Error message

The page you requested does not exist. For your convenience, a search was performed using the query news events press coverage 2017 10 11.

Page not found

You are here

Funded by: NIH

Funding Years: 2016-2021

 

There is a fundamental gap in understanding how Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) influences treatment and Decision Making for serious illnesses, like Cardiovascular disease (CVD), in older patients. Poor understanding of Clinical Decision Making is a critical barrier to the design of interventions to improve the quality and outcomes of CVD care of in older patients with MCI. The long-term goal of this research is to develop, test, and disseminate interventions aimed to improve the quality and outcomes of CVD care and to reduce CVD-related disability in older Americans with MCI. The objective of this application is to determine the extent to which people with MCI are receiving sub-standard care for the two most common CVD events, Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and acute ischemic stroke, increasing the chance of mortality and morbidity in a population with otherwise good quality of life, and to determine how MCI influences patient preferences and physician recommendations for treatment. AMI and acute ischemic stroke are excellent models of serious, acute illnesses with a wide range of effective therapies for acute management, Rehabilitation, and secondary prevention. Our central hypothesis is that older Adults with MCI are undertreated for CVD because patients and physicians overestimate their risk of dementia and underestimate their risk of CVD. This hypothesis has been formulated on the basis of preliminary data from the applicants' pilot research. The rationale for the proposed research is that understanding how patient preferences and physician recommendations contribute to underuse of CVD treatments in patients with MCI has the potential to translate into targeted interventions aimed to improve the quality and outcomes of care, resulting in new and innovative approaches to the treatment of CVD and other serious, acute illnesses in Adults with MCI. Guided by strong preliminary data, this hypothesis will be tested by pursuing two specific aims: 1) Compare AMI and stroke treatments between MCI patients and cognitively normal patients and explore differences in Clinical outcomes associated with treatment differences; and 2) Determine the influence of MCI on patient and surrogate preferences and physician recommendations for AMI and stroke treatment. Under the first aim, a health services research approach- shown to be feasible in the applicants' hands-will be used to quantify the extent and outcomes of treatment differences for AMI and acute ischemic stroke in older patients with MCI. Under the second aim, a multi-center, mixed-methods approach and a national physician survey, which also has been proven as feasible in the applicants' hands, will be used to determine the influence of MCI on patient preferences and physician recommendations for AMI and stroke treatment. This research proposal is innovative because it represents a new and substantially different way of addressing the important public health problem of enhancing the health of older Adults by determining the extent and causes of underuse of effective CVD treatments in those with MCI. The proposed research is significant because it is expected to vertically advance and expand understanding of how MCI influences treatment and Decision Making for AMI and ischemic stroke in older patients. Ultimately, such knowledge has the potential to inform the development of targeted interventions that will help to improve the quality and outcomes of CVD care and to reduce CVD-related disability in older Americans.

PI: Deborah Levine

CO(s): Darin Zahuranec, Lewis Morgenstern & Ken Langa

Pediatric Ethics Committee

The Michigan Medicine Committee advisory groups are appointed by the Hospital's Office of Clinical Affairs. They review ethical or moral questions that may come up during a pediatrics patient's care. The consultants facilitate communication among patients, their families and the treatment team to assist everyone in making appropriate choices when difficult decisions need to be made. The Committee's goal is to help everyone decide the right thing to do. The Michigan Medicine Ethics Committee is a sub-committee of the Executive Committee on Clinical Affairs as determined by the Medical Staff Bylaws. 

About Us


The committee is available for consultation to family members, patients, staff, and health care providers. The committee may help you and your child’s medical team clarify facts, examine ethical issues, and assist in the resolution of disagreements about your child’s care. The committee includes people with additional training in medical ethics, doctors, nurses, social workers, a lawyer, a chaplain, an administrator, and members of the community
The University of Michigan has a Pediatric Ethics Committee because the best medical care requires not only medical skill but good moral judgment. The Committee’s main purpose is to offer help and guidance on moral and ethical questions, such as:

  • Should treatment be started or stopped?
  • How much should a child be told about his or her disease?
  • Is the promise of treatment worth the suffering it may cause?
  • What is the best thing to do when we must face the end of life?
  • What happens when a meeting with the Ethics Committee is requested?

