Error message

The page you requested does not exist. For your convenience, a search was performed using the query news events news 2016 04 11.

Page not found

You are here

Thu, September 11, 2014

NOVA (on PBS) broadcasted a special episode on vaccines. Brian Zikmund-Fisher was interviewed and prominently featured. Diseases that were largely eradicated in the United States a generation ago-whooping cough, measles, mumps-are returning, in part because nervous parents are skipping their children's shots. Amid the return of vaccine-preventable diseases, NOVA examined the science of immunization, tracked outbreaks, and shed light on the risks of opting out.

The program premired Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 9 pm/8c on PBS. Watch the full program here.

You can read the press release here.

Research Topics: 
Wed, October 11, 2017

In a study published in Cancer, Reshma Jagsi, Sarah Hawley and other researchers examined the impact double mastectomy on employment of breast cancer patients. They found that working patients who received more aggressive treatments were more likely to experience substantial employment disruptions.

Wendy Uhlmann, MS, CGC

Faculty

Wendy R. Uhlmann, MS, CGC is the genetic counselor/clinic coordinator of the Medical Genetics Clinic at the University of Michigan. She is a Clinical Professor in the Departments of Internal Medicine and Human Genetics and an executive faculty member of the genetic counseling training program. Wendy Uhlmann is a Past President of the National Society of Genetic Counselors and previously served on the Board of Directors of the Genetic Alliance and as NSGC’s liaison to the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research.

Last Name: 
Uhlmann

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

http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/site/current.html

Research Topics: 

Angela Fagerlin, PhD

Alumni

Dr. Fagerlin served as Co-Director of CBSSM from 2010-2015. She is currently Chair of the Department of Population Health Sciences at University of Utah School of Medicine and Research Scientist, Salt Lake City VA Center for Informatics Decision Enhancement and Surveillance (IDEAS)

Last Name: 
Fagerlin
Research Projects: 

Panel: Sexual Harassment in Medicine

Mon, November 12, 2018, 4:00pm to 5:30pm
Add to Calendar
Location: 
Biomedical Science Research Building - Kahn Auditorium

Sexual Harassment in Medicine

Welcome by Mark Schlissel, President of the University of Michigan

PANELISTS :
- Paula Johnson, President of Wellesley College, Chairperson of the National Academies committee, and member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine
- Reshma Jagsi, Professor and Deputy Chair in the Department of Radiation Oncology at Michigan Medicine and Director of the Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, U-M

REPORT SUMMARY & MODERATION:
- Lilia Cortina,* Associate Director of ADVANCE for the College of LSA; Professor of Psychology, Women’s Studies, and Management and Organizations, U-M
- Anna Kirkland,* Director of the Institute for Research on Women and Gender; Arthur F. Thurnau Professor of Women’s Studies, U-M

In 2016, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine assembled a committee to conduct a study on the impact of sexual harassment in academia on the career advancement of women in the scientific, technical, and medical workforce. The committee published a comprehensive report titled, "Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine," in June 2018. The report identifies key findings on the causes and impacts of sexual harassment, and recommendations for institutional policies, strategies, and practices to address and prevent it.

Preventing and effectively addressing sexual harassment of women in colleges and universities has remained a challenge for decades. More than half of women faculty and staff report having been harassed. Student surveys of university systems show disturbingly similar rates, with 20–50% of women students experiencing sexually harassing behavior perpetrated by faculty or staff.

Persistent sexual harassment in STEM fields, and its adverse impacts on women’s careers, jeopardizes progress in closing the gender gap, damages research integrity, and results in a costly loss of talent. Academic sciences, engineering, and medicine share characteristics that create conditions for harassment, but many findings of the report are not limited to STEM field settings. Other fields within academia can be similarly male-dominated, hierarchical work and learning settings in which abusive cultures may form. Such environments can silence and limit the career opportunities for both the targets of the sexual harassment and bystanders, causing both men and women to leave their fields.

This panel will include a summary of the report, discussion from the report’s co-authors, commentary from disciplinary experts, and Q&A with the audience.

The panel will offer broad discussion of use to any member of the university community or the public interested in sexual harassment in academia. A reception will follow.

Sexual Harassment in the Academy Panel Discussion Series is presented by IRWG and the Office of Research, with co-sponsorship from: ADVANCE, The Office for Health Equity and Inclusion, the College of Literature Sciences, and the Arts, and the College of Engineering

Questions or for accessibility information, please contact irwg@umich.edu or (734) 764-9537.

Ken Langa was recently named to an Institute of Medicine committee that will examine the evidence on preventive factors and/or interventions associated with decreasing the risk of developing Alzheimer's-Type Dementia, amnestic mild cognitive impairment, and age-related cognitive impairment (i.e., primary prevention) and make recommendations to inform public health strategies and messaging and recommendations for future research.

Mon, June 11, 2018

A new study shows how to personalize the lung cancer screening decision for every patient. The results could help doctors fine-tune their advice to patients, so that it’s based not just on a patient’s individual lung cancer risk and the potential benefits and harms of screening, but also a likely range of patient attitudes about looking for problems and dealing with the consequences.

Published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the study forms the backbone for new free online decision tools aimed at physicians and their teams, and at members of the public.

The tool for clinicians, called Lung Decision Precision, was designed by a University of Michigan and Veterans Affairs team to help clinicians talk with patients and their loved ones about whether to a lung CT scan might be a good idea for them.

The same team has also launched a website for patients and their loved ones, U.S. News & World Report: Should You Get Screened for Lung Cancer?, that gives easy-to-understand information about the positives and potential negatives of lung cancer screening, and allows individuals to calculate their personal risk of lung cancer.

Tanner Caverly, M.D., M.P.H., led the team that did the new computer-based simulation analysis using data from major studies of lung cancer screening, and national data on the potential screening population under the current guidelines.

Tanner Caverly was also recently interviewed for U.S. News & World Report on the risks and benefits of lung cancer screening. According to Dr. Caverly, it important to tailor the conversation about screening because the benefit-versus-risk calculation differs for each patient.

Darin Zahuranec’s survey study, “Variability in physician prognosis and recommendations after intracerebral hemorrhage” published in Neurology found that physicians vary substantially in ICH prognostic estimates and treatment recommendations. This study suggests that variability could have a profound effect on life and death decision-making and treatment for ICH.


Several CBSSM-affiliated faculty and alumni were co-authors: Angie Fagerlin, Meghan Roney, Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis, and Lewis Morgenstern.


http://ihpi.umich.edu/news/survey-severe-stroke-prognoses-differ-depending-doctor

Lauren Smith, Robert Silbergleit, Sacha Montas and colleagues fielded a great team in this year’s Big Ethical Question Slam. The Ethics slam is an annual community event hosted by A2Ethics.org.

Pages