealth apps in line with different countries’ economic status and infrastructural capacity. This is evident in the use of mHealth apps for the management of specific medical conditions in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Turkey, whereas the few studies conducted in lower-income countries focused mainly on either the feasibility or introductory stages of general mHealth apps. Notwithstanding the patients’ socioeconomic status, data privacy, confidentiality, and security issues were highlighted in most studies.

The extensive research on mHealth apps was also reflected in the diverse medical conditions in which the technology was explored, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [ 17 ], cancer [ 19 , 20 ], postabortion care [ 21 ], diabetes [ 22 ], and pregnancy care [ 24 ]. Descriptive analyses also revealed the use of various research methods (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods) in the reviewed articles, which is not surprising given that the research topic can be explored via interviews, focus group discussions, and surveys.

Thematic analyses of the qualitative studies revealed 4 main themes, comprising primary concerns about privacy, confidentiality, and security of data; awareness of privacy, security, and confidentiality issues; facilitators and enablers; and associated factors. Regarding the first theme, patients were concerned about data security and privacy, particularly in terms of the collection and transmission of sensitive information such as identity-revealing data and images of body parts [ 22 , 33 , 35 ]. Some hospitalized patients were even more concerned about unauthorized third-party access to their medical data given that mHealth apps are mostly free and easily accessible [ 17 , 33 ]. In contrast, some patients were indifferent to these issues in the same studies as they were willing to use mHealth apps and share their health data with HCPs. These diverse views could be linked to patients’ consideration of the benefits and risks associated with using mHealth apps for routine health records or managing their health conditions.

We observed concordant perspectives on the research topic as patients and end users consistently raised concerns about data privacy, security, and confidentiality issues that prevented them from using mHealth apps [ 18 , 20 , 35 ]. This result aligns with those of a previous review by Nurgalieva et al [ 13 ] in which low levels of security and privacy were reported as the main reason for low use among patients and end users. Serious issues may arise from mHealth apps with low levels of security or privacy, and such events may have severe consequences for users and organizations.

Given the extensive privacy and security issues raised in the reviewed studies, the findings suggest the need for mHealth environments to improve the security of these apps by exploring advances in cyberspace security [ 4 ]. Similarly, the reviews both by Martínez-Pérez et al [ 14 ] and Nurgalieva et al [ 13 ] highlighted security incidents, including vulnerabilities discovered in widely used mHealth apps and malware attacks. The concerns raised by patients are plausible as the proliferation of mobile devices with location sensors has facilitated access to location-based services [ 14 ]. These advanced devices transmit the user’s location information to third-party location servers, which are accessible by other service providers. Users aware of this potential data breach may feel that they are continuously tracked. In this review, some patients seemed to be aware of the risk of third-party and unauthorized access to their medical data [ 4 , 25 ].

For the second theme, both qualitative and empirical findings reflected that patients’ awareness of the privacy and security issues of mHealth apps differed across the studies. For example, more than two-thirds of participants expressed their concerns about personal data security and privacy and requested user authentication and data encryption to protect user data [ 4 , 34 ], and <12% were unaware of the risk of health data breaches [ 19 , 31 ]. Meanwhile, more than half of the respondents in the studies conducted by Özkan et al [ 28 ] and Wyatt et al [ 25 ] were unsure about the privacy and security information on their mHealth apps. Thus, the different awareness levels among patients may influence their diverse perspectives on the privacy and security of mHealth apps.

The third theme emerging from the thematic analyses entailed the facilitators for increased use or adoption of mHealth apps based on patients’ perceived benefits of mHealth apps and suggestions to address data privacy, security, and confidentiality issues. Resultantly, improved health status [ 17 ], better patient-HCP relationships [ 22 , 23 ], and trust were the main benefits mentioned by patients. On the other hand, personal data protection, ensuring that health status or medical conditions are not mentioned, brief training or education on data security, and assuring data confidentiality and privacy were the consistent recommendations provided by patients [ 21 , 24 , 30 ]. These findings coincide with the suggestion by Perera [ 49 ] regarding the use of an alphanumeric passcode to ensure the protection of mHealth apps rather than using a 4-digit personal identification number, as well as wiping data from the mobile device after a specific number of failed passcode attempts [ 49 , 50 ]. In their review, Nurgalieva et al [ 13 ] also emphasized the frequency of notifications and alerts programmed into mHealth apps. Accordingly, discreet or private notifications were advised to prevent any distress to users, particularly in situations in which someone else could accidentally view the app icon. Overall, these recommendations reflect the need for users to have complete control in using their mobile devices for mHealth and avoid any intrusion in their daily life. Training and education as recommended by patients in this review corroborate the report by Lewis and Wyatt [ 50 ] as reviewed by Nurgalieva et al [ 13 ]. The latter authors suggested that the risk factors for violation of users’ privacy and security in mHealth apps can be categorized into external and internal risks. Appropriate regulation can be used to effectively minimize the internal risk factors, whereas proper education and training are pertinent to eliminate the external risk factors.

Concerning the fourth theme, information on the factors influencing patients’ views regarding data privacy and confidentiality was obtained from a few of the studies included in this systematic review (5/33, 15%). Examples included sociodemographic characteristics such as age, income level, marital status, previous experience with mHealth apps [ 30 ], patients’ satisfaction levels [ 31 ], perceived health information sensitivity [ 36 , 42 ], data type, data stage, and privacy victimization experience [ 39 , 42 ]. These findings are consistent with the results of several previous studies [ 51 ] and the contextual nature of the theory of privacy [ 52 ]. More importantly, certain adjustments to the security and privacy features of mHealth apps need to be incorporated by the app developers upon considering patients’ and users’ demographics. However, given the low number of studies reporting the underlying factors influencing patients’ views on data privacy, confidentiality, and security issues in mHealth apps, more research is needed to elucidate the relationships.

