Present: Nancy Gell, Amanda Kennedy, Juvena Hitt, Jerry Landau, Ben Littenberg, Gail Rose, Liliane Savard, Connie van Eeghen (8)
1. Warm Up: Hard to avoid current events and there is good work to do.
2. Follow up on Liliane’s presentation from last week.
a. Liliane had her interview; it went well. Thanks from Liliane for all the support from the group last week.
b. Liliane is continuing to move her dissertation full speed ahead. She has other options in the form of post-docs and scholarships to consider, both here and in Canada.
3. Ben is working with Jen Oshita: analyzing the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS population weighted survey) re: disability
a. Includes mortality data for 2009-2019; COVID years are scrambled and unfinished
b. Studying relationship between presence of disability and mortality (known to have a positive correlation)
i. Does cause of death have a relationship with disability?
c. Liliane: availability of data set from China on medical errors and mortality
d. Ben is learning about “decomposition models” which distributes the association of multiple variables with an outcome using secondary data.
e. Liliane: possibility for linkage with suicidality
4. Connie has an upcoming manuscript on opioid prescribing patterns for the Journal of Pain
a. Next step is NIDA grant opportunity
b. What are the other opportunities for funding, from corporate or private foundations?
5. Jerry working on orals: having fun with it!
6. Gail: past talk (3 weeks ago) for Integrative Medicine and Health on group health coaching conducted at UVM for past 3 years in Seattle. New organization, developing its research abilities and excited about new ideas. Gail was actually not 100% friendly and nice in order to help participants do science well. (Yay, Gail!)
7. As a group, keeping each other informed about work and opportunities is valuable and important.
Recorded by: CvE
Thursday, March 27, 2025
Research in CTS (formerly CROW) Meeting: March 27, 2025
Thursday, March 20, 2025
Research in CTS (formerly CROW) Meeting: March 20, 2025
Present: Nancy Gell, Amanda Kennedy, Jerry Landau, Ben Littenberg, Liliane Savard, Connie van Eeghen (10)
1. Warm Up: Opportunities for showing up and reflecting what is important
2. Presentation by Liliane as a recruitment/new hire for a DPT program with research focus
a. Self-disclosure: not autistic
b. Autism overview
i. Double empathy problem: discomfort and barriers on both sides
c. PCORI EW awards for two projects:
i. Transition from pediatric to adult healthcare
ii. Increasing capacity for autism research
d. Explanation of the research process and outcomes for each project (used 2 websites to share)
i. Transition project: literature review
1. Careful work in identifying the different meanings of what was learned
2. Identified gaps in the research: where to go next
ii. Capacity project: two training programs
1. Identified four key learning needs?
2. Developed training collaboratively
a. Participatory research
b. Working together – creating a more welcoming space
e. Dissertation project: motor learning
i. What is known about autism
ii. Few motor learning intervention trials, esp. with more impaired children
iii. Missing important details for reproducibility
iv. Priorities in her research: age appropriate, tolerable measurement method, instruction delivery, assessment of feasibility and acceptability
v. Recruitment: feasibility, acceptability
vi. This study focused on internal vs external motivation on performance.
1. A lot of variation in response to the intervention; no effect
2. Need more support for motivation
vii. Next steps
1. Motor learning
2. First person report of motor control experiences
3. Movement signatures
4. Movement initiation: motor control and executive function
5. Intervention: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, social motor groups (in addition to motor learning)
6. Also: Gap between intention and action, plus many more issues, including design of communication designs, joint hypermobility, exercise intolerance, pain and addiction, role of physical activity, connection between autoimmune markers and neuroplasticity
3. Feedback
a. Think about the 3 ways you plan to contribute to the research mission of the organization you are applying to
i. What is your vision
ii. How does your current work support that vision
iii. Next steps to support that vision: include plan to apply for grants and to publish
b. What makes you (the investigator) helpful to the institution’s mission
i. High level review of research and publications
ii. Collaborators at the institution you would work with
iii. Funding sources
c. What’s your story, make it the thread
i. What are the three things that you want people to remember about your lead study
1. Who you are and the work you do
2. What your plan is to move your work forward
d. Assume that technology will fail; keep all the content in a single PPT
e. Let the CV cover the details; focus on what your want people to remember about you and your work
Recorded by: CvEThursday, August 1, 2024
Research in CTS (formerly CROW) Meeting: August 1, 2024
Present: Amanda Kennedy, Jerry Landau, Ben Littenberg, Gail Rose, Connie van Eeghen (6)
1. Warm Up:
a. Dissertation committee planning – sooner is better than later
2. D&I and Equity – Jerry Landau: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7977499/
i. Jerry has come to D&I gradually, as he has worked with the Comprehensive Pain Program, and trying to grapple with “feasibility”
1. Summer independent study on Brownson text, Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice 3rd Edition, see https://www.amazon.com/Dissemination-Implementation-Research-Health-Translating/dp/019766069X/ref=asc_df_019766069X/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=692875362841&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=1656788153007457778&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9002887&hvtargid=pla-2281435181698&psc=1&mcid=5260f94c155b361391fa87c8c2960f9b&hvocijid=1656788153007457778-019766069X-&hvexpln=73&gad_source=1
2. With all the shortcomings of integrating equity into science, how do we do that in a balanced way, with all the other important things included as well?
ii. Ben started in Technology Assessment (the better mousetrap model, some degree true with the asthma study, and helpful to marginalized people). Does a rising tide raise all boats equally or are the rich person’s boat raised more than others?
1. HPV vaccination is taken up by the rich world, not so much by the poorer world
2. Innovations are difficult, including de-implementation of a past innovation; it takes 30 years to reflect a new innovation in text books (beta blockers for heart attacks)
3. We wondered if the scientific method can be applied to implementation; a little better but still doesn’t work unless you have access to resources/opportunities
4. Are the structural issues outside of health care: education, life style… ? Is equity about solving social problems.
a. Can we even tackle these problems?
b. Phil Aides could set up cardiac rehab but could not get people of low income to come
c. Is the behavioral bar misrepresenting factors that are really outside the choice of the individual, e.g. living in a food desert? Our urbanized environment?
iii. Social medicine has been around for ~100 years. Who is in charge?
1. Brownson suggests that Implementation Science can fix these problems.
iv. This article was written when COVID was raging and social unrest was rolling through the US.
1. The buzz on this issue has dwindled; what parts of this topic should we grab and retain
2. Ben knew Debra Haire-Joshu; she was good at knowing were the focus of research is currently pointed
v. Should we be doing anything differently
1. Collaborate with those who can help us see and understand differently: leaders, team members, stakeholders
2. How do we do research on policy as a pre-test – it either gets implemented or it doesn’t
a. Is VT the perfect experimental sandbox?
3. Could we use Enola Proctor’s implementation outcomes (acceptable, appropriate, affordable, feasible…) might be measures we can use as resarchers
4. We tend to study highly compliant participants; compliance may not be consistent with equity
a. Efficacy: compliance is essential
b. Effectiveness: compliance is a goal but not a requirement; the question is what are the factors affecting compliance
5. Where do we want to be on the CTS spectrum?
3. Next meeting: August 8, 2024
Recorded by: CvE