The consultants on call review the patient's medical situation and treatment options. In addition, concerns and feelings of the patient, family members, and the health care team are discussed. Members of the committee may visit with patients, families and medical personnel to discuss these concerns.

Ethics Committee members discuss the information which has been gathered. The Ethics Committee makes suggestions about the best course of action. Often there are a number of options available in the course of a patient's care. Final decisions are made by the patient, family and the health care team.

The Pediatric Ethics Committee meets on the first Tuesday of the month from 12-1:30pm at University Hospital in dining rooms C&D. If you would like to attend as a guest, please contact Amy Lynn @ lynnam@med.umich.edu

Request a Consult

Monday-Friday
8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Call 734-615-1379
After normal business hours, please call 936-6267 and ask for the clinical ethicist on call to be paged.

Resources

Financial Assistance

Withdrawal and Withholding of Medical Treatment

Committee Bylaws

 

For upcoming Bioethics Grand Rounds see Events

 

Adult Ethics Committee

The Michigan Medicine Committee advisory groups are appointed by the Hospital's Office of Clinical Affairs. They review ethical or moral questions that may come up during an adult patient's care. The consultants facilitate communication among adult patients, their families and the treatment team to assist everyone in making appropriate choices when difficult decisions need to be made. The Committee's goal is to help everyone decide the right thing to do. The Michigan Medicine Adult Ethics Committee is a sub-committee of the Executive Committee on Clinical Affairs as determined by the Medical Staff Bylaws.

About Us

Sometimes patients, families and staff have very difficult choices and ethical questions they need to talk about. Discussions with the Ethics Committee can be helpful and reassuring when a difficult choice must be made (for example, questions on end-of-life care, or issues of confidentiality). The goal of the Committee is to facilitate communication among adult patients, their families and the treatment team to assist everyone in making appropriate choices, as well as to assist Michigan Medicine in complying with ethical regulatory standards, when difficult decisions need to be made. The Committee provides consultation to the treatment team, patients and families on ethical, moral or philosophical problems and issues encountered in the course of managing inpatient and outpatient care.

Committee members include physicians, residents, nurses and social workers, as well as medical students, an attorney/compliance officer, a chaplain, a medical ethics professor and members from the community.

The Adult Ethics Committee meets on the third Tuesday of the month, form 12-1:30pm, at University Hospital in dining room D, if you would like to attend as a guest, please contact Amy Lynn @ lynnam@med.umich.edu

What happens when a meeting with the Ethics Committee is requested?

The consultants on call review the patient's medical situation and treatment options. In addition, concerns and feelings of the patient, family members, and the health care team are discussed. Members of the committee may visit with patients, families and medical personnel to discuss these concerns.

Ethics Committee members discuss the information which has been gathered. The Ethics Committee makes suggestions about the best course of action. Often there are a number of options available in the course of a patient's care. Final decisions are made by the patient, family and the health care team.

Request a Consult

Monday-Friday
8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Call 734-615-1379
After normal business hours, please call 936-6267 and ask for the clinical ethicist on call to be paged.

Resources

Financial Assistance

Withdrawal and Withholding of Medical Treatments

Advance Directives

Committee Bylaws

 

For upcoming Bioethics Grand Rounds see Events

CBSSM Seminar: Scott L. Greer, Ph.D.

