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

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 

Emily Tarleton's Magnesium Trial featured on UVM Med Center Blog

The UVM Med Center recently featured the work of Emily Tarleton, PhD. Magnesium: UVM Study Shows It’s a Safe, Effective, Low-Cost Treatment for Depression includes an interview with Emily and a discussion of her thesis work.

Congrats, Emily!

-Ben Littenberg