Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful. - Samuel Johnson
Thanks
Publish Post
This blog is dedicated to the University of Vermont graduate programs in Clinical and Translational Science (CTS). We hope it will be a useful tool for CTS faculty, Graduate Students and Faculty Scholars to keep in touch, share ideas, create community, and do science.
Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful. - Samuel Johnson
Go, Sarah!
Please join me in congratulating Sarah Gillett. Her abstract, "Inflammation and Risk of Cognitive Decline in Black and White Americans in the Reasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) Study," has been accepted for an oral presentation at the Joint Conference - Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism and Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention 2011 Scientific Sessions, scheduled March 22 -25, 2010 at the Atlanta Marriott Marquis in Atlanta, Georgia.
This is wonderful news. Congratulations Sarah!
Amanda G. Kennedy, PharmD, BCPS
Research Assistant Professor of Medicine
University of Vermont Center for Clinical and Translational Science
www.uvm.edu/~ccts
Director, The Vermont Academic Detailing Program
University of Vermont Office of Primary Care
www.vtad.org
From: Distribution List for COBRE Program Grantees [mailto:COBRE-L@LIST.NIH.GOV] On Behalf Of Arora, Krishan (NIH/NCRR) [E]
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 11:37 AM
To: COBRE-L@LIST.NIH.GOV
Subject: Potential Funding Opportunity
FYI. Please share it with interested scholars and faculty in your programs. Thanks,
"The program will support a small number of exceptional clinical researchers in the early stages of their careers to promote their development to fully independent positions….."
____________________________
Krishan K. Arora, Ph.D.
Health Scientist Administrator
Division of Research Infrastructure
National Center for Research Resources
National Institutes of Health
Department of Health and Human Services
6701 Democracy Boulevard
Room 938 - MSC 4874
Bethesda, MD 20892-4874
Telephone: (301) 435-0760
Fax: (301) 480-3770
E-Mail: arorak@mail.nih.gov
Hello,
Next week we will begin forwarding, via email, IRB correspondence from the InfoEd system. To help you identify these emails, the subject line will begin with the word "IRB" followed by the protocol number. Example below:
IRB Clarification for M10-001
IRB Continuing Review for M10-001 and so on
Please do not disregard these emails as we will not be sending hard copies of the correspondence that have been emailed to you.
You may reply via email to any correspondence that you have received via email from us. However, at this time, any new submissions of any type still require paper copies to be submitted for review due to limitations of the current version of our software. Paper submission instructions are located on our forms web page at: http://www.uvm.edu/~iacuc/?Page=iacucforms/iacucforms.html
Thank you and please don't hesitate to contact us with any problems or concerns. The earlier we are made aware of any problems with this process the sooner we can address them.
-- Donna Silver, Assistant Program Director University of Vermont Research Protections Office 245 South Park, Suite 900 Colchester, VT 05446 Donna.Silver@uvm.edu 802-656-5040
|
Present: Abby Crocker, Kairn Kelley, Ben Littenberg, Charlie MacLean, Carole McBride, Connie van Eeghen
2. Abby’s Topic
a. More published studies about weaning babies born with drug dependency
b. Predicting which kids need help is a good study question that has current data to support it. The research question is ~ “What are the prenatal characteristics that could predict requiring treatment?” Or “What are the prenatal predictors of NAS among women using narcotics pre-natally?” This is novel and important (relevant).
i. Reasons this is valuable: more appropriate prenatal treatment, better quality of life for baby and parents
ii. Outcome variable: did babies need treatment (not Finnegan score)
iii. Predictor variables (based on lit review): gestational age at time of delivery, gestational age at onset of prenatal care, maternal opiate treatment type (methadone or bupenorphine), abuse of Schedule 2 drugs (or prescribed drugs that were not prescribed), infant’s sex, infant’s birth weight, breast feeding or breast milk in hospital, plan to continue to breast feed, parity (live births), gravity (pregnancies), and maternal age. Others to consider: partner/spouse, employment, smoking, ETOH use, institution of treatment, date.
iv. Analytic plan:
1. Univariate analysis on just the drugs: prescribed vs. street drugs (with or without interactions). This tests the hypothesis that the drugs matter and their potencies may be different.
2. Best prediction model: use the current data set to develop a model using any/all criterion/a to create it. For another study, test the model using a new data set OR separate the data sets into two groups and use one set to develop the model and the other to test it. The FAHC population =~550 patients; others may be available.