Implications of the Findings

The findings of this study have pertinent implications for mHealth app developers, HCPs, and policy makers. Both HCPs and mHealth app developers have a vital role to play in addressing the diverse views exhibited by patients and end users on data privacy, confidentiality, and security issues in mHealth apps.

While mHealth app developers are primarily responsible for designing security measures and features to ensure their apps’ data privacy and confidentiality, from the perspective of health care provider and patient relationships, the former play a pivotal role in educating patients or end users regarding such measures. This could be discussed during routine consultations, as well as reiterating the need for collecting sensitive data and what they are going to be used for. Regarding unauthorized third-party access and potential data breaches, users may benefit from information on the privacy requirements and meeting of the standards set by the GDPR and HIPAA, which are designed to ensure that such privacy issues and data breaches are prevented.

Apart from informing patients and end users on the type of data to be collected and the intended use, the aspect of training and educating end users on the available features and measures to ensure data privacy and security cannot be overemphasized. Meanwhile, stakeholders need to gauge the users’ level of awareness and knowledge of these issues as well as the underlying reasons for the diverse views on these issues to tailor educational interventions accordingly. As gleaned from the studies included in this review, users’ lower concern about their data privacy may stem from being completely ignorant, or they may perceive that the benefits of using mHealth outweigh the potential risks.

This study also has important implications for mHealth app developers given the fact that patients and end users have raised concerns about data privacy, security, and confidentiality issues that end up affecting their use of such apps [ 18 , 32 ]. Nevertheless, accumulated findings reflect that patients’ perceptions on privacy issues and the latter’s influence on patients’ adoption of mHealth apps are context dependent [ 39 , 43 ]. As most of the reviewed studies involved surveys, it is expected that users will raise concerns on privacy or confidentiality issues related to mHealth apps, but further inquiries are required to elucidate whether such concerns influence their behavior and actual use of such apps. These events need to be succinctly explored in future studies, and stakeholders need to understand this gray area to effectively address the issues. In addition, mHealth app developers may evaluate the issues raised by users and strategize on how to improve their current security and privacy measures, particularly ensuring that they meet the requirements of the HIPAA and GDPR. Furthermore, the appropriate actions to be taken by end users in different circumstances should be clarified in the developed security policy and guidelines. In summary, providing suitable awareness in the security guidelines and policies for end users is as pertinent as developing secure mHealth apps.

For policy makers and researchers, this study highlights the aspects prioritized by patients regarding the adoption of and desired outcomes of implementing mHealth apps, as well as addressing issues related to data privacy and security. Accordingly, better patient-HCP relationships, trust, personal data protection, ensuring that health status or medical conditions are not mentioned, and brief training or education on data security were the consistent recommendations provided by patients [ 19 , 23 , 24 ]. While most of the aforementioned points can be conveyed to users, trust is a feature that has to be earned, which has to be driven by health care providers and the government. These stakeholders also have to mitigate apprehensions related to patients’ privacy concerns to ensure enhanced trust between patients and service providers, which is crucial for the successful delivery of eHealth services.

Certain concrete actions can be taken by stakeholders at the government level by considering HIPAA and the European Union Safe Harbor law, which advocates for strict security measures for the exchange and sharing of health data. Failure to comply with such laws entails severe consequences. From health care providers’ perspective, and given the confidentiality and sensitivity of patient data, only authorized users such as medical staff should be given access to stored health data. Nevertheless, confidentiality and availability need to be carefully balanced when structuring this critical security system. Despite the fact that all patients’ health data are made available to be exchanged, shared, and monitored to provide robust health care services, certain aspects of the data may be considered confidential and, for security reasons, must be kept restricted or inaccessible. These goals should be rationalized to ensure that patients receive the best possible care.

Strengths and Limitations

This study involved a comprehensive systematic literature search and identification of relevant and recent articles on mHealth apps’ privacy, security, and confidentiality published in the last 8 years. Detailed information on patients’ perspectives and awareness of the privacy and security of mHealth apps were gleaned from this review, thus bridging the current research gap as no systematic review has been conducted on this topic. Thematic and empirical analyses were also conducted to obtain robust data from the various designs used in the studies and triangulate the findings.

Nevertheless, the limitations of this study are well acknowledged. The literature search was restricted to 3 databases; thus, some important articles on the research topic might have been missed. Only patients and end users were considered as the primary targets in this review, whereas the perspectives of other active stakeholders in mHealth apps, such as HCPs, app developers, and policy makers, were not documented. The issues raised in this study might be better understood if all relevant stakeholders were considered. This also limits the generalizability of the findings as no inference could be made regarding health care personnel and mHealth app developers. The use of 1 reviewer for data extraction is also an important limitation; however, the reviewer was trained on how to perform the data extraction and coding before the study to ensure that the process was reproducible and consistent.

Meanwhile, a general limitation of the retrieved articles is the need for a clear definition of data privacy and security. Most of the reviewed studies considered security and privacy as a single concept, particularly as part of a general assessment of mHealth app design. Although security and privacy may overlap when ensuring patients’ confidentiality, the 2 concepts are fundamentally different. In addition, only 3% (1/33) of the studies assessed the relationship between patients’ sociodemographic factors and their concerns regarding mHealth apps’ privacy, security, and confidentiality. A more robust assessment of patients’ demographic characteristics, environmental factors, and patients’ antecedents regarding data breaches and leakage to unwanted third parties requires further investigation.