Wed, September 12, 2018, 3:00pm
Location: 
NCRC, Building 10, Room G065

Scott L. Greer, Ph.D.
Professor, Health Management and Policy, Global Public Health, and Political Science

Physician Autonomy in Neonatology from 1979-2016: The Forces of Law, Ethics, Technology, and Families


Charley Willison, University of Michigan
Michael Rozier, St. Louis University
Scott L. Greer, University of Michigan
Joel Howell, University of Michigan
Renee Anspach, University of Michigan
Ann Greer, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Neonatology as a field has pushed the boundary of which lives can be saved, now making it possible for babies to survive even if they are born ten earlier than than Patrick Kennedy, whose treatment in 1963 marked a surge into public consciousness for the field. Neonatologists are therefore positioned on frontiers of both medical advance and legal, ethical, and social debates.
Like other medical specialists, neonatologists face competing pressures. They must balance what can be done for their patients against what should be done for their patients. Evolving technology constantly changes what can be done, which means providers regularly reconsider what should be done. Because the neonatologist’s patient is always silent about her or his wishes, providers must give heed to the interests voiced by other interested parties. First among these are their patients’ caregivers, usually parents. Neonatologists also face pressure from colleagues both within neonatology and in other specialties. Additionally, hospital administration also shapes provider choices, especially related to matters of finance and public relations. Neonatologists must also navigate social forces, especially in law and ethics, that can be particularly challenging in the United States, where any question related to reproduction can quickly become a social controversy far beyond a single practitioner’s control.
Our study attempts to answer the following question: Over the past several decades, how have neonatologists negotiated these complex pressures when making life-and-death decisions? To put it more personally, in a field where providers must often choose between the lesser of many poor options, how do neonatologists arrive at decisions that they can live with? To answer these questions, we draw upon existing scholarship in the history of neonatology9,10 as well as several waves of interviews with physicians that took place over the course of nearly four decades. Our approach is to explore changes that limit the professional autonomy of neonatologists by comparing the findings of interview data collected since 1979 with the better-known technological, organizational, and legal or ethical developments surrounding neonatologists. Neonatologists created a new area of medicine by rescuing children who had previously died, but thereby exposed themselves to pressures from parents to the law.

 

 

How much will chemotherapy really help you? (Dec-08)

After breast cancer surgery, additional treatments such as chemotherapy can reduce the risk of cancer coming back. But do women understand how much (or little) benefit chemotherapy provides? Imagine that you're a woman who has recently been diagnosed with breast cancer and then had the cancerous breast tumor surgically removed. While you're at an appointment about 3 weeks after your surgery, your doctor says the following to you:

"Sometimes cancer cells remain after surgery and start to grow again. To try to prevent your cancer from growing again, you should consider having some additional treatment.

"One of our test results shows that you have a type of cancer that is estrogen receptive (ER) positive. This means that your cancer needs the hormone estrogen in order to grow.

"Because you have an ER-positive tumor, you should have hormonal therapy to block estrogen and make it harder for any remaining cancer cells to grow. Hormonal therapy is usually in pill form. It does not cause hair loss or fatigue and generally has very few short-term side effects. You'll start to take hormonal therapy after all other treatments are finished and continue to take it for at least 5 years.

"Although it's clear that you should have hormonal therapy, you'll still need to make a choice about chemotherapy treatments. You could decide to have additional chemotherapy treatments for several months before starting the hormonal therapy. Sometimes, adding chemotherapy can make a big difference in decreasing the risk of dying from cancer. Other times, there's almost no benefit from adding chemotherapy.

"If you decide to have chemotherapy, you'll have 2 to 4 months of fatigue, nausea, hair loss, and other side effects. You'll also face a small risk (less than 1% or less than 1 in 100) of getting a serious infection, a bleeding problem, heart failure, or leukemia. Only you can decide if the benefit of adding chemotherapy to hormonal therapy is worth the risks and side effects."

Next, your doctor shows you a graph that may help you to decide about chemotherapy.

Your doctor says, "The graph below may help you decide if the risk reduction you would get from adding chemotherapy is worth the side effects and risks that the chemotherapy would cause.

