Emily Houston, MS student in CTS
Emily will be presenting a poster as part of the Peter Como HD Research Symposium at HSG (Huntington Study Group) being held November 8-10 in Houston, TX.
Emily developed this proposal as part of her class in CTS 301- Designing Clinical Research. She further developed the protocol while completing an independent study with Dr. Amanda Kennedy.
The title of her project is: Predictive Testing for Huntington Disease through Telemedicine: A Pilot Study
Congratulations Emily on the acceptance of your abstract submission.
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
Monday, September 24, 2018
Recent milestones
Here are a few significant awards, honors and achievements that we should all admire.
UVM Larner COM Travel Award- Sept 2018
Invited Workshop – International Conference on Communication in Health Care- Porto Portugal Sept 2018- Calibrating the Emotional Response in Training Simulated Patients
Invited Workshop- UVM Larner Teaching Academy- Facilitating Small Group Learning. Sept 2018
Congratulations!
-Ben Littenberg
Alan Rubin, MD
Vermont Academy of Science and Engineering- elected member Sept 2018UVM Larner COM Travel Award- Sept 2018
Invited Workshop – International Conference on Communication in Health Care- Porto Portugal Sept 2018- Calibrating the Emotional Response in Training Simulated Patients
Invited Workshop- UVM Larner Teaching Academy- Facilitating Small Group Learning. Sept 2018
Juvena Hitt
20 years of service to UVMSylvie Frisbie
10 years of service to UVMCongratulations!
-Ben Littenberg
Thursday, September 20, 2018
Clinical Research Oriented Workshop (CROW) Meeting: Sept 20, 2018
Present: Levi Bonnell, Jessica Clifton, Justine Dee, Nancy
Gell, Juvena Hitt, Ben Littenberg, Jen Oshita, Gail Rose, Connie van Eeghen,
Marianna Wingood
1.
Warm Up: Introductions
with Marianna Wingood, PT and PhD in CNHS
2.
Nancy Gell: Interview
Draft - The
purpose of this study is to examine physical activity prescription by physical
therapists. Through interviews and medical record analysis, we will
characterize physical activity assessment and prescription for people receiving
PT for treatment of chronic low back pain. The purpose of the interviews is to
explore how physical therapists incorporate physical activity prescription in
treatment plan, barriers and facilitators for prescription with the population,
and how prescription rationale aligns with national recommendations (ACSM
guidelines).
a. Nancy provided
a description of scope of project: is treatment plan inclusive of exercise for
patients with LBP, if so, what type of exercise (several categories). There is a movement to include exercise Rx in
primary care by PCPs; there is little literature on the part of PTs who work
with patients with LBP on an outpatient basis.
This is separate from their PT home maintenance program
i.
Data collection: EMR documentation (limited due to gaps in the
record), with interviews of PTs to provide perceptions, including rationale,
thoughts about guidelines
ii.
Mixed methods: narrowly focused interview
iii.
Sampling frame: contacts through PT programs, in and out of VT
b. Interview
focuses on processes, as well as facilitators and challenges. Time limit: 30 minutes.
i.
Consider moving some questions off-line, especially demographic
questions (move to screening)
ii.
Consider changing “check box” questions to a pre-survey, that is
referenced during the interview to ask deeper questions
iii.
About challenges: set up the supportive lead as Jessica suggested:
“We all have the experience of not providing a set of instructions. What is an example of when that happens? Why does it happen?”
c. Another
approach, based on Ben’s and Alan Rubin’s interest in patients with high A1c’s
that have not responded with regular care, based on their own practice’s data. Alan interviewed providers, using “In this
case, what were the barriers…” and Dana (anthropologist) interviewed matching
patients for their perspectives. The
results were highly informative, using qualitative research.
i.
Nancy will start this study on 35 patients within the UVM MC
system. This approach could work.
ii.
Or use a case study/vignette to start the conversation, and then
get into the experience.
d. Introduction
provides a detailed description of the guideline; consider a general
description that doesn’t appear to lead the respondent. “This isn’t about PT,
this about how health care providers talk about exercise.”
e. Assessment –
this is low priority. “How do you deal
with that? What makes this challenging?” Make this an intro question only? Or make it part of a pre-survey.
f.
Facilitators and challenges: opportunity for critical event
analysis
g. Is there a
patient-centered opportunity here? For
the future.
3.
Next week: Connie and CR Macchi (Arizona State University) will
provide a dress rehearsal of their workshop for a Collaborative Family Healthcare
Association conference in October.
4.
Future topic: Jessica Clifton’s update on outcomes of her
dissertation work.
Recorded
by: Connie
Sunday, September 16, 2018
One of our colleagues in the IBHPC PCORI study is a clinical psychologist from UCSD, Bill Sieber. I just found out that he is giving a full day seminar on
anxiety management ("Calming an Overactive Brain") as a CEU workshop
this Friday in Burlington. He said: "Please let folks know if they need
6 CEUs, it is cheap, and I think I give an entertaining and useful 6
hours ! It is at the Hilton on Battery St." I found the brochure online; you can find it here. The registration URL is https://ibpceu.com/registration/6202?&state=Vermont&city=Burlington&seminar=CALMENHVTF18%20(VT).
Thursday, September 13, 2018
CROW Notes 9/13
Below are the notes Jessica took today in CROW from Marianne's paper titled Why Did VisualDx Fail to Make a Patient Outcome Difference in Primary Care? A Mixed Methods Evaluation of a Clinical Evidence Technology for Skin Disease
Title
·
Is using Visual DX in the title associated with
Fail? Would fail in general go over well? Is it accurate?
·
Automatic word counters in the system
·
Is explanatory mixed methods a term? Connie says
Yes. Double check.
·
Results: Focused on randomized trial, not
qualitative.
