Jim Burke, M.D. is a neurologist who completed residency and a stroke fellowship at the University of Michigan. His undergraduate degree is from the University of Notre Dame and his medical degree from the Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine. He is interested in understanding how physicians use the complex information acquired from modern diagnostic tests and improving decisions to order such tests.
Page not found
Founded in 2006, MICHR develops research talent through its predoctoral and postdoctoral education programs; helps investigators launch their ideas through pilot grant funding and consultation; connects researchers with community groups, clinics, practice-based networks, and potential study volunteers; and supports research teams with clinical research management services, including biostatistical design and analysis, study management and monitoring, data management, a clinical trials office for industry partnerships, and a fully-equipped and professionally-staffed clinical research unit.
PI(s): Sara Adar
Co-I(s): Robert Bagramanian, Cleopatra Caldwell, Dana Dolinoy, Vicki Ellingrod, Karen Farris, William Giannobile, Kyle Grazier, Janet Larson, Phyllis Meadows, Hal Morgenstern, Douglas Noll, Trivellore Raghunathan, Dean Smith, Catherine Spino, Marita Titler, Alexander Tsodikov, Mark Van Oyen, Roger Albin, Neil Alexander, Lawrence An, Brian Athey, Charles Burant, James Cavalcoli, Arul Chinnaiyan, Daniel Clauw, Matthew Davis, Scott Flanders, Michael Geisser, Debbie Gipson, Susan Goold, Lee Green, David Hanauer, Sarah Hawley, Raymond Hutchinson, Lori Isom, Claire Kalpakjian, Michael Klinkman, Nicholas Lukacs, George Mashour, Bethany Moore, Susan Murphy, Gilbert Omenn, Michelle Riba, Blake Roessler, Mark Russell, Thomas Shanley, Donna Shewach, Yolanda Smith, Delia Vazquez, Stewart Wang, John Wiley, David Williams, Sandra Wong, Kai Zheng, Marc Zimmerman, Anna Kratz, Barbara Brush, Kelley Kidwell, David Gordon, Brooks Gross, Elizabeth Koschmann, Alan Weder
The Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine (CBSSM) Research Colloquium was held Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at the Great Lakes Room, Palmer Commons, 100 Washtenaw Ave, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.
The CBSSM Research Colloquium featured the Bishop Lecture in Bioethics as the keynote address. Norman Daniels, PhD presented the Bishop Lecture with a talk entitled: “Universal Access vs Universal Coverage: Two models of what we should aim for."
Norman Daniels, PhD is Mary B. Saltonstall Professor of Population Ethics and Professor of Ethics and Population Health in the Department of Global Health and Population at the Harvard School of Public Health. Formerly chair of the Philosophy Department at Tufts University, his most recent books include Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly (Cambridge, 2008); Setting Limits Fairly: Learning to Share Resources for Health, 2nd edition, (Oxford, 2008); From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice (2000); Is Inequality Bad for Our Health? (2000); and Identified versus Statistical Lives (Oxford 2015). He has published 200 peer-reviewed articles and as many book chapters, editorials, and book reviews. His research is on justice and health policy, including priority setting in health systems, fairness and health systems reform, health inequalities, and intergenerational justice. A member of the IOM, a Fellow of the Hastings Center, and formerly on the ethics advisory boards of the CDC and the CIHR, he directs the Ethics concentration of the Health Policy PhD at Harvard and recently won the Everett Mendelsohn Award for mentoring graduate students.
2017 Colloquium Schedule:
- 8:30 Check in, refreshments
- 9:05 Welcome
- 9:10 Presentation 1: “Setting priorities for Medicaid: The views of minority and underserved communities” Susan Goold, MD, MHSA, MA & Zachary Rowe, Executive Director, Friends of Parkside
- 9:35 Presentation 2: ““How Acceptable Is Paternalism? A Survey-Based Study of Clinician and Non-clinician Opinions on Decision Making After Life Threatening Stroke” Kunal Bailoor, MD Candidate
- 10:00 Medical Student in Ethics Award
- 10:10 Presentation 3: “Ethical Challenges Faced by Providers in Pediatric Death: A Qualitative Thematic Analysis” Stephanie Kukora, MD
- 10:35 Presentation 4: “Capacity for Preferences: An overlooked criterion for resolving ethical dilemmas with incapacitated patients” Jason Wasserman, PhD & Mark Navin, PhD
- 11:00 Break
- 11:15 Bishop Lecture: Norman Daniels, PhD
- 12:45 Lunch
Funded by Brigham and Women's Hospital/Boston Univerity/NIH.