  • The green part shows the chance that you'll be alive in 10 years.
  • The red part shows the chance that you'll die because of cancer.
  • The blue part shows the chance that you'll die from other causes.
  • The yellow part shows how much your chance of being alive in 10 years would increase if you add a therapy.
"Remember, given your situation, I think you should definitely take hormonal therapy. What you need to decide is whether to take both chemotherapy and hormonal therapy."
 
In interpreting this graph, imagine that there are two groups of 100 women each. All of these women have the same type of cancer as your hypothetical cancer.
  • The first group all decides to take hormonal therapy only.
  • The second group all decides to take both chemotherapy and hormonal therapy

How many fewer women will die from cancer in the second group, as compared with the first group?

Your doctor continues, "Now, here is another graph that shows the same information in a different way. As before,

  • The green part shows the chance that you'll be alive in 10 years.
  • The red part shows the chance that you'll die because of cancer.
  • The blue part shows the chance that you'll die from other causes.
  • The yellow part shows how much your chance of being alive in 10 years would increase if you add a therapy.
Now we asked you to consider the following question:
How many fewer women will die from cancer in the second group, as compared with the first group?
Do you want to change your answer?
 

About the study

Many participants who saw this graph in a study conducted by CBDSM researchers had similar problems. However, when study participants saw GRAPH B (with the two pictographs), many more were able to correctly calculate the difference.

The CBDSM study compared tools intended to help cancer patients make informed decisions about additional therapies (also called "adjuvant" therapies). The 4 horizontal stacked bars were taken from an online tool called "Adjuvant!" that is often used by physicians to explain risk to cancer patients. The researchers compared comprehension of risk statistics from horizontal bars and from a pictograph format.

They found that study participants who viewed a 2-option pictograph version (GRAPH B in this Decision of the Month) were more accurate in reporting the risk reduction achievable from adding chemotherapy to hormonal therapy for the hypothetical cancer scenario. With GRAPH B, 77% of participants could identify that 2 fewer women out of 100 would die from cancer with both chemotherapy and hormonal therapy. With the 4 horizontal bars (GRAPH A), only 51% of participants could make this calculation. Participants who saw GRAPH B were also much faster at answering this question than participants who saw GRAPH A.
In addition, participants in this study strongly preferred the format of the pictograph you saw (GRAPH B) to the bar graphs you saw (GRAPH A).
The researchers comment:
"While decision support tools such as Adjuvant! use graphical displays to communicate the mortality risks that patients face with different adjuvant therapy options, our research shows that women had difficulty interpreting the 4-option horizontal bar graph format currently used by Adjuvant!. Two simple changes, displaying only risk information related to treatment options that included hormonal therapy...and using pictographs instead of horizontal bars, resulted in significant improvements in both comprehension accuracy and speed of use in our demographically diverse sample....The results...support the concept that simpler information displays can make it easier for decision makers to implement optimal decision strategies. Specifically, focusing patients' attention on those treatment options currently under consideration while removing information related to options which have been already eliminated from consideration (for medically appropriate reasons) may be particularly beneficial. In the context of adjuvant therapy decisions, such an approach would imply that clinicians should discuss the decision in two stages: A first stage in which hormonal therapy is considered and a second stage in which the incremental benefit of chemotherapy is evaluated...Adjuvant! and other online risk calculators enable oncologists and patients to receive individually tailored estimates of mortality and recurrence risks, information that is essential to informed decision making about adjuvant therapy questions. Yet, the full potential of these modeling applications cannot be realized if users misinterpret the statistics provided."
 
Read the article:
Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. Cancer 2008;113(12):3382-3390.

 

Funded by the National Cancer Institute

Funding Years: 2010-2012

Approximately 10-30% of men who undergo external beam radiation for localized prostate cancer see rising PSA scores following treatment. Some of these men need androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) as salvage treatment. ADT is not curative and has significant side effects that impact quality of life (QOL). These facts must be balanced against its clinical need.

The decision to initiate hormonal therapy is driven more by patient anxiety and less by clinical parameters. Thus, men need to better understand how their PSA values and likelihood of recurrence will