Page not found
Funded by the NIH
The overarching goal of our research is to improve opioid analgesic safety and efficacy by optimizing opioid risk recognition, informed analgesic decision-making, and drug storage/disposal behaviors among parents of youth who are prescribed these agents for home use. With this proposal, we aim to demonstrate that our Scenario-Tailored Opioid Messaging Program (STOMP?) will: 1) Improve parents' opioid risk understanding and their analgesic decision-making; 2) Enhance parents' analgesic self-efficacy, analgesic use, storage behaviors and their children's pain outcomes, and 3) To demonstrate that the STOMP? plus provision of a method to get rid of left-over medications will effectively nudge parents to safely dispose of left-over opioid analgesics. For more info: http://grantome.com/grant/NIH/R01-DA044245-01A1
PI: Terri Lewis-Voepel
CBSSM Co-Is: Brian Zikmund-Fisher & Alan Tait
A Knowledge-Delivery Mechanism, Empowering Clinicians to Improve Patient Experience of CancerDLHS received funding from Genentech’s Corporate Giving Support program in 2016 for “A Novel Knowledge-Delivery Mechanism Empowering Clinicians to Improve Patient Experience of Cancer Care.” The project focuses on making actionable knowledge about the patient experience of chemotherapy computable and on using that knowledge to add customizable decision-support to a prototype Patient data dashboard so that clinicians can provide great support to patients who are at home.
PI: Charles Friedman
Co-I: Tanner Caverly
Funded by Health and Human Services, Department of-National Institutes of Health
Funding Years: 2014 - 2016
Nearly 800,000 people suffer a stroke each year in the US and the cost of stroke reaches $105 billion annually. Stroke is also a leading cause of disability in the US. Post-stroke disability is dramatically reduced among patients who receive tissue plasminogen activator (tPA). For clinical effectiveness, tPA must be administered within 4.5 hours from the start of stroke symptoms. Unfortunately, tPA is vastly underutilized with about 3% of stroke patients receiving tPA. The majority of patients fail to receive tPA because they arrive to the hospital after the treatment time window has elapsed (this barrier to tPA administration is known as prehospital delay). Researchers have shown that if 911 were called at the time of stroke onset, over 28% of all stroke patients would receive tPA. Therefore, translational research to increase stroke preparedness (defined as the ability to recognize stroke warning signs and call 911 immediately) is urgently needed. However, the field of stroke preparedness is severely limited by the absence of intermediate end points to test behavioral interventions. Before embarking on large scale, expensive, community intervention trials, phase 2 studies using intermediate end points are needed. An intermediate end point allows for testing of several interventions (phase 2 studies) before deciding on the most promising intervention that warrants phase 3 testing. Intermediate end points also facilitate testing interventions for selected populations such as high risk groups like racial/ethnic minorities or those with low socioeconomic status, rather than an entire community. In this project, we will develop and validate a psychometrically rigorous test of stroke preparedness using video vignettes - the video stroke action test (video-STAT). Because of the increased burden of stroke among African Americans, Hispanics and those with low socioeconomic status, we will oversample from these groups in development and validating of the video-STAT. At completion of this study, an innovative stroke preparedness intermediate end point will be created and critical steps toward validating it will be performed. As the US population ages, stroke will only claim more victims and at greater expense to individuals, families and society. It is critical that we rapidly develop rigorous scientific interventions that increase delivery of acute stroke therapy to decrease post-stroke disability and reduce the enormous impact of this devastating disease.
PI(s): Lesli Skolarus, Lewis Morgenstern
Co-I(s): Brisa Sanchez
Funded by National Institutes of Health.
Funding Years: 2013-2016
With the growing importance of biobank research, concerns have been raised about how to protect the interests of donors. The current ethics framework mainly focuses on protecting against risks to donors' welfare and to their privacy. However, there has been little systematic empirical, normative, or policy focus on the non-welfare interests of donors, i.e., concerns about the moral, societal, or religious implications of research using their donation that may affect their willingness to donate. Although important theoretical discussions, mentions in commission reports, and insights from several qualitative studies have drawn attention to the serious nature of these interests, we lack important data for policy development: (1) systematic data on the nature and extent of potential impact of non-welfare interests and (2) high quality (i.e., informed and considered) policy preferences of the public addressing how to balance these non-welfare interests with the promise of biobank research. Our project will fill these gaps with two complementary projects. First, a national survey will assess the contours of the potential impact of non-welfare interests on biobank research, by addressing: what kinds of non-welfare interests substantially affect willingness to donate biological materials?; how common are these interests?; how much do donors want to know about the potential involvement of such non-welfare interests when donating?; how are non-welfare interests affected by such factors as race or ethnicity, socioeconomic status, trust in medical research, religious beliefs and practice, or political orientation? Second, we will obtain considered, informed judgments of the public regarding how to handle the tension between the public good of biobanks and the conflicting non-welfare interests of potential donors, using a democratic deliberation method in which subjects will attend an all-day education and peer deliberation session. The impact of the deliberation will be validated using a randomized, experimental design. In summary, despite the ethical significance of non-welfare interests for biobank research, there is a paucity of systematic data regarding both their potential impact and the potential policy solutions. This project will provide a highly generalizable assessment of the potential impact of non-welfare interests as well as policy recommendations based on informed, deliberative opinions of the general public. Visit the NIH website for more information.