Funding Years: 2010-2013.
In this continuation of the REVEAL Study, we will conduct a new randomized clinical trial to determine the psychological and health behavior changes associated with disclosing APOE genotype and 3-year Risk estimates to persons with mild memory problems. We will also create a new instrument that clinicians and researchers can use to reliably evaluate a patient's capacity to consent to genetic testing and examine long-term impact of genetic Risk assessment by following REVEAL Study patients 2-10 years following disclosure. For more information, visit NIH Reporter Link.
PI(s): J. Scott Roberts
With just a simple search term and a click of the mouse, a person can find a large amount of health information on the Internet. What role does the Internet play in how patients make medical decisions? Does using the Internet as a source for information to help patients make informed decisions vary by health condition? Does the Internet substitute for detailed discussions with a health care provider?
Consider the following:
Imagine that you recently visited your health care provider for an annual physical examination. During the exam your doctor told you that you are at the age where you should start thinking about getting a screening test for colon cancer. In this conversation your health care provider explained some of the reasons why you should get screened. At the end of the visit, you had more information about screening tests for colon cancer but had not yet decided whether or not you wanted to get tested.
- Don't know
How do your answers compare?
In a recent study published in the journal Medical Decision Making, CBSSM investigators Brian Zikmund-Fisher, Mick Couper, and Angela Fagerlin examined Internet use and perceived importance of different sources of information by patients making specific medical decisions.
In this study, US adults aged 40 years and older were asked about how they got information about 9 common medical decisions, including decisions about common prescription medication (for high blood pressure, cholesterol, and depression), cancer-screening tests (for colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer), and elective surgeries (for lower back pain, cataracts, and knee/hip replacement). In addition, they study compared participants' ratings of the Internet as a source of information with their ratings of other sources, such as their health care provider.
So, how did your responses compare to the average adult in this study's population?
Results from this study showed that most patients did not use the Internet to make specific medical decisions like the ones you considered. On average, about 26% of participants made use of the Internet for information to make decisions about colon cancer screening tests and about 47% used it to inform a decision about lower back pain surgery.
Among participants who chose to use the Internet for finding information about specific medical decisions, data show that Internet use varies significantly across different types of medical decisions. Internet users were more likely to use the Internet for information related to elective surgery (36%), such as lower back pain surgery, and prescription medication (32%) than for cancer-screening decisions (22%), such as colon cancer screening.
Another element of this study looked at participants' ratings of different information sources. You are unlike other participants in this study in that you did not consistently rate health care providers as the most important source for information about colon cancer screening and lower back pain surgery. The CBSSM study found that, for both Internet users and nonusers, health care providers were rated highest as a source for information for all 9 decisions studied. Among Internet users, however, the Internet was rated as their 2nd-most important source of information.
The researchers found that Internet use to inform specific medical decisions varied by age ranging from 38% for those aged 40 to 49 years to 14% for those aged 70 years or older. Approximately 33% of 50 to 59 year olds used the Internet to make these medical decisions and 24% for those in the 60 to 69 year age category. This result is consistent with previous research on the demographics of Internet use.
The study authors concluded that the Internet has an impact on people's access to health care information; however, "the data suggest that access is not the same as use, and use for one medical decision does not imply use for all health decisions." In other words, people use the Internet differently depending on the context. The authors end by stating, "Clinicians, health educators, and health policy makers need to be aware that we remain a long way away from having Internet-based information sources universally used by patients to improve and support the process of medical decision making."
For the full text of this article:
Couper M, Singer E, Levin CA, Fowler F, Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Use of the internet and ratings of information sources for medical decisions: Results from the DECISIONS survey. Medical Decision Making 2010;30:106S-114S.
Dr. Naomi T. Laventhal joined the University of Michigan in August 2009, after completing her residency in pediatrics, fellowships in neonatology and clinical medical ethics, and a master’s degree in public policy at the University of Chicago. She is a Clinical Associate Professor in the Department of Pediatrics and Communicable Diseases in the Division of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, and in the Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine (CBSSM).
Funded by National Institutes of Health.
Funding Years: 2014-2019.
