Project description:The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) funded three institutions to conduct effectiveness trials of weight loss interventions in primary care settings. Unlike traditional multi-center clinical trials, each study was established as an independent trial with a distinct protocol. Still, efforts were made to coordinate and standardize several aspects of the trials. The three trials formed a collaborative group, the 'Practice-based Opportunities for Weight Reduction (POWER) Trials Collaborative Research Group.'We describe the common and distinct features of the three trials, the key characteristics of the collaborative group, and the lessons learned from this novel organizational approach.The Collaborative Research Group consists of three individual studies: 'Be Fit, Be Well' (Washington University in St. Louis/Harvard University), 'POWER Hopkins' (Johns Hopkins), and 'POWER-UP' (University of Pennsylvania). There are a total of 15 participating clinics with ~1100 participants. The common primary outcome is change in weight at 24 months of follow-up, but each protocol has trial-specific elements including different interventions and different secondary outcomes. A Resource Coordinating Unit at Johns Hopkins provides administrative support.The Collaborative Research Group established common components to facilitate potential cross-site comparisons. The main advantage of this approach is to develop and evaluate several interventions, when there is insufficient evidence to test one or two approaches, as would be done in a traditional multi-center trial.The challenges of the organizational design include the complex decision-making process, the extent of potential data pooling, time intensive efforts to standardize reports, and the additional responsibilities of the DSMB to monitor three distinct protocols.
Project description:The Covid-19 pandemic severely limited collaboration among musicians in rehearsal and ensemble performance, and demanded radical shifts in collaborative practices. Understanding the nature of these changes in music creators' patterns of collaboration, as well as how musicians shifted prioritizations and adapted their use of the available technologies, can offer invaluable insights into the resilience and importance of different aspects of musical collaboration. In addition, assessing changes in the collaboration networks among music creators can improve the current understanding of genre and style formation and evolution. We used an internet survey distributed to music creators, including performers, composers, producers, and engineers, all active before and during the pandemic, to assess their perceptions of how their music, collaborative practice, and use of technology were impacted by shelter-in-place orders associated with Covid-19, as well as how they adapted over the course of the pandemic. This survey was followed by Zoom interviews with a subset of participants. Along with confirming previous results showing increased reliance on nostalgia for musical inspiration, we found that participants' collaborative behaviors were surprisingly resilient to pandemic-related changes. In addition, participant responses appeared to be driven by a relatively small number of underlying factors, representing approaches to musical collaboration such as musical extroversion or musical introversion, inspiration clusters such as activist musicking, and style or genre clusters.
Project description:Across the globe, pharmacists on the frontline continue to fight COVID-19 and its continuously evolving physical, mental, and economic consequences armed by their knowledge, professionalism, and dedication. Their need for credible scientific evidence to inform their practice has never been more urgent. Despite the exponentially increasing number of publications since the start of the pandemic, questions remain unanswered, and more are created, than have been resolved by the increasing number of publications. A panel of leading journal editors was convened by the International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP) Pharmacy Practice Research Special Interest Group to discuss the current status of COVID-19 related research, provide their recommendations, and identify focal points for pharmacy practice, social pharmacy, and education research moving forward. Key priorities identified spanned a wide range of topics, reflecting the need for good quality research to inform practice and education. The panel insisted that a foundation in theory and use of rigorous methods should continue forming the basis of inquiry and its resultant papers, regardless of topic area. From assessing the clinical and cost effectiveness of COVID-19 therapies and vaccines to assessing different models of pharmaceutical services and education delivery, these priorities will ensure that our practice is informed by the best quality scientific evidence at this very challenging time.
Project description:Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common and debilitating condition associated with a number of chemotherapeutic agents. Drugs commonly implicated in the development of CIPN include platinum agents, taxanes, vinca alkaloids, bortezomib, and thalidomide analogues. As a drug response can vary between individuals, it is hypothesized that an individual's specific genetic variants could impact the regulation of genes involved in drug pharmacokinetics, ion channel functioning, neurotoxicity, and DNA repair, which in turn affect CIPN development and severity. Variations of other molecular markers may also affect the incidence and severity of CIPN. Hence, the objective of this review was to summarize the known biological (molecular and genomic) predictors of CIPN and discuss the means to facilitate progress in this field.