PI(s): Tom Tomlinson, Raymond De Vries
Co-I(s): Karen Kelly-Blake, H. Myra Kim, Blake J Roessler
Brian Zikmund-Fisher, PhD, a CBSSM investigator and Director of the CBSSM Internet Survey lab, is the principal investigator on an Investigator Initiated Research award from the Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making that began in October 2008. The grant, entitled "Learning by Doing: Improving Risk Communication Through Active Processing of Interactive Pictographs," will fund the development and testing of of Flash-based interactive risk graphics that research participants or patients can use to visually demonstrate how likely they believe some event is to occur. Dr. Zikmund-Fisher hopes that people who create risk graphics themselves will have a better intuitive understanding of risk than people who just view static images. Co-investigators on the award include Angela Fagerlin, Peter A. Ubel, and Amanda Dillard.
Brian Zikmund-Fisher, PhD, is the featured guest editor for a special supplement to Medical Decision Making's September/October 2010 issue, highlighting the DECISIONS study, a nationwide survey of adults in the US regarding common medical decisions. Lead author on the main paper of the supplement, Zikmund-Fisher and co-authors (including CBSSM faculty Angela Fagerlin, PhD and Mick Couper, PhD) describe the DECISIONS study, a telephone interview of a nationally representative sample of 3010 adults age 40 and over faced with making a medical decision in the past two years. Researchers defined medical decisions as the patient having initiated medications, been screened, or had surgery within the past 2 years or having discussed these actions with a health care provider during the same interval. Key findings from the study:
Although patients frequently receive information about the benefits of a procedure or medication, they don't always learn about the disadvantages.
Healthcare providers don't always ask patients what they want to do.
Most patients don't use the Internet to help them make common medical decisions; healthcare professionals remain the most important source of information.
Patients often don't know as much as they think they do. Many patients feel well informed even when they don't know key facts that would help them make a better decision.
African-Americans and Hispanics were less knowledgeable than other patients about medications to treat high cholesterol. In addition, they were more likely to say their doctor made decisions about cholesterol medications for them.
Most patients think they are more likely to get cancer than they really are, and tend to view cancer screenings as more accurate than they are.
Men and women think about cancer risks differently. Women are more active participants in cancer screening decisions regardless of their perception of risk, whereas men tended to get involved only if they felt at higher risk.
Funded by National Institutes of Health
Funding Years: 2015-2020
Every day in hospitals across the country, patients with severe stroke and their families are faced with decisions about life-sustaining treatments in the initial hours of admission. These decisions about resuscitation status, invasive treatments, or possible transitions to comfort care are typically made by a surrogate decision- maker due to communication or cognitive deficits in the patient. This surrogate must consider the patient's life goals and values to determine if their loved one would choose on-going intensive treatments where they may survive and yet have long term disabilities, or prioritize comfort and accept the likelihood of an earlier death. Serving as a surrogate decision maker for a patient in the intensive care unit can have long lasting negative consequences. However, almost nothing is known about surrogate decision makers in diverse populations with stroke. Hispanic Americans are now the largest minority group in the US, rapidly growing and aging, with Mexican Americans comprising the largest subgroup. Multiple disparities have been identified in stroke incidence and outcome between Mexican Americans and non-Hispanic Whites, particularly in the use of life- sustaining treatments. Minority populations may be particularly vulnerable to inadequate communication about end-of-life issues due to socioeconomic disadvantage, poor health literacy, and lack of provider empathy and health system strategies to improve communication. However, Mexican American culture includes strong values of family support and religiosity that may have a positive influence on discussions about life-sustaining treatment and adapting to stroke-related disabilities. There is currently a critical gap in understanding the perspectives and outcomes of stroke surrogate decision makers, making it impossible to design interventions to help diverse populations of patients and families through this incredibly trying time.
PI(s): Lewis Morgenstern, Darin Zahuranec
Co-I(s): Lynda Lisabeth, Brisa Sanchez
It's 2009. Early in the year, a 9-year-old girl from California became the first person with a confirmed case of H1N1 ("swine") influenza in the United States. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. declared a public health emergency and the World Health Organization declared a phase 6 pandemic (the highest level possible). By September 2009 a vaccination was developed and was available within a month.
You've been following the news about the H1N1 influenza as developments have unfolded throughout the year, and you feel some concern. You have been wondering about the risk of coming down with the H1N1 flu yourself and have been thinking about whether you should be vaccinated.