Error message

The page you requested does not exist. For your convenience, a search was performed using the query cbssm med umich edu people brian j zikmund fisher phd.

Page not found

You are here

CBSSM Colloquium 2016-- call for abstracts

2016 CBSSM Research Colloquium – University of Michigan

 

Call for Abstracts

 

The Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine (CBSSM) Research Colloquium will be held Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at the Founders Room, Alumni Center, 200 Fletcher Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.

The CBSSM Research Colloquium will feature the Bishop Lecture in Bioethics as the keynote address.  This year CBSSM is delighted to announce that William Dale, MD, PhD will present the Bishop Lecture with a talk entitled: "Why Do We So Often Overtreat, Undertreat, and Mistreat Older Adults with Cancer?"

William Dale, MD, PhD is Associate Professor of Medicine and Chief, Section of Geriatrics & Palliative Medicine & Director, SOCARE Clinic at the University of Chicago. A geriatrician with a doctorate in health policy and extensive experience in oncology, Dr. Dale has devoted his career to the care of older adults with cancer -- particularly prostate cancer. Dr. Dale has a special interest in the identification and treatment of vulnerable older patients who have complex medical conditions, including cancer. He is actively researching the interactions of cancer therapies with changes associated with aging.
 

 

Abstract submissions are welcome from all disciplines both within UM, as well as other institutions. CBSSM is an interdisciplinary center focusing on bioethics and social sciences in medicine. Our research program areas of interest include:

  • Clinical and Research Ethics - committed to empirical research in ethics (what some have called empirical ethics) by providing an evidence base for informed policy and practice.
  • Health Communication and Decision Making – using techniques from basic and applied research, determines the best practices for communicating health information to patients.
  • Medicine and Society - examines the way health care and bioethics are influenced by social structures and cultural ideas.
  • Health, Justice, and Community - aims to improve knowledge, understanding and practice in resource allocation and distributive justice, ethics of health policy (public and private) and community engagement, with the overarching goal of improving health equity.
  • Genomics, Health, and Society - examines the ethical, social and behavioral implications of advances in genomics.

For more information about our program areas: http://cbssm.med.umich.edu/


Submission Details: (Form is below)

  • Abstracts should contain a title, followed by the names and designations of all contributing authors and the contact details of the corresponding author.
  • Abstracts are to be a maximum of 300 words in length (exclusive of title and author information).
  • Presentations should last no more than 20 minutes, with an additional 5 minutes for questions.  The total time allotted is therefore 25 minutes per presentation. 
  • Abstracts should be submitted on the attached Abstract Submission form.  Submit abstracts via email to Kerry Ryan, kryanz@med.umich.edu. If you have questions about the abstract, please contact CBSSM at 734-615-8377 or email Kerry Ryan.
  • Deadline for abstract submission is Friday, March 11, 2016.
  • Notification:  Applicants will be notified by Friday, March 25, 2016.


Tentative Schedule for the Colloquium:


9:00-10:30 Presentations
10:45-12:00 Bishop Lecture:  William Dale, MD, PhD
12:00-1:15 Lunch
1:15-4:30 Presentations

Click here for Abstract Submission Form.

Holly Witteman, formerly a post doctoral fellow at CBSSM and currently an assistant professor in the Faculty of Medicine at Université Laval, and colleagues’ 2016 article “One-Sided Social Media Comments Influenced Opinions And Intentions About Home Birth: An Experimental Study” was featured on Eurekalert!  an online, global news service operated by AAAS, the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The article was published in the April edition of Health Affairs and the co-authors are Angela Fagerlin, Nicole Exe, Marie-Eve Trottier and Brian Zikmund-Fisher.

An online experiment revealed that one-sided comments after health articles could influence people’s opinion about the health topic. It raises questions about how to ensure health related comment sections remain balanced.

EurekAlert!

Research Topics: 

Brian Zikmund-Fisher, PhD, gave a talk at the Small Group Meeting on Risk 2.0: Risk Perception and Communication Regarding Vaccination Decisions in the Age of Web 2.0 at Universitat Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany, on May 13, 2011.