Conclusions

This systematic review elucidated patients’ perspectives and awareness regarding mHealth apps’ privacy, security, and confidentiality. Patients showed diverse perspectives on the trio of concepts, ranging from users who were satisfied with the privacy and security features of their current mHealth apps to those who raised pertinent issues affecting technology use. Patients also conveyed specific approaches to improve the use of mHealth apps (facilitators), such as protection of personal data, ensuring the confidentiality of health status or medical conditions, and provision of brief training or education on data security and privacy.

The aggregation of the empirical and thematic results reflects that these diverse perspectives might be linked to the awareness of the subject matter, which also differed across the studies and was influenced by patients’ sociodemographic characteristics, such as age, income level, and marital status, as well as their experience with mHealth apps, satisfaction levels, data type, and data stage. Thus, the findings of this review may be beneficial to mHealth app developers and other stakeholders in improving patients’ awareness and adjusting current privacy and security features to enhance the use and adoption of mHealth apps for routine health monitoring and management of specific health conditions.

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the support provided by the Institute of Digital Healthcare, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom, in developing this manuscript. This study did not receive any funding support. The author is grateful for the support extended by Warwick University in Coventry, United Kingdom, and Saudi Electronic University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in the development of this manuscript.

Data Availability

The data sets generated during and analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request

Authors' Contributions

GE, TA, and NA contributed to conceptulization and project administration, whereas NA and MA performed the data curation and formal analysis. GE, TA, and NA were involved in the methodological design and supervision. The original draft was developed by NA while GE, TA, and NA were involved in writing and reviewing the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist.

