Thursday, May 10, 2018

CROW NOTES 5/10/18


Clinical Research Oriented Workshop (CROW) Meeting: May 10, 2018

Present:   Marianne Burke, Levi Bonnell, Juvena Hitt, Kairn Kelley, Ben Littenberg, Gail Rose, Connie van Eeghen

Notes: Connie

Start Up: Two sentence exercise:
“In a review of the literature prior studies reported their findings that outcomes were higher in men than women.”
In prior studies, outcomes were higher in men.
Or, prior studies reported higher outcomes in men.
Or, outcomes are higher in men.
Or, men had higher outcomes.

“In all probability, the data is biased”
These data may be biased.
Or, the data are biased.

If you are having trouble hearing today, please ask us for a listening device. (Reduced down from a much longer statement by Kairn with Patient & Family Services)

1.                   Android phone prevalence
a.       All Android users agreed to try out Gail’s alcohol use app
b.       I-phones: more common or less common than Androids
2.                   Updates
a.       Marianne: conducting a mixed methods study on why Visual Dx failed to change patient outcomes
                                                   i.      Created a model of possible reasons
                                                 ii.      11 providers interviewed in active group; 2 in control
                                               iii.      Is working with two independent coders (Alan and Lilliane)
1.       Not a grounded theory process; a thematic process
2.       Evidence-based evidence model
3.       Technology Acceptance Model
                                               iv.      Next: re-reviewing transcripts, de-identifying, and engaging in iterative reviews with coders (about 3 at a time)
1.       Transcripts range from very short to lengthy; on average 1 hour each

Next workshop meetings: Thursdays @ 11 AM. Given Courtyard South Level 4
·         May 17: Justine: Review of manuscript
·         May 24: Connie and Roger Kessler
·         May 31: Adam Atherly  & Eline Van Den Broek: MEPS Data
·         June 7:

Monday, May 7, 2018

Fwd: Announcing: Symposium on Complexity in Health & Wellness Behavior

 

We are excited to announce our inaugural symposium on complexity in human health and wellness behavior. During this intensive three-day professional education course, we will explore boundary-breaking science that is being used to tackle issues related to human behavioral wellness. Faculty for this course comes from data analytics, medicine and behavioral health, complexity science, computer science, psychology, neuroscience, economics, biology, and biomedical engineering. During this program, you will be introduced to methods, tools, and theory currently being used to understand human wellness from a multi-scaled perspective. No background in science or mathematics is required.

The University of Vermont Complex Systems Center is a highly collaborative, open, and playful space that embraces intellectual curiosity, kindness, and rigor. Our educational programs are meant to be an idea collider. They bring together faculty and participants from many fields and spark new collaboration. They facilitate creativity. Our aim is not just to transfer complexity tools but to provide a life experience and create a community of complexity researchers and practitioners who are open, collaborative, and hungry for rigorous solutions to complex problems. 

Faculty List: Allison Kurti, Chris Danforth, Dario Robleto, Diann E Gaalema, Laurent H├ębert-Dufresne, Matt Bonds, Nicholas Allgaier, Peter Dodds, Ross A. Hammond, Ryan McGinnis. Additional speakers will be announced shortly. 

Location: Burlington, Vermont 
Date: Sept. 5-7, 2018 (primetime for Lake swimming, apple picking, Causeway Bike rides, & maybe even a bit of leaf peeping) 
 
Find Out More & Register Here


Friday, May 4, 2018

Seminar 5/4/18


Friday Seminar Meeting: May (the) 4th (be with you), 2018
Notes
·         Sponsored Project Administration
o   Uvm.edu/spa/
o   2017
§  715 awards
§  123 mm
§  COM -> > 50% of awards
o   Federal funders
§  NSF
§  NIH
o   Mission agencies
§  DOD
§  EPA
o   Solicited
§  Specific aims
o   Unsolicited (investigator initiated)
§  Braod
·         Hilda Alajajian
o   Help find funding opportunities (how to look for money)
·         PIVOT
o   UVM search platform for funding opportunities
o   Create username/ID
§  Save searches
§  Share searches
§  Alerts
§  Notifications
o   Method for narrowing down search opportunities
§  Keywords -> browse  -> (ex. Health & medicine -> outcomes research)
§  Uncheck ‘explode’ before hitting search
§  Search -> refine keywords
·         Add location, citizenship, new keywords
o   Tips
§  Look up dream grant -> use keywords associated with it.
·         They show you within pivot
§  Stay broad then narrow

Thursday, May 3, 2018

CROW NOTES 5/3/18

Clinical Research Oriented Workshop (CROW) Meeting: May 3, 2018


Present:   Marianne Burke, Levi Bonnell, Justine Dee, Juvena Hitt, Ben Littenberg, Jennifer Oshita, Koela Ray, Gail Rose, Connie van Eeghen
Guest: Rycki Maltby, Professor of Nursing
Notes: Connie