This month’s Bioethics Grand Rounds features Alan Tait, Ph.D., endowed professor and director of clinical research, Department of Anesthesiology.

He will present at the Ford Auditorium at noon on May 22.

Please feel free to bring your lunch and join us for a lively discussion of medical ethics. The Bioethics Grand Rounds is sponsored by the UMHS Adult Medical Ethics Committee and the Program of Society and Medicine. This educational session is open to all faculty and staff and members of the public.

CME and CEU credit is available.

Web Address: http://www.med.umich.edu/adultethics

A Matter of Perspective (Jul-07)

Are opinions on whether health care funding should be rationed dependent on an individual's perspective? Imagine that there are two regional health systems, each responsible for providing health care for one million people. The Director of each system has enough money to fund only one of two medical treatment programs. The health systems have the same limited budget and are the same in every way except for the treatment program that each Director decides to fund.

One Director decides to fund Program A, which will cure 100 people with moderate shortness of breath. People with this condition have shortness of breath when walking an average block with no hills.
The other Director decides to fund Program B, which will cure 100 people with severe shortness of breath. People with this condition have shortness of breath even when walking only short distances, such as from the bedroom to the bathroom.
Which Director made the better decision?
  • Director who funded Program A (moderate shortness of breath)
  • Director who funded Program B (severe shortness of breath)
  • Both choices were equally good
If you chose either the Program A Director or the Program B Director, how may how many people would have to be cured of other condition to make the two choices seem equally good to you? Reminder: Program A and Program B would both cure 100 people.
 
Next, please check your responses to these statements:
"The thought of only one group of people being able to get treatment while other people may not be able to get treatment makes me feel outraged."
  • strongly agree
  • agree
  • neutral
  • disagree
  • strongly disagree
"I believe that there are situations where health care has to be rationed because sometimes there are not enough financial resources (eg, money for health care programs)."
  • strongly agree
  • agree
  • neutral
  • disagree
  • strongly disagree

How do your answers compare?

Before we analyze your responses to the scenario, we'd like to offer some background information about this area of research.

In an environment of scarce health care resources, policy makers and leaders of health care organizations often must make difficult choices about funding treatment programs. Researchers find out how people value different health states by asking questions like the ones you've answered. This area of research is called "person tradeoff elicitation."

The problem is that many people refuse to give a comparison value, saying that both choices are equal ("equivalence refusal") or saying that millions of people would have to be cured of one condition to be equal to the other treatment choice ("off-scale refusal"). Sometimes these responses are appropriate, but many times these responses seem inappropriate. Furthermore, the frequency of these decision refusals depends on how the questions are asked.

What were the specific goals of this research study?

In an article published by Laura J. Damschroder, Todd R. Roberts, Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, and Peter A. Ubel (Medical Decision Making, May/June 2007), the authors explored whether people would be more willing to make health care tradeoffs if they were somewhat removed from the decision making role. As part of their study, the researchers asked people to comment on choices made by others, in this case, the Directors of two identical regional health systems. For this study, the researchers anticipated that asking participants to judge someone else's decision would make it easier for the participants to compare the benefit of curing two conditions that have a clear difference in severity. The researchers thought that adopting a perspective of judging someone else's decision might lessen the participants' feeling about making "tragic choices" between groups of patients and hence result in fewer refusals to choose. The researchers also hypothesized that respondents taking a non-decision-maker perspective would be more detached and would feel less outraged about the idea of having to ration medical treatments. As we will explain below, the researchers were surprised to learn that their hypotheses were wrong!

What did this research study find?