3. Talk to clinical experts to help sort out the most significant variables.
c. Caring for these kids is a separate question and a good future study
3. Next Workshop Meeting(s): Friday, 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., at Given Courtyard Level 4
a. Nov 12: Abby to lead discussion (no Connie, Amanda, Rodger)
b. Nov 19: Abby to lead discussion (no Connie, Rodger)
c. Nov 26: Cancelled
d. Dec 3: Abby to lead discussion (no Connie, Rodger)
e. Dec 10: Abby to lead discussion (no Connie, Rodger)
f. Dec 17: Rodger to lead discussion (no Connie)
g. Dec 24: Cancelled
h. Dec 31: Cancelled
i. Future agenda to consider:
i. Rodger: Mixed methods article; article on Behavior’s Influence on Medical Conditions (unpublished)
ii. Future: Review of different types of journal articles (lit review, case study, original article, letter to editor…), when each is appropriate, tips on planning/writing (Abby)
iii. Future: Informed consent QI: Connie to follow up with Nancy Stalnaker, Alan Rubin will follow up with Alan Wortheimer or Rob McCauly
iv. Kairn will ask a librarian to join us for selected issues
4. Fellows document – to be reviewed in the future. We trialed Wednesday meeting times, which started May 5, 2010 and continued until August 25, 2010. We returned to Friday meetings on Sept 3, 2010
Recorder: Connie van Eeghen
2. Rodger’s Data
a. Past article submission has been returned with suggestions; new data from an additional site has meantime become available. May turn the paper into a “Brief Report” for the journal where it is under review. Two ways to look at incorporating the data from the additional site:
i. Compare the two sites, at least at a relatively simple level, to show that this approach worked in both
ii. Explain the two sites as a progression of implementing the same approach in two different practices with successful outcomes.
1. The sites are three years apart in time; this was the outcome of the practical issues around setting up the sites with this model. The message should be “you can do this in your practice,” so currency of data and process is important.
iii. Be able to discuss some of the details of patient condition: primary and secondary diagnoses, co-morbidities, payer mix, zip code, income, referrer (through the insurance claim), etc.
iv. Regardless of which strategy above is used, the journal will probably push for side by side comparisons. Anticipate questions that can’t be answered because of limits to generalizations preemptively, by stating that these limits exist and identifying the need for future studies.
b. AHRQ funded R24, “Connect” has two steps
i. Enroll practices, linked to EHR data abstraction and National Research Network “DARTnet” which has hooked up practices and pulled data (not MH data), in a collaborative around MH. Goal: enroll 30-40 organizations, some with multiple sites, with a goal of 100 sites in total. Ben Miller is the PI. Goal: can the data be abstracted?
ii. Descriptive data study, supported by DARTnet subcontractor, looking for practices with MH services on site that can be compared to other DARTnet practices not in the CCRN collaborative. Goal: is there a difference in the treatment conditions?
1. Identifies MH services that have been initiated based on diagnoses from the problem list – although this is still being sorted out with DARTnet. Not sure if the clinician providing the MH services matters (BH clinician or PCP).
2. The eligible population (i.e. the denominator for the study) is under question: a set of behavioral health and medical diagnoses provided by a list which has been true for the patient for an undetermined period of time.
3. Outcomes research study is outside the scope of this study and an important future study.
4. That there was a referral is one item to track; another is identifying the outcome of that referral, a.k.a. “treatment initiation” (which is a question that may be answerable only by the patient) or “care process” (which could include a range of steps that might include medication, counseling, and have a range of sources for collecting data). However, the only source of data available are through DARTnet as part of this step of the study.
3. Next Workshop Meeting(s): Friday, 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., at Given Courtyard Level 4
a. Nov 5: Abby: update on research study.
b. Nov 12: (no Connie)
c. Nov 19: (no Connie)
d. Nov 26: (day after Thanksgiving – cancel?)
e. Dec 3: (no Connie)
f. Dec 10: (no Connie)
g. Dec 17: (no Connie)
h. Dec 24: ???
i. Dec 31: ???
j. Future agenda to consider:
i. Rodger: Mixed methods article; article on Behavior’s Influence on Medical Conditions (unpublished)
ii. Future: Review of different types of journal articles (lit review, case study, original article, letter to editor…), when each is appropriate, tips on planning/writing (Abby)
iii. Future: Informed consent QI: Connie to follow up with Nancy Stalnaker, Alan Rubin will follow up with Alan Wortheimer or Rob McCauly
iv. Kairn will ask a librarian to join us for selected issues
4. Fellows document – to be reviewed in the future. We trialed Wednesday meeting times, which started May 5, 2010 and continued until August 25, 2010. We returned to Friday meetings on Sept 3, 2010
Recorder: Connie van Eeghen
New Report Examines Impacts of Health IT on Workflow in Outpatient Settings
AHRQ released a new summary report, Incorporating Health IT into Workflow Redesign, prepared by the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Center for Quality and Productivity Improvement. The report summarizes existing research and evidence related to the impact of health IT on workflow in outpatient settings. Key information obtained from the research will be incorporated into a toolkit to assist small and medium-sized practices in workflow analysis and redesign before, during, and after health IT implementation. The toolkit, Workflow Assessment for Health IT, is expected to be available in January 2011. Select to access the Incorporating Health IT into Workflow Redesign Summary Report (PDF file; PDF Help) and the associated appendix, Incorporating Health IT Into Workflow Redesign Summary Report Appendix F: Tool Compendium (PDF file; PDF Help).
