Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Present: Abby Crocker, Kairn Kelley, Amanda Kennedy, Ben Littenberg, Connie van Eeghen
1. Presentation: Connie - “From Dissertation to Publication” - draft article with two questions: Does it read sufficiently like a journal article (if not, what to change) and are the results presented clearly?
a. Discussion points (in no particular order):
i. The audience is made up of primary care providers. Their interest is “how to implement change in primary care,” rather than whether integration of behavioral health is a good idea. Key phrases they care about: quality of care, improvement, and systems. Shift the valence of the Introduction and make it much shorter.
ii. Pick one label for this work on “Lean:” Lean is OK but is also dated, workflow analysis, office systems analysis, workflow method, or value stream mapping. Then, stick with it.
iii. The narrative tends toward ambiguity. Say exactly what you mean. Make it simple. Even though the abstract has already been seen by the managing editor, re-write it.
iv. It’s ok to site “the dissertation” as a reference. All dissertations are published and accessible to the public, one way or another.
v. Re-examine what to include in the Methods section. More about the survey tool; less about “validity,” which doesn’t mean the validity of using Lean but the validity of the outcome measures the study arrived at. Reference the statistical significance analytical method, e.g. Wilcoxon.
vi. The analysis uses “mean” although some of the data are probably missing due to long length of time to schedule an appointment. Use “median” instead. Presentation of the results can be any representation of the distribution of the results. Box and whisker is one graphic means; does not need to be footnoted. An alternative is a dot plot, which shows all the data points.
vii. Figure 1 (template for A3) is too small and too terse. Fill in as much as possible with a real, or abbreviated, example.
viii. “Key Lessons” may be better placed in the Discussion section.
b. Next steps: Connie will re-analyze the data and will review JGIM articles that are case studies, to tighten the article around the editors’ expectations. And, she’ll start planning the next article: a brief tutorial on Workflow Analysis. Thank you all!
2. Summer Session
a. Our summer session CROW meetings will be held on Fridays, 11a – 12p starting May 24 and continuing to August 23. Thanks to all who “doodled” me back – it worked!
3. Workshop Goals for 2012:
a. Journal club: identify UVM guests and articles; invite to CROW ahead of time
b. Research updates: share work-in-process
4. Next Workshop Meeting(s): Thursday, 11:00 p.m. – 12:00 p.m., ***NOTE NEW TIME*** at Given Courtyard Level 4.
a. May 17: Abby – TBA (last scheduled session of the semester)
b. May 24: CROW project: NHANES III data element review
c. May 31: Kairn – draft article
d. June 7: Ben & Charlie – draft article
e. Future agenda to consider:
i. Ben: budgeting exercise for grant applications
ii. Ben: Writer’s workshop on the effect of the built environment on BMI (Littenberg & Austin Troy)
iii. Journal Club: “Methods and metrics challenges of delivery-system research,” Alexander and Hearld, March 2012 (for later in the year?)
iv. Rodger: Mixed methods article; article on Behavior’s Influence on Medical Conditions (unpublished); drug company funding. Also: discuss design for PCBH clinical and cost research.
v. Amanda: presentation and interpretation of data in articles
vi. Sharon Henry: article by Cleland, Thoracic Spine Manipulation, Physical Therapy 2007
Recorder: Connie van Eeghen
Posted by Connie at 5/16/2012 01:47:00 PM