Some people surveyed in this study were asked to decide for themselves which of two treatment programs for shortness of breath should be funded. Others, like you, were asked which health system Director made the better decision about treatment programs for shortness of breath. Significantly, the respondents who had the evaluator perspective had nearly two times higher odds of giving an equivalence refusal�that is, saying that the decisions were equal. Why did this evaluator perspective fail to decrease these decision refusals? One possibility is that respondents did not feel as engaged in the decision. It's also possible that respondents felt that they were judging the Directors who made the decision rather than the decision itself. Or maybe respondents didn't want to second-guess the decisions of people they perceived as experts. The researchers predicted that people who had to make the decision about treatment themselves would be more outraged about the idea of rationing health care treatments. This prediction was also wrong! 69% of all respondents agreed that rationing is sometimes necessary, and yet 66% of all respondents also felt outraged about the idea of having to ration. The percentages were nearly the same for those deciding directly and those evaluating the decision of Directors of health care systems.

What conclusions did the researchers draw?

The researchers in this study concluded that perspective definitely matters in making hard choices about allocation of health care resources. They attempted to increase people's willingness to make tradeoffs by changing their perspective from decision maker to evaluator of someone else's decision. These attempts backfired. Contrary to the researchers' predictions, people were dramatically more likely to give equivalence refusals when they were assigned to a non-decision-maker perspective. The researchers also concluded that the degree of emotion aroused by health care rationing also plays a role in people's willingness to make tradeoffs.

So, how does your response to the Directors' decision in the shortness-of-breath scenario compare with the responses of the people surveyed for this study?

If you responded that the choices of both Directors were equal, you were not alone! Overall, with this scenario and related ones, 32% of respondents in the published study refused to make the tradeoff. These were the equivalence refusals. In comparison, 21% of respondents in the study who were asked to decide themselves between two patient groups gave an equivalence refusal.

If you made a choice of Directors in the shortness-of-breath scenario, how does your numerical answer compare with the responses of people surveyed for this study?

In the study, 15% of respondents gave a number of one million or more as the point at which the Directors' decisions about the two treatment programs would be equal. These were the off-scale refusals. In comparison, 19% of respondents in the study who were asked to decide themselves about the two programs gave an off-scale refusal.

What about your level of outrage?

In the study, 69% of respondents agreed that rationing of health care treatment is sometimes necessary, but 66% also felt outraged about the idea of having to ration. These attitudes were the same whether the respondents were assigned an evaluator perspective (as you were) or a direct decision maker perspective.

Read the article:

Why people refuse to make tradeoffs in person tradeoff elicitations: A matter of perspective?
Damschroder LJ, Roberts TR, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. Medical Decision Making 2007;27:266-288.

 

A study by Beth Tarini, MD, has found that more than three-quarters of parents would be willing to permit use of their newborn's blood screening sample for research if their permission were obtained in advance. However, more than half of the parents said they would be "very unwilling" to permit this use of blood samples unless they were given a chance to grant or deny permission. For a discussion of this important article, go to http://www2.med.umich.edu/prmc/media/newsroom/details.cfm?ID=1217

Dr. Brian Zikmund-Fisher was selected to receive the 2015 Henry Russel Award. This award, which recognizes both exceptional scholarship and conspicuous ability as a teacher, is one of the highest honors the University bestows upon members of its faculty who are in the early stages of their career. Congrats!

PIHCD: Aaron Scherer, Brian Zikmund-Fisher, and Megan Knaus

Wed, May 11, 2016, 4:00pm
Location: 
B004E NCRC Building 16
Aaron Scherer, Brian Zikmund-Fisher, and Megan Knaus will discuss a study to assess how laypeople conceptualize the spread, symptoms, and prevention of Zika, Ebola, MERS, and Influenza.

PIHCD: Brian Zikmund-Fisher

Thu, December 08, 2016, 4:00pm
Location: 
B004E NCRC Building 16

Brian will speak about Preliminary data from a study looking at how to graphically present historical test result data with current test results.

Mon, April 16, 2012

When women at high risk of breast cancer viewed a customized web-based decision guide about prevention options, they were more likely to make a choice about prevention and to feel comfortable with their choice.  CBSSM co-director and study senior author Angela Fagerlin is quoted in the press release.  Click here to view a press release about the study, whose authors included current CBSSM faculty member Brian Zikmund-Fisher and CBSSM alumni Peter Ubel and Dylan Smith.

Pages