You are subscribed to Health IT for Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
Present: Abby Crocker, Ben Littenberg, Connie van Eeghen, and three guests from our affiliate hospital in Danbury, CT
1. Round Table: Welcome to our guests; introductions all around.
2. Connie’s Presentation
a. Connie provided a two page overview of a 90 minute presentation she has been invited to give to the Northern New England American Healthcare Executives annual regional conference over lunch during their last conference day in November. She presented the first third of that presentation; excellent feedback followed including:
i. Move presentation to more visual images; fewer words. This includes images of where the listeners imagination should be welcome to go, like a real “battlefield.” Find images that represent the “fact,” not the words that explain the fact.
ii. Don’t make a story longer than necessary; “visiting professor” is sufficient rather than the full background of the source of a story. Do add details that fill out the story: did the staff have high school diplomas?
iii. Move more quickly to the “after” message: what difference did “Lean” make? What changed? Get to the conclusion.
iv. Acknowledge the questions in the listener’s mind: what’s the staff time? The investment? How is this different that FMEA or PDSA or TQM?
v. Consider a case study with a well documented outcome.
b. Many thanks to all for your time and input!
3. Next Workshop Meeting(s): Friday, 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., at Given Courtyard Level 4
a. Oct 29: Rodger: data presentation issues for a paper
b. Nov 5: Abby?
c. Future agenda to consider:
i. Rodger: Mixed methods article; article on Behavior’s Influence on Medical Conditions (unpublished)
ii. Future: Review of different types of journal articles (lit review, case study, original article, letter to editor…), when each is appropriate, tips on planning/writing (Abby)
iii. Future: Informed consent QI: Connie to follow up with Nancy Stalnaker, Alan Rubin will follow up with Alan Wortheimer or Rob McCauly
iv. Kairn will ask a librarian to join us for selected issues
4. Fellows document – to be reviewed in the future. We trialed Wednesday meeting times, which started May 5, 2010 and continued until August 25, 2010. We returned to Friday meetings on Sept 3, 2010
Recorder: Connie van Eeghen
BRFSS 28th Annual Conference
SAVE THE DATE
March 19-23, 2011
Grand Hyatt Buckhead
Atlanta, Georgia
This year's theme:
BRFSS: State-Based Health Surveillance Meeting Local Data Needs
Please contact Judith Wellen at (404) 498-0521 or apn0@cdc.gov with questions
You are subscribed to Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
Apply Online Now for Possible Awards of Up to $35,000 Annually
The NIH is accepting applications for its extramural Loan Repayment Programs now through 8:00 p.m. Eastern time on November 15, 2010.
These programs often allow scientific investigators to remain in the research workforce, achieve research independence and focus their efforts on advancing the health of the nation. Opportunities are available in clinical research, pediatric research, health disparities research, contraception and infertility research, and clinical research for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds. Each year, some 1,600 research scientists benefit from the more than $70 million NIH invests in their careers through the extramural LRPs.
Please share this e-mail with researchers in your organization who may benefit from the NIH LRPs. The November 15 deadline is quickly approaching. Health professionals who have started an online application should complete it now, and those who have not yet started should visit www.lrp.nih.gov to learn more about the programs and apply.
BENEFITS: New LRP contracts are awarded for a two-year period and repay up to $35,000 of qualified educational debt each year. Tax offsets also are provided as an additional benefit. Participants may apply for competitive renewals, which are issued for one or two years. Undergraduate, graduate, medical school, and other health professional school loans qualify for repayment. An NIH grant or other NIH funding is not required to apply for or participate in the LRPs.
ELIGIBILITY: Applicants must possess a doctoral-level degree (with the exception of the Contraception and Infertility Research LRP); be a U.S. citizen, national, or permanent resident; devote 20 hours or more per week to conducting qualified research funded by a domestic nonprofit, university, or government entity; and have qualified educational loan debt equal to or exceeding 20 percent of their institutional base salary.
For guidance on the application process and NIH Institute and Center (IC) research priorities, potential applicants should review "Tips for Completing a Competitive Application" at http://www.lrp.nih.gov/pdf/0310_1_application_tips.pdf and contact an IC LRP liaison. The list of ICs and their liaisons can be found at http://www.lrp.nih.gov/contact_us/contact_list.aspx
QUESTIONS? Visit the LRP website at www.lrp.nih.gov for more information and to access the online application. For additional assistance, call or e-mail the LRP Information Center at (866) 849-4047 or lrp@nih.gov. Also, receive application cycle updates through Twitter @NIH_LRP or www.twitter.com/NIH_LRP.