Project description:BackgroundDental caries are largely preventable, and epidemiological evidence for a relationship between diet and oral health is abundant. To date, however, dentists' perceptions about the role of diet and dentists' practice patterns regarding diet counseling have not been clarified.ObjectiveTHE PURPOSES OF THIS STUDY WERE TO: (1) examine discordance between dentists' perception of the importance of diet in caries treatment planning and their actual provision of diet counseling to patients, and (2) identify dentists' characteristics associated with their provision of diet counseling.DesignThe study used a cross-sectional study design consisting of a questionnaire survey in Japan.ParticipantsThe study queried dentists working in outpatient dental practices who were affiliated with the Dental Practice-Based Research Network Japan (JDPBRN), which aims to allow dentists to investigate research questions and share experiences and expertise (n?=?282).MeasurementDentists were asked about their perceptions on the importance of diet and their practice patterns regarding diet counseling, as well as patient, practice, and dentist background data.ResultsThe majority of participants (n?=?116, 63%) recognized that diet is "more important" to oral health. However, among participants who think diet is "more important" (n?=?116), only 48% (n?=?56) provide diet counseling to more than 20% of their patients. Multiple logistic regression analysis suggested that several variables were associated with providing diet counseling; dentist gender, practice busyness, percentage of patients interested in caries prevention, caries risk assessment, and percentage of patients who receive blood pressure screening.ConclusionsSome discordance exists between dentists' perception of the importance of diet in caries treatment planning and their actual practice pattern regarding diet counseling to patients. Reducing this discordance may require additional dentist education, including nutritional and systemic disease concepts; patient education to increase perception of the importance of caries prevention; or removing barriers to practices' implementation of counseling.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01680848.
Project description:In 2008, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) began funding a major 5-year pilot research programme of translational research in England, establishing nine 'Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care' (CLAHRCs). A number of evaluations were carried out to examine whether or not the various collaborations worked as intended and why. In this paper, we examine what the theory of co-production adds to understanding of processes of knowledge creation and translation we observed in one of the CLAHRCs.A case study of a successful knowledge translation project was identified from our wider realist evaluation of the mechanisms of closer collaboration at play in the CLAHRC. In the project, a computer simulation model of an emergency pathway for acute ischaemic stroke was built to explore if and how the time between the onset and treatment of the condition could be minimised by redesigning the pathway. The aim of the case study was to improve our understanding of the nature and workings of the mechanisms of closer collaboration that were associated with the more successful projects by examining the relevance of the theory of co-production. Qualitative methods of analysis were used to explore the fit between the mechanisms of closer collaboration we observed in the realist evaluation and the principles of co-production we identified from the literature.We found a close fit between the nine mechanisms of closer collaboration at work in the project and the principles of co-production (active agents; equality of partners; reciprocity and mutuality; transformative; and facilitated). The successful style of collaborative working exemplified by the project was consistent with a strong form of co-production.In our view, the theory of co-production provides useful insights into what it is about the qualities of collaborative working that inspire the requisite mechanisms for generating knowledge that is translated into practice. The theory provides a potentially useful basis for future knowledge translation programmes and projects in applied health research in a range of contexts.
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the relationship between biomedical researchers' collaborative and authorship practices and scientific success.DesignLongitudinal quantitative analysis of individual researchers' careers over a nine-year period.SettingA leading biomedical research institution in the United Kingdom.ParticipantsFive hundred and twenty-five biomedical researchers who were in employment on 31 December 2009.Main outcome measuresWe constructed the co-authorship network in which nodes are the researchers, and links are established between any two researchers if they co-authored one or more articles. For each researcher, we recorded the position held in the co-authorship network and in the bylines of all articles published in each three-year interval and calculated the number of citations these articles accrued until January 2013. We estimated maximum likelihood negative binomial panel regression models.ResultsOur analysis suggests that collaboration sustained success, yet excessive co-authorship did not. Last positions in non-alphabetised bylines were beneficial for higher academic ranks but not for junior ones. A professor could witness a 20.57% increase in the expected citation count if last-listed non-alphabetically in one additional publication; yet, a lecturer suffered from a 13.04% reduction. First positions in alphabetised bylines were positively associated with performance for junior academics only. A lecturer could experience a 8.78% increase in the expected citation count if first-listed alphabetically in one additional publication. While junior researchers amplified success when brokering among otherwise disconnected collaborators, senior researchers prospered from socially cohesive networks, rich in third-party relationships.ConclusionsThese results help biomedical scientists shape successful careers and research institutions develop effective assessment and recruitment policies that will ultimately sustain the quality of biomedical research and patient care.