• Chen J, Lieffers J, Bauman A, Hanning R, Allman-Farinelli M. The use of smartphone health apps and other mobile health (mHealth) technologies in dietetic practice: a three country study. J Hum Nutr Diet. Aug 2017;30(4):439-452. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hussain M, Zaidan AA, Zidan BB, Iqbal S, Ahmed MM, Albahri OS, et al. Conceptual framework for the security of mobile health applications on Android platform. Telemat Inform. Aug 2018;35(5):1335-1354. [ CrossRef ]
• Fagherazzi G, Goetzinger C, Rashid MA, Aguayo GA, Huiart L. Digital health strategies to fight COVID-19 worldwide: challenges, recommendations, and a call for papers. J Med Internet Res. Jun 16, 2020;22(6):e19284. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Zhou L, Bao J, Watzlaf V, Parmanto B. Barriers to and facilitators of the use of mobile health apps from a security perspective: mixed-methods study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Apr 16, 2019;7(4):e11223. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kao CK, Liebovitz DM. Consumer mobile health apps: current state, barriers, and future directions. PM R. May 2017;9(5S):S106-S115. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Ventola CL. Mobile devices and apps for health care professionals: uses and benefits. P T. May 2014;39(5):356-364. [ FREE Full text ] [ Medline ]
• Bani Issa W, Al Akour I, Ibrahim A, Almarzouqi A, Abbas S, Hisham F, et al. Privacy, confidentiality, security and patient safety concerns about electronic health records. Int Nurs Rev. Jun 21, 2020;67(2):218-230. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Martin K. Understanding privacy online: development of a social contract approach to privacy. J Bus Ethics. Feb 19, 2015;137(3):551-569. [ CrossRef ]
• Bhuyan SS, Kim H, Isehunwa OO, Kumar N, Bhatt J, Wyant DK, et al. Privacy and security issues in mobile health: current research and future directions. Health Policy Technol. Jun 2017;6(2):188-191. [ CrossRef ]
• Sampat BH, Prabhakar B. Privacy risks and security threats in mHealth apps. J Int Technol Inf Manag. Dec 01, 2017;26(4):126-153. [ CrossRef ]
• Esposito C, De Santis A, Tortora G, Chang H, Choo KK. Blockchain: a panacea for healthcare cloud-based data security and privacy? IEEE Cloud Comput. Jan 2018;5(1):31-37. [ CrossRef ]
• Fernández-Alemán JL, Señor IC, Lozoya PÁ, Toval A. Security and privacy in electronic health records: a systematic literature review. J Biomed Inform. Jun 2013;46(3):541-562. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Nurgalieva L, O'Callaghan D, Doherty G. Security and privacy of mHealth applications: a scoping review. IEEE Access. 2020;8:104247-104268. [ CrossRef ]
• Martínez-Pérez B, de la Torre-Díez I, López-Coronado M. Privacy and security in mobile health apps: a review and recommendations. J Med Syst. Jan 2015;39(1):181. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. Mar 29, 2021;372:n71. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. Jun 2009;26(2):91-108. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Alwashmi MF, Fitzpatrick B, Farrell J, Gamble JM, Davis E, Nguyen HV, et al. Perceptions of patients regarding mobile health interventions for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: mixed methods study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Jul 23, 2020;8(7):e17409. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Moodley J, Constant D, Botha MH, van der Merwe FH, Edwards A, Momberg M. Exploring the feasibility of using mobile phones to improve the management of clients with cervical cancer precursor lesions. BMC Womens Health. Jan 07, 2019;19(1):2. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bradbury A, Patrick-Miller L, Harris D, Stevens E, Egleston B, Smith K, et al. Utilizing remote real-time videoconferencing to expand access to cancer genetic services in community practices: a multicenter feasibility study. J Med Internet Res. Feb 01, 2016;18(2):e23. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Sangers TE, Wakkee M, Kramer-Noels EC, Nijsten T, Lugtenberg M. Views on mobile health apps for skin cancer screening in the general population: an in-depth qualitative exploration of perceived barriers and facilitators. Br J Dermatol. Nov 05, 2021;185(5):961-969. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Gill R, Ogilvie G, Norman WV, Fitzsimmons B, Maher C, Renner R. Feasibility and acceptability of a mobile technology intervention to support postabortion care in British Columbia: phase I. J Med Internet Res. May 29, 2019;21(5):e13387. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• de Vries ST, Wong L, Sutcliffe A, Houÿez F, Ruiz CL, Mol PG. Factors influencing the use of a mobile app for reporting adverse drug reactions and receiving safety information: a qualitative study. Drug Saf. May 29, 2017;40(5):443-455. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hackett KM, Kazemi M, Sellen DW. Keeping secrets in the cloud: mobile phones, data security and privacy within the context of pregnancy and childbirth in Tanzania. Soc Sci Med. Aug 2018;211:190-197. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Li J, Silvera-Tawil D, Varnfield M, Hussain MS, Math V. Users' perceptions toward mHealth technologies for health and well-being monitoring in pregnancy care: qualitative interview study. JMIR Form Res. Dec 02, 2021;5(12):e28628. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wyatt KD, Finley A, Uribe R, Pallagi P, Willaert B, Ommen S, et al. Patients' experiences and attitudes of using a secure mobile phone app for medical photography: qualitative survey study. J Med Internet Res. May 12, 2020;22(5):e14412. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Natsiavas P, Kakalou C, Votis K, Tzovaras D, Koutkias V. Citizen perspectives on cross-border eHealth data exchange: a European survey. Stud Health Technol Inform. Aug 21, 2019;264:719-723. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Alaiad A, Alsharo M, Alnsour Y. The determinants of m-health adoption in developing countries: an empirical investigation. Appl Clin Inform. Oct 30, 2019;10(5):820-840. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Özkan Ö, Son YA, Aydinoğlu AU. Security and privacy concerns regarding genetic data in mobile health record systems: an empirical study from Turkey. bioRxiv. Preprint posted online June 23, 2019. [ CrossRef ]
• Glauser G, Ali ZS, Gardiner D, Ramayya AG, Pessoa R, Grady MS, et al. Assessing the utility of an IoS application in the perioperative care of spine surgery patients: the NeuroPath Pilot study. Mhealth. 2019;5:40. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Zhou L, Parmanto B, Alfikri Z, Bao J. A mobile app for assisting users to make informed selections in security settings for protecting personal health data: development and feasibility study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Dec 11, 2018;6(12):e11210. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Barutçu S, Barutçu E, Adigüzel DU. A technology acceptance analysis for mHealth apps: the case of Turkey. Balkan Near Eastern J Soc Sci. 2018;4(4):104-113.
• Bauer AM, Iles-Shih M, Ghomi RH, Rue T, Grover T, Kincler N, et al. Acceptability of mHealth augmentation of collaborative care: a mixed methods pilot study. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2018;51:22-29. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Goetz M, Müller M, Matthies LM, Hansen J, Doster A, Szabo A, et al. Perceptions of patient engagement applications during pregnancy: a qualitative assessment of the patient's perspective. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. May 26, 2017;5(5):e73. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Richardson JE, Ancker JS. Public perspectives of mobile phones' effects on healthcare quality and medical data security and privacy: a 2-year nationwide survey. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2015;2015:1076-1082. [ FREE Full text ] [ Medline ]
• Sanger P, Hartzler A, Lober WB, Evans HL, Pratt W. Design considerations for post-acute care mHealth: patient perspectives. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2014;2014:1920-1929. [ FREE Full text ] [ Medline ]
• Dang Y, Guo S, Guo X, Wang M, Xie K. Privacy concerns about health information disclosure in mobile health: questionnaire study investigating the moderation effect of social support. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Feb 08, 2021;9(2):e19594. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Biswas M, Tania MH, Kaiser MS, Kabir R, Mahmud M, Kemal AA. ACCU3RATE: a mobile health application rating scale based on user reviews. PLoS One. Dec 16, 2021;16(12):e0258050. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Casilang CG, Stonbraker S, Japa I, Halpern M, Messina L, Steenhoff AP, et al. Perceptions and attitudes toward mobile health in development of an exclusive breastfeeding tool: focus group study with caregivers and health promoters in the Dominican Republic. JMIR Pediatr Parent. Aug 21, 2020;3(2):e20312. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Zhang D, Lim J, Zhou L, Dahl AA. Breaking the data value-privacy paradox in mobile mental health systems through user-centered privacy protection: a web-based survey study. JMIR Ment Health. Dec 24, 2021;8(12):e31633. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Harris B, Ajisola M, Alam RM, Watkins JA, Arvanitis TN, Bakibinga P, et al. Mobile consulting as an option for delivering healthcare services in low-resource settings in low- and middle-income countries: a mixed-methods study. Digit Health. Aug 19, 2021;7:20552076211033425. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Al-Anezi FM. Evaluating the readiness of mobile technology with respect to e-heath for medication in Saudi Arabia: an integrative perspective. J Multidiscip Healthc. Jan 2021;Volume 14:59-66. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ermakova T, Fabian B, Zarnekow R. Improving individual acceptance of health clouds through confidentiality assurance. Appl Clin Inform. Dec 18, 2017;07(04):983-993. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rodrigues R, Poongulali S, Balaji K, Atkins S, Ashorn P, De Costa A. 'The phone reminder is important, but will others get to know about my illness?' Patient perceptions of an mHealth antiretroviral treatment support intervention in the HIVIND trial in South India. BMJ Open. Nov 02, 2015;5(11):e007574. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Al-Mahrouqi T, Al-Alawi K, Al-Alawi M, Al Balushi N, Al Ghailani A, Al Sabti H, et al. A promising future for tele-mental health in Oman: a qualitative exploration of clients and therapists' experiences. SAGE Open Med. Mar 29, 2022;10:20503121221086372. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Turcotte V, Chagnon A, Guénette L. Experience and perspectives of users and non-users of the Ask your pharmacist teleconsultation platform. Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm. Jun 2021;2:100031. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Morton E, Nicholas J, Lapadat L, O'Brien HL, Barnes SJ, Poh C, et al. Use of smartphone apps in bipolar disorder: an international web-based survey of feature preferences and privacy concerns. J Affect Disord. Dec 01, 2021;295:1102-1109. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Cavazos-Rehg P, Min C, Fitzsimmons-Craft EE, Savoy B, Kaiser N, Riordan R, et al. Parental consent: a potential barrier for underage teens' participation in an mHealth mental health intervention. Internet Interv. Sep 2020;21:100328. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hattingh HL, Knox K, Fejzic J, McConnell D, Fowler JL, Mey A, et al. Privacy and confidentiality: perspectives of mental health consumers and carers in pharmacy settings. Int J Pharm Pract. Feb 2015;23(1):52-60. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Perera C. Principles of security for the use of mobile technology in medicine. J Mobile Technol Med. Jun 01, 2012;2:5-7. [ CrossRef ]
• Lewis TL, Wyatt JC. mHealth and mobile medical apps: a framework to assess risk and promote safer use. J Med Internet Res. Sep 15, 2014;16(9):e210. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Atienza AA, Zarcadoolas C, Vaughon W, Hughes P, Patel V, Chou WY, et al. Consumer attitudes and perceptions on mHealth privacy and security: findings from a mixed-methods study. J Health Commun. 2015;20(6):673-679. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Nissenbaum H. Privacy as contexual integrity. Wash Law Rev. 2004;79(1):119.