Start Up: Introductions all around; Ricky works extensively internationally, including community based research (public health, cultural competency, service work)
1.                   Qualitative Research
a.       Rycki has a variety of examples and resources to learn from, as well as good experience in using NVivo 9
b.       Example: hermeneutical phenomenology, where assumptions are not bracketed (not set aside) but included in the process
                                                   i.      The research admits non-objectivity, up front
                                                 ii.      Public Health students doing this learning in Bangladesh place themselves in the research frame, and make observations about their own reactions (e.g. I’m very rich), leading to the question “Do students who go to high income countries learn something different from those who go to low income countries?”
                                               iii.      Coding: an exercise in sorting and describing findings
1.       Similarities between the two groups (“I’m a stranger in a strange land”)
2.       Differences between the two groups
                                               iv.      Next question: “Do students who go abroad learn differently from those that stay in VT?” (based on the objectives of the course) – the questions build on previous findings
c.       Presentation of data: based on exemplars
                                                   i.      How much data are enough?  It depends: 5 is plenty for a student
1.       Grounded theory: a new theory – 40-50 sources
                                                 ii.      Summarizing into categories – not what Rycki prefers but does appear in the literature
1.       Don’t count the subjects to report them
2.       Notice: what is showing up consistently?  Identify the major themes
d.       Conclusion: so what? Develop the take-away for the audience; policy and philosophic points
e.       Types of qualitative data
                                                   i.      Phenomenology: the lived experience, described by the source
                                                 ii.      Grounded theory: looking at developing theory by wide ranging data and constant dwelling with data, from many different researchers’ perspectives
f.        Data analysis
                                                   i.      First round: each researcher de novo, blinded to others
                                                 ii.      Later: negotiations and agreement
                                               iii.      It identifies what, but not degree or how much
g.       No funding – unless there is a quantitative aspect

2.                   The article she mentioned at the end of the session that talks about the difference between descriptive and interpretive phenomenological research is here.
Understanding the Differences between Husserl’s (Descriptive) and Heidegger’s (Interpretive) Phenomenological Research
Next workshop meetings: Thursdays @ 11 AM. Given Courtyard South Level 4
·         May 10: Email Levi
·         May 17: Email Levi
·         May 24: Connie and Roger Kessler
·         May 31:
·         June 7: Adam Atherly: MEPS Data

Thursday, April 26, 2018

CROW NOTES 4/26/18


CROW 4/26/18
Attendees: Marianne, Levi, Kairn, Dr. Littenberg, Koela, Justine
Presenter:  Kairn
·        Research on process markers is okay in the eyes of Dr. Littenberg and CTS but DON’T Forget about the outcomes.
o   Medication can have unintended effects, good or bad.
§  Statins -> improve longevity in patients with low cholesterol through unintended and not fully understood anti-inflammatory pathway.
§  Drug for PVC -> increased in death rates. Not fully studied before being approved.
·         DON’T FORGET ABOUT THE OUTCOMES!!!
·         Process marker: Communication
·         Why solve communication problem -> stop bad things from happening?
·         What are the possible adverse outcomes
o   Mortality
o   Morbidity
§  Function
§  Symptoms
o   Costs
o   Non-adherence
o   Mis-adventures or medical errors
o   Patient engagement or lack thereof

FINER Research question:

Solving communication problems between providers and patients who are hard of hearing: Do personal amplifiers help improve patient/provider communication and patient comprehension?

UVMMC
·         Settlement with deaf patient that didn’t have the proper services at UVMMC
·         Tasked with improving services for patient communication among hearing impaired patients  
o   Roll out of personal amplifiers
o   Kairn has the option to help. Should she?
§  Clean slate but research + make hospital happy == not likely.  
American speech and hearing grant $10k
·         Should she apply? Due in a week.
o   Probably not but maybe in the near future.



Next workshop meetings: Thursdays @ 11 AM. Given Courtyard South Level 4
·        May 3: Hendrika Maltby, Qualitative methods

Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Notes from CROW 4/19



  CROW 4/19/18 Notes

    Start Up:  Davis FD. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989; 13(3):319-40

·         Seminal paper in technology acceptance model (TAM)
  o     Purpose: Create a valid measurement for acceptance of computers
  o   Perceived usefulness/ease of use associated with anticipated usage?   
   ·         Cited over 38,000 times.
   ·         Definitions
   ·         Usefulness
  o   Does the technology benefit your work?
   ·         Ease of use 
  o   “…free of effort”
·          Validity
  o   Does the instrument reflect the construct
§  In this case the constructs are usefulness & ease of use
   ·          Discussion/review on precision, accuracy, validity: visualized on the white board
  o   Measures can be
§  Not precise or accurate (valid)
§  Precise but not accurate (or valid)
§  Valid but suffering from lack of precision (still accurate)
·         Perhaps increase sample size or improve measurement
§  Valid with good precision and accuracy
   ·         Discussion on types of validity with the group
  o   Face validity
§  The degree to which a procedure appears effective in …
·         Astrology: Not so much.
  o   Construct validity
§  Does the instrument what we want it to measure?
·         Does BMI measure obesity? Decently.
  o   Convergent validity
§  Measuring same thing with different devices/tools and you get the same/more precise answer
·         Measure height with yardstick, then laser then … All going to converge to my height
·         If they don’t converge then at least one device/tool is wrong
  o   Divergent validity
§  Tests that the measurements that are not supposed to be related are actually unrelated.
  o   Factorial validity
§  Factor analysis on all items/questions
·         A question asked 5 different ways will all be grouped by factor analysis
·         A way to shorten survey
o   Gain: time, less annoying, increase response/decrease missingness
o   Lose: precision within subject (power in study)
  o          Criterion validity
§  Gold standard, benchmark
§  But what if there is no criterion validity? What if there is no prior measurement of usefulness and ease of use of technology?
·         You create it! Become the gold standard
·         The meter
·         Temperature
·         PIP example-> how well do primary care offices get behavioral health delivered?
·         Kairn auditory -> auditory processing disorder.
o   No agreed upon definition -> no construct or criterion validity.

                Next Workshop Meeting(s): Thursdays @ 11AM at Given Courtyard South Level 4.
                April 26: Kairn Kelley
     May 3: Hendrika Maltby, Qualitative methods