Randomized controlled trial (RCT) results diffuse into clinical practice slowly - the average time from trial completion to widespread adoption of a new treatment is nearly 20 years. These delays result in suboptimal treatment for patients with neurological diseases. In light of these delays and the enormous societal value of NINDS clinical trials findings, NINDS has recognized the need to accelerate implementation by promoting research to translate trial findings into routine care (T2 translational research). This application seeks to optimize translation of NINDS trials by personalizing clinical trial results ad addressing barriers to translation for clinicians and policy-makers. Using translational research methods, we can move from one-size-fits-all evidence-based medicine towards personalized medicine by estimating treatment benefit for individual patients. Other translational methods can evaluate and address stakeholder concerns that hinder translation. Because clinicians are often skeptical of trial results, changing practice requires convincing them not only that a treatment works in an RCT or that it works in academic medical centers, but that it will work for their patients. Similarly, if policy-makers and payers can be convinced that a new treatment is a good value (e.g., a favorable cost-benefit ratio), they can use their considerable influence on the healthcare delivery system to facilitate translation. Specifically, we will use translational research methods to address three important issues essential to improving trial translation: 1. estimating individual-level outcomes using multivariable outcome prediction 2. Estimating the impact of real world circumstances on outcomes using simulation analyses and 3. Cost effectiveness analysis. Results from these analyses can influence clinicians and policy-makers directly or through the use of tools, such as websites and mobile applications. This proposal has two key objectives. First, we will adapt translational research methods to clinical trials by addressing essential translation-relevant questions for the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting (CREST) trial. Second, we will develop a model to concurrently perform similar translational analyses in the Neurology Emergency Treatment Trials (NETT) network. These objectives will be addressed through 3 specific aims: 1. to estimate the expected net benefit of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) vs. carotid artery stenting (CAS) for individual patients in the CREST trial using refined multivariable outcome prediction methods. 2. To estimate the impact of personalized decision-making and real world circumstances (e.g., differing complication rates) on the net benefit of CAS vs. CEA for real world patients using simulation analyses. 3. To assess the feasibility of performing concurrent translational and cost analyses in NETT trials by evaluating a process implementation model in newly initiated and recently completed NETT trials. Dr. Burke has a unique background as a vascular neurologist with training in Translational research methodology through the highly regarded Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program. In this proposal, Dr. Burke will develop the additional expertise in clinical trials, multivariable outcome prediction, simulation analyses and cost analyses to become a leader and independently-funded investigator in neurological translational research working to develop a new generation of NETT trials better designed to effectively inform real world clinical practice and improve patient outcomes. This proposal capitalizes on unique environmental strengths at the University of Michigan. Most importantly, Dr. Burke will be supported by an outstanding multi- disciplinary mentorship team including Dr. William Barsan the NETT Clinical Coordinating Center (CCC) principal investigator and a research leader in the emergency treatment of neurological diseases, Dr. Rodney Hayward a Professor of Internal Medicine and a pioneer in translational research and Dr. Lewis Morgenstern, a leader in neurological translational research. All three mentors have excellent track records in mentoring junior faculty and transitioning junior faculty to independence. In addition, Dr. Burke will have te opportunity to participate in a unique hands-on clinical trials immersion through the NETT to gain experience in clinical trial design, management and implementation. Finally, the University of Michigan has recently built the largest academic Translational Research center in the United States (the Institute for Health Policy and Innovation) which will support the advanced statistical methods required for this proposal.
PI(s): James Burke
The August 2016 issue of AMA Journal of Ethics features commentaries by Christian Vercler, Lauren Smith, and Andrew Shuman.
"Is Consent to Autopsy Necessary? Cartesian Dualism in Medicine and Its Limitations"
Commentary by Megan Lane and Christian J. Vercler
"I Might Have Some Bad News: Disclosing Preliminary Pathology Results"
Commentary by Michael H. Roh and Andrew G. Shuman
"Requests for VIP Treatment in Pathology: Implications for Social Justice and Systems-Based Practice"
Commentary by Virginia Sheffield and Lauren B. Smith
Tanner Caverly has been a general internist and Health Services Research Fellow at the Ann Arbor VA Medical Center and a Clinical Lecturer at the University of Michigan Medical School since July 2013. He graduated from medical school at The Ohio State University School of Medicine and Public Health, and subsequently traveled to the University of Colorado, where he completed internal medicine residency training, a year as Chief Medical Resident, and a Primary Care Research Fellowship / Masters in Public Health.