·
Check out SRQR…like consort it has a check-list
of things you are supposed to hit on when submitting a publication to this
journal.
·
Conclusion: This matches the TAM model…in
conclusion the model supported …consider using the TAM
Look over grammatical/structural issues of sentences.
Think about combining the paragraphs or expand or provide examples on them.
Objective
Are the questions,
·
Love mixed method research
·
Love technology and want to know where this
could be helpful
·
Interested in use of tech in medicine
Keeping the reader in mind, who are you writing for?
Are they interested in health and interested in mixed-quality research.
Or are they the librarians and health IT professionals?
Author decision: we are interested in librarian, IT,
and primary care..
Sequential Mixed Methods: Array of things happening are
informing each other as the quantitative and qualitive inform each other. It’s
inside a single study. This is a follow-up study that has qualitative and
quantitative pieces to it…
Talk to a qualitative researcher: how do you fit these
pieces together…if you are going to make it
It could be sequential…but it’s not written as such.
Revise terminology OR revise description.
Librarians or physicians doing practice may find this
useful for X reasons. Target why it is important and to whom.
Methods
This is where how do mixed methods researchers think
about their stuff…this is a high level description…they want more
-show me a picture of the model
-show me how the pieces fit together
-make it clear to reviewers how you understand nuances
that are part of the industry
Showing the qualitative and quantitative
The survey informed us…we didn’t ask everyone
everything because it wasn’t relevant
Consider reorganizing:
Show the model,
Qualitative
Quantitative
Methods (with participants and groups)
What’s the research question and who is the audience.
Figure 1/Models
May want to highlight this is novel…
Dilema: This is more than one paper…it’s doing
something fairly novel:
One is care
One is acceptance
Why did visual Dx fail…
Open it up more…how did you see these things fit
together. Technology acceptance model…usability is a big part of that
model…every time you use that word it makes me think TAM…but sometimes you use
it associated with other topics…(also use is included in multiple ways)…See
Connie’s responses
Good job talking about Visual Dx, but not a good job
with how the models come together. Doesn’t need the two models, think about who
is interested and who is using it..
When I got to the end of the article, I had heard more
about TAM vs. how did we consider the way we use data.
To think about the way we use data…
Interested pictures:
Technology acceptance
How two models fit together (what has it taught us)
How does our analysis about Visual Dx teach us about
evidence-based models and practice?
The
comparison of the modes may distract.
Qualitative Analysis
Move this (IRB statement) because it is out of place. Either in the
beginning or end of the methods.
Otherwise fairly clear. Interviews being coded may have
been an issue…see Connie’s commetns.
Have a qualitative expert look at it before sending it
out.
Table 1
This
part was exciting…may want to talk about why people said it wasn’t helpful but
they kept using it...include the p-value
Table 4
Not
necessarily themes..because the researcher set this up..you created the structure
and then the sub-themes are the actual themes. So maybe use structure/
Mixed methods results summary
Did
you need this model to understand your results..I noted that in my copy…I think
this could be presented more simply..I think this is more about methodology
than practice of care.
Conclusions
Graphics and tables are great. So we can interpret what
you have…it’s done both ways..think about how you are reading it and where it’s
easier to find it…
Put
the quote in the table versus not
Wednesday, September 12, 2018
Jane - The Journal/Author Name Estimator
Jane is a free online service (http://jane.biosemantics.org/) that might be helpful to you.
Welcome to Jane
Have you recently written a paper, but you're not sure to which journal you should submit it? Or maybe you want to find relevant articles to cite in your paper? Or are you an editor, and do you need to find reviewers for a particular paper? Jane can help!
Just enter the title and/or abstract of the paper in the box, and click on 'Find journals', 'Find authors' or 'Find Articles'. Jane will then compare your document to millions of documents in PubMed to find the best matching journals, authors or articles.
-Ben Littenberg
Thursday, September 6, 2018
Clinical Research Oriented Workshop (CROW) Meeting: Sept 6, 2018
Present: Levi Bonnell, Marianne Burke, Jessica
Clifton, Justine Dee, Nancy Gell, Kairn Kelley, Ben Littenberg, Jen Oshita, Gail
Rose, Connie van Eeghen
1.
Warm Up: New members
coming to CROW soon: Lisa Watts Natkin
2.
Rodger Kessler
& Connie van Eeghen: PRECIS evaluation of IBHPC study: pragmatic vs.
explanatory continuum
a. Background:
Rodger Kessler,
Stephanie Brennhofer, and Connie van Eeghen are working on a manuscript to
describe the PCORI Integrated Behavioral Health in Primary Care study from a
research study management perspective: the inherent complexity of large
pragmatic trials using IBHPC as a starting point, supplemented with results
from a literature review. They have come
to CROW to conduct an exercise in re-evaluating IBHPC on the PRECIS continuum
of pragmatic/explanatory trials.
b. One key issue:
in using this continuum, discussion focused on who the participants are
(recipients of the intervention) and who the practitioners are (those who
deliver the intervention). IBHPC has two
kinds of recipients: patients and practice members. It has two kinds of practitioners: practice
members and “the practice.” The group
used both perspectives in evaluating the study.
c. Provider
as Participant (Provider is Practice Leadership or the Practice as an
entity? The latter)
i.
Comparison intervention – practitioner expertise: 10
ii.
Follow up intensity: collecting a fair amount of data, but not
from everyone: drifting from 5 to 4
iii.
Primary trial outcome: 10
iv.
Participant compliance with “prescribed” intervention: education
reports are part of the intervention, not part of the research. But the
identification of patients and use of the Community Panel are prescribed. 8
v.
Practitioner adherence to study protocol: 9
vi.
Analysis of primary outcome: 10
d. THANK YOU
EVERYONE!
e. Final Radar
Charts:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)