Last week's CTS seminar featured Levi Bonnell, MPH, CTS Doctoral Candidate, on Open Science. The next day, The New York Times ran an op-ed called "How to Disseminate Science Quickly" covering many of the same topics. Are we cutting-edge or what?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/28/opinion/peer-review-research-studies.html?searchResultPosition=1
The James M. Jeffords Fund was established to support activities and
projects that reflect one or more of the following areas of interest to
Senator Jeffords: education, agriculture, environment, public works, and
government. The intention of this grant program is to support efforts
related to and advancing public policy and policy studies in these
areas, with a preference for projects with broad impact, but also a
clear immediate or future potential impact on Vermont/Vermont policy.
Activities and projects may include (but are not limited to) lectures,
debates, symposia, visiting professors, distinguished speakers, faculty
time and research-related support, student support, and outreach efforts
to the state. Up to $25,000 will be awarded annually and it is expected
that multiple projects will be funded each year. An advisory committee
will be appointed to advise the Provost on the selection of grant
recipients. This year's deadline is March 25.
https://www.uvm.edu/provost/james-jeffords-grants
Present: Levi Bonnell, Justine Dee, Nancy Gell, Emily Houston, Ben Littenberg, Jen Oshita, Liliane Savard, Adam Sprouse-Blum, Connie van Eeghen (9)
1. Warm Up: Covid is a thing, with a new incoming variant and recoverers from Omicron everywhere
2. Check in – round table
a. Ben
i. Final report for PCORI IBH-PC
1. Discovered the need for a missing values report
2. Conducting several sensitivity analysis based on imputed values for those missing
3. Review of the data collection methods for patient responses
ii. Submitted main analysis to Annals of Internal Medicine
1. Had to include research protocol, with all amendments: 600 pages long
2. Blog: open source culture, or what is discovered in the public domain
a. CIA just declassified a manual on sabotage behind enemy lines for civilians (e.g. for the French resistance in WW2)
i. “Follow every rule”
ii. “Allow no exceptions”
iii. “Make all the workers take every steps every time”
iv. “Assign the least competent person the most important task”
v. “Put the last important task as the first thing to do”
3. This is a policy (practice wide) intervention
a. Did not affect the community of patients
b. Subgroups? Not the ones we prespecified
b. Nancy
i. Pulling hair out: trying to do too much
ii. Pilot project: remote exercise with rural, older cancer survivors; all by zoom or mail
1. Collecting physical evidence via zoom (e.g. sit to stand with timing)
2. Deluded that bigger labs would validate the zoom measures – there was a Gerontological task force – but there is nothing
3. Decided to validate – this is a big task.
a. Inter rater reliability with recorded sessions
b. In person and zoom comparisons
iii. Levi: check for preprints!
1. Nancy: others are working on this
2. May focus on one population: e.g. cancer survivors
iv. Liliane: validity of measure for sub populations may be at risk
1. Zoom measures may be different based on setting, lack of travel, and other variables
c. Liliane
i. Video measurement of subject physical performance using “KINOVEA” software
1. Uses any movie file, any camera
2. Software drops a “pin” to give a measurement, regardless of angle
3. The farther the camera, the less distortion, but less feasible; calibration
4. No comparison between video and in person measures
ii. Requires precision
1. Intra rater measurement
a. There is a difference between in person and video measures: 3 cm at start
b. Precision goes down the closer the measure is to the edge of the frame
2. Inter rater measurement?
iii. Decision: what is the minimum difference in measures that is acceptable for valid analysis
1. Ask previous investigators
2. KINOVEA is not being helpful in previous outreach; open source changes constantly
iv. Levi: if the effect size is .5, will that work for the study?
1. Liliane: depends on the precision related to the area in the frame. Getting better at this.
d. Jen: progress on dissertation
i. Aim 1: Trinetix and patient outcomes, release of data is hung up in UVM MC Risk Management; was supposed to be available last fall but still not approved
ii. Aim 2: conducting case studies on 5-7 HC organizations re: communications accommodations services, aids, and implementation
1. Initial contacts and interviews done with 3 organizations
a. Chain sampling off of initial interviews is very slow
2. Need a Plan B, as getting depth in interview is not easy to do
a. May ask for more institutions at superficial level
b. Get patient perspective (redesign the study) to get experience on accessing accommodations using a “secret shopper” strategy
c. Will require IRB approval
iii. Secondary data analysis paper is still getting rejected
e. Justine:
i. Revised manuscript but need to change from raw scores to T scores
ii. Waiting for VHCURES data
1. Missing a variable that would join tables
iii. Thinking about a lit review topic
f. Emily:
i. Waiting throughout fall to get award letter through SPA from funder
1. Some language required minor changes in protocol
ii. MH clinicians to identify patients with drug induced movement disorder to offer treatment options
1. Clinicians (10-15) and patients (30) respond to surveys
iii. Goals: compare two methods (in person and remote) and RE-AIM evaluation
iv. Recruitment: slow response to emails
1. Make a flyer for patients and clinicians?
2. Reach out to medical directors; present at staff meetings
3. Discussion of other recruitment strategies
a. Make friends with the chief resident in psychiatry
b. Look for patients by diagnosis on problem list for tardive dyskinesia
g. Levi: 3 articles plus review article coming along
i. Good sub analyses for IBH-PC underway
ii. Skiing and FAT biking
h. Adam
i. R21 submission planned in 2.5 weeks
ii. Hawai’i in two weeks
iii. Quality review for an IRB approved study with no funder – worked out OK, thanks to Adam’s underlying OCD
iv. Learned that the EHRs provides a flag for patients involved in a study; needs to do it
1. Emily: a big deal for billing, to ensure the funder pays
2. Nancy: requirement is not possible if the researcher doesn’t have access to Epic
3. Next week: TBD
Posts
All Comments