Abbreviations

Edited by G Eysenbach, T Leung, T de Azevedo Cardoso; submitted 10.07.23; peer-reviewed by K Wyatt, H Abu Serhan, B Salam; comments to author 02.08.23; revised version received 03.09.23; accepted 25.01.24; published 31.05.24.

©Nasser Alhammad, Mohannad Alajlani, Alaa Abd-alrazaq, Gregory Epiphaniou, Theodoros Arvanitis. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 31.05.2024.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

Half of Nevadans polled can’t define antisemitism, advisory council finds

H alf of Nevadans polled were unable to define antisemitism, a new survey released by the Governor’s Advisory Council on Education Relating to the Holocaust found.

Further, 8 percent of respondents said they believe the numbers of those who died in the Holocaust were exaggerated, with 1 percent of respondents believing the Holocaust is a myth.

Elliot Malin, chairperson of the advisory council , wanted to get a true understanding of the state of Holocaust education throughout Nevada. In order to do so, the council surveyed 1,400 registered voters with the financial support of the Nevada Center for Humanity and Jewish Nevada .

According to the survey’s methodology report, the sample demographics were weighted to “accurately reflect the registered voter population.”

For Malin, staying objective meant excluding high school students from the survey. He feels that high school students are more likely to see things that are “right in front of them, right now” and wanted to see instead how education has served those who are past their high school days.

“Unfortunately, I’m not surprised,” Malin said of the survey’s findings . “There were some glimmers of hope but ultimately we must do better.”

Only 37 percent of Nevadans surveyed were able to accurately state the number of Jews who were killed in the Holocaust. Many who got this wrong gave a number lower than the international best estimate of 6 million.

Though the survey concluded that Holocaust knowledge is low, particularly among younger Nevadans, Malin said that the findings also reveal opportunities to grow.

Part of this growth involves combating an onslaught of misinformation and disinformation. “This isn’t unique to the Holocaust, or to the conflict in the Middle East,” Malin said. His strategy is to welcome conversation.

Malin recalled a day spent protesting in Reno just two weeks after Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7. He said he held a sign reading “Hamas wants dead Jews.”

“One of the individuals came and talked to me,” Malin said. He remembered responding that he felt the person had valid questions. “We should be asking these questions.”

He then recalled a man yelling at pro-Palestinian protesters, saying bigoted remarks. He said he asked him to stop saying things that were hurtful.

“I recognize the pain that my community is in, but I also have to recognize the pain that their community is in,” he said, emphasizing the importance of centering humanity.

The survey also revealed that 30 percent of respondents had seen or heard of Nazi symbols appearing in their communities. This number neared 40 percent when applied to online communities.

The majority of users reported seeing Holocaust jokes on Telegram, which Malin said he wasn’t necessarily surprised by given the encrypted, often anonymous nature of the platform.

What did surprise him was a large amount of the same content reported on Snapchat. This was “really alarming,” he said. “It’s somebody you know, it’s a friend.”

Moving forward, Malin believes in education through collaboration to try and change some of these statistics.

“Holocaust education is not just history — it’s music, it’s literature. It can be cooking,” he said. “We need to be doing things together.”

Contact Estelle Atkinson at [email protected] .

©2024 Las Vegas Review-Journal. Visit reviewjournal.com.. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

'I get to be alive now': Aurora student Philip Case excels after traumatic brain injury

When then-17-year-old Philip Case woke up in a Buffalo hospital's intensive care unit following a weekend sledding accident, he couldn't remember his name, his parents, or any memories of his childhood or the accident.

But he remembered one important thing: He had an AP Government test on Monday.

"I was like, 'I've got to get back to school, I've got a government test on Monday. I gotta get back to school,'" the now 18-year-old recounted. "They were like, 'It's Wednesday. Relax. You missed your government test.'"

He asked if he could perhaps go back to school the next day to retake the test. "Sure," the staff told him, just before he was again unconscious.

In fact, it would be two months before Case returned to school, as the sledding accident left him with 27 broken bones, including his spine and his leg, and a traumatic brain injury.

But it is that drive for academic excellence, along with his remarkable ability to overcome such a significant traumatic event and to turn it into a way to serve others, that has earned Case a top spot among this year's Star Students.

Case was selected as one of this year's three top Star Students from more than 100 graduating seniors. The annual program by The Akron Beacon Journal, The Canton Repository, The Record-Courier and The Daily Record recognizes the region’s outstanding high school graduates.

Case's journey to graduation has been grueling, from struggling to read as a young student to recovering from his accident.

Now, he is about to set out on another journey: a 4,300-mile bike ride across the U.S. to raise money for an organization that supports people who have had traumatic brain injuries. He starts riding June 3 from Virginia Beach to Oregon, riding 70 miles a day over the next two months, all while fundraising for LoveYourBrain . He's already raised $18,000.

"I've been doing a lot better than I should be doing, and I don't know why," Case said. "But I'm really thankful that's the case, and that's part of the reason I'm doing the bike trip, so I can give back to people who had brain injuries that haven't healed that way. Because most people don't."

Sledding accident causes brain injury

Case doesn't remember the accident that changed his life and threatened to end it. What he remembers is bits and pieces from the hospital and from what his parents, friends and the ski patrol have told him.

Case spent Feb. 18, 2023, skiing with a friend at HoliMont Ski Resort in Ellicottville, New York. Case always loved extreme sports, especially skiing, cycling and mountain biking, and he always pushed himself to improve and try new tricks. But it was a seemingly innocuous move that landed him in the hospital for a month.

At around 9 p.m., with skiing done for the day, Case and his friend grabbed a couple sleds and hiked up to the top of one of the intermediate-level ski hills. They took a video standing at the top of the hill, their blue sleds just visible in the dark against the white snowy backdrop.

"It never really occurred to me, even if I crashed, it could be that bad," Case said. Still, he threw on his ski helmet for good measure. That may have just saved his life.

Case made it about 200 feet down the hill before the slope turns. But the conditions that day − a relatively warm one followed by a cold night − left fresh ice on the surface of the slope. Instead of turning, Case's sled continued straight.

He crashed straight into a rusty steel pole, barely 6 inches wide and 3 feet tall, used to make snow.

His right leg hit first, breaking his femur and his spine. His head hit last.

Even wearing the ski helmet, the pole fractured both his eye sockets and gashed his head. A three-inch horizontal scar is still visible on Case's forehead when he sweeps his bangs to the side.

His brain rattled inside his skull. But at first, Case was conscious, at least shortly after hitting the pole. His friend called him on his phone from farther down the hill, and Case answered.

He thought he was fine, minus losing several teeth. His friend told him he had a lot bigger problems than his teeth.

A ski resort employee spotted the pair and started yelling at them for being there, until he saw Case's face. He quickly called 911 and radioed for ski patrol. The first to respond found Case had quickly deteriorated as his brain swelled. Case was lying on the ground unconscious.

"He didn't know I was alive until he found my very weak pulse," Case said.

Patrol used a sled to get Case down off the mountain, then loaded him into an ambulance and eventually a helicopter, where he was taken to a Level 1 trauma center in Buffalo while his parents drove in from Cleveland.

His father, Clark Case, said they initially thought their son just had a broken leg. Serious, but not life-threatening. On the way to the hospital, a doctor informed them of the brain injury. When they found their son at the hospital, his eyes were swollen shut, the left one dark purple, and his leg was severely broken.

"That was pretty terrifying," Clark Case said. "He was pretty banged up. It was tough. It's hard to see your kid in any discomfort, but that was a whole other level."

Case had a significant brain bleed that initially prevented doctors from performing surgery on his leg. But the bleed improved, and surgeons inserted a rod into his femur. Slowly, his memory and cognition returned.

His dad remembers the moment he knew he would be OK. Clark Case said he told his son his phone probably wouldn't recognize his face now that it was so swollen and misshapen.

"Well, I guess my face will be able to open your phone now," his son replied, proving his sense of humor was still intact.

Case doesn't remember most of his time in the hospital. He barely remembers being in pain.

"I just had this overwhelming feeling of, 'I get to be alive now,'" he said.

'Am I ever going to be able to do cycling or skiing or running ever again?'

After a month, Case was well enough to be moved back to Cleveland, to a brain rehabilitation unit at MetroHealth Medical Center. At first they thought he would be there another month, but he performed so well in his evaluation, they determined he only needed to be there 11 days.

It didn't occur to Case until a psychologist in rehab broke the news to him that his summer plan to ride his bike across America before his senior year was not going to happen.

"Then I was kind of like, am I ever going to be able to do cycling or skiing or running ever again?" Case said. "That question wasn’t really answered until I got home and started doing those things. There was several months where I didn’t think I would ever really be able to do much ever again. But it still didn't bother me that much because I was just glad I was not dead."

When he got home, he could still barely put on his own socks. Case said that was when it really dawned on him how much damage had been done. But two months after his accident, Case put his feet back onto the pedals of his bike. It didn't hurt, he said, just felt "weird."

He went back to school just before spring break, but for only about an hour a day for the rest of the year. Still, he was determined the hard work he put into his Advanced Placement classes were not going to go to waste. Despite missing the second half of the year, and despite having a procedure on his spine that left him with raging headaches the day before the first test, Case took the AP Government and AP Physics I tests and passed them both.

He wasn't able to ride across America, but that summer, just four months after his accident, Case completed his first century ride — that's 100 miles — since his accident.

"This is what makes him him, and what brings him joy," Clark Case said. "If he's not active, he's not happy. I knew we'd get back into — I knew he needed to get back into it."

Struggles with reading turn into academic success

Case will attend the University of Vermont this fall to study mechanical engineering. He's always loved fixing things, he said. He asked for a cordless drill for his third birthday and started building things in his backyard. He worked at Bike Ohio bicycle shop in Chagrin Falls 20 hours a week as a bike technician. He was also the Moebius Nature Center's Volunteer of the Year.

Despite his accident and his heavy load of extra curricular activities, Case still managed a 4.23 GPA.

But early in his academic career, Case struggled to read. He was diagnosed with dyslexia and ADHD, he said, but it was his mother, Sarah Case, pushing the school district to give him intense intervention with phonics instruction that changed his trajectory.

He hated it, he said, "but I could read, so it worked."

"After I learned how to read and write, I realized I actually can be academically successful, I was just being held back by this one small detail, which was not being able to read," Case said.

He said his parents, who are both chemical engineers, never pushed him toward a career in engineering or demanded top grades.

"I've just always been self motivated. I like to do my best," Case said.

He said he's always excited to learn more about his areas of interest — mostly science and math, but he loved his government class, too. He said some of his classmates think he doesn't study much and just gets good grades anyway.

"I think they've never seen how much I've worked to get to where I am now," he said.

That work got harder after the brain injury. Case said he has overcome the biggest hurdles but still struggles with his short-term memory and with paying attention, even more so than when he was a kid. He has no sense of smell, he said, and won't ever get it back.

Case used physics, his favorite subject, to calculate he was probably going about 35 mph when he hit the pole.Sometimes even now, when he’s driving or riding his bike and he hits 35 mph, he thinks about how much it would hurt to come to a sudden stop at that speed.

One year after his accident, Case was able to ski on the hill that nearly killed him. He calls the pole he struck "my pole." He is proud of a large "no sledding" sign next to the chairlift. He visited and thanked the ski patrol who helped save his life.

The day of Case's graduation, his father said it's remarkable how far he's come.

"It's a pretty major step," he said. "We're lucky and appreciative that we get to be celebrating today."

Love for cycling becomes a way to give back

Case said when he rides his bike, everything else fades away, and he can focus on the road.

Starting next month, he will set out alone for that cross-country trip, just him and his 60 or so pounds of gear, including his bike. He isn't daunted by the task, noting he "only" has to go 70 miles a day.

"I have all day to do it," he said. "I can go pretty slow. I’m going to be taking my time, seeing the sights, eating food."

Last year after his accident, Case connected with the LoveYourBrain organization, founded by brothers Kevin and Adam Pearce. Kevin Pearce was an Olympic snowboarder, ready to take down Shaun White in the 2010 winter Olympics until he suffered a traumatic brain injury in practice.

Adam and Kevin Pearce "learned there’s really no support for people that have had traumatic brain injuries after they have left the hospital system," Case said. "And it's a hard thing to leave the hospital with, because you’re permanently changed. For the rest of your life, you have an invisible injury that nobody else knows about because it's internal."

LoveYourBrain offers support to help build community and resilience in those with brain injuries. Case completed a bike ride in New York City with LoveYourBrain's team.

"It's just an amazing feeling being around other people that understand what you went through," Case said.

He has raised more than $18,000 for the organization's 2024 Ride for Resilience campaign as of Wednesday, making him the top individual fundraiser so far. He will track his journey on his fundraising page, give.loveyourbrain.com/fundraiser/5264568 .

Case said ever since his injury, he is acutely aware of how quickly life can be taken away, and he speaks about it with the wisdom of someone much older than 18.

"Before the accident I kind of was all over the place, I wasn't really focusing on one thing," he said. "Now I've realized my life could be taken away at any moment. Any day could be your last. So I've narrowed my focus, I only spend time doing things I really love and find important. Don't try to waste time. Try to do stuff that's important."

Contact education reporter Jennifer Pignolet at [email protected], at 330-996-3216 or on Twitter @JenPignolet.

About Philip Case

School: Aurora High School 

College attending: University of Vermont

Major: Mechanical engineering

Favorite social media: Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat

Binge-worthy show: "The Simpsons"

Favorite subject: Physics 

Biggest influencer: Brothers Kevin and Adam Pearce. ... Kevin sustained a TBI while training for the Toronto Olympics. Leading up to this, he was beating Shaun White in every snowboarding competition. ... His brother, Adam quit his job to come home and help Kevin recover. During this time they founded LoveYourBrain as a way to build a community and help others that are living with TBI. While recovering from my own accident, I watched their documentary “The Crash Reel”. The Pearce brothers and their story provided me with a sense of hope and gratefulness to be alive. It also helped me process my own accident, what my family went through, and my TBI.

Where he sees himself in 10 years: It’s hard to say, but I hope that I am still doing the things I love to do: biking, skiing, building, traveling, and adventuring. I also hope I find my way to meaningful work. I plan on majoring in mechanical engineering with the goal of working in the outdoor industry making the equipment I love better, safer, and more affordable. I also plan to be living somewhere in the mountains with a dog.

Favorite high school memory: That would definitely be the winter formal with my friends from around the world. I was able to go with my exchange brothers - Santi from Costa Rica, who had come back to visit us and Henrique from Brazil, who was staying with us, and my friend Malou, from France - along with our mutual friends, Kate and Erin. We all just had the best time together. It was really great to have friends from all over enjoying a very American dance together. I think it will be something that we all remember for a very long time.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

With Ukraine losing ground, allies debate how to squeeze cash for Kyiv out of frozen Russian assets

FILE - Treasure Secretary Janet Yellen speaks during an American Partnership for Economic Prosperity meeting with finance ministers at the Treasury Department, on April 19, 2024, in Washington. What to do with the Russian central bank reserves frozen in response to the invasion of Ukraine is at the top of the agenda as finance officials from the Group of Seven rich democracies meet Thursday through Saturday in Stresa, Italy, on the shores of scenic Lago Maggiore. “Securing Ukraine’s position in the medium-to-long term requires unlocking the value of immobilized Russian sovereign assets,” U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)

• Copy Link copied

FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) — Ukraine’s allies are wrestling with how to squeeze money out of frozen Russian assets to support Kyiv’s war effort , a debate getting more urgent as Russia gains territory on the battlefield and as the outlook for Ukraine’s state finances looks shakier.

At the top of the agenda as finance officials from the Group of Seven rich democracies meet Thursday through Saturday in Stresa, Italy, on the shores of scenic Lago Maggiore, is what to do with the Russian central bank reserves frozen in response to the invasion of Ukraine.

Ukraine and many of its supporters have called for the confiscation of $260 billion in Russian assets frozen outside the country after the Feb. 24, 2022, invasion .

But European officials have resisted, citing legal and financial stability concerns. Most of the frozen assets are located in Europe.

A European plan to merely use the interest on the Russian funds would provide only a trickle of money every year — about $2.5 billion-$3 billion at current interest rates, which would barely meet a month’s financing needs for the Ukrainian government.

U.S. Treasury officials and outside economists are proposing ways to turn that annual trickle into a much larger chunk of upfront cash.

That could done be through a bond that would be repaid by the future interest income, giving Ukraine the money immediately. The ministers will meet with Ukrainian Finance Minister Sergii Marchenko on Saturday.

“Securing Ukraine’s position in the medium-to-long term requires unlocking the value of immobilized Russian sovereign assets,” U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said at a news conference Thursday in Stresa. “We support the EU’s decision to utilize the windfall profits from these assets, but we must also continue our collective work on more ambitious options.”

She said $50 billion “has been mentioned as a possible number that could be achieved” from the assets, but that the specific approach was still under discussion.

The debate over the Russian assets is being revived after President Joe Biden in April signed into law the Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukrainians Act, which allows the administration to seize the roughly $5 billion in Russian state assets located in the U.S. The law was included in the U.S. aid package for Ukraine and other nations, which includes roughly $61 billion for Ukraine’s defense.

As the Stresa meeting started, Russia published a decree from President Vladimir Putin allowing confiscation of assets of U.S. companies and individuals as compensation for any Russian assets seized in the United States.

Exactly what the income from Russian assets would be spent on remains open, but one key focus is Kyiv’s state budget. Ukraine spends almost the entirety of its tax revenue on the military and needs another $40 billion a year to continue paying old-age pensions and the salaries of doctors, nurses and teachers — the glue that holds society together under dire wartime circumstances.

Support from allies and a $15.4 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund was initially thought to have secured the budget for four years, but the prospects of an extended conflict have darkened the outlook.

Ukraine depends on its allies for that money because the war keeps the government from accessing international bond market borrowing. The alternative would be printing money at the central bank, which risks igniting hyperinflation.

Thanks to EU support and the U.S. aid package, passed after months of delay , this year’s budget “looks decent in terms of budget financing” but “next year is going to be much more challenging,” said Benjamin Hilgenstock, senior economist at the Kyiv School of Economics Institute.

The ministers will seek to build consensus ahead of the June 13-15 summit of G7 national leaders summit in Italy.

Yellen will also raise China’s outsized, state-backed production of green energy technology, which the U.S. considers a threat to the global economy. It has been a little more than a month since she traveled to China to speak with her counterparts in Guangzhou and Beijing about the nation’s massive subsidies to its electric vehicles, batteries, solar energy equipment and other products.

Since then, the U.S. has imposed major new tariffs on electric vehicles , semiconductors, solar equipment and medical supplies imported from China. Included is a 100% tariff on Chinese-made EVs, meant to protect the U.S. economy from cheap Chinese imports.

Yellen said Chinese overcapacity was an issue not just for the U.S. but also for other G7 and developing countries. That’s because China’s selling of low-priced goods threatens the existence of competing companies around the world, she said. “We are not willing to be completely reliant on China as a provider of these goods,” she said.

“We need to stand together and send a unified message to China so they understand that it is not just one country that feels this way but that they face a wall of opposition to this strategy that they are pursuing.”

Yellen said the finance ministers would also discuss humanitarian aid for Gaza , and that she would urge other member governments to join in strengthening sanctions against Iran over support of terrorist groups.

The G7 meets annually to coordinate economic policy and discuss other issues including security and energy. Its members are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States. Representatives of the European Union also take part, but the EU does not serve as one of the rotating chairs.

Follow AP’s coverage at https://apnews.com/hub/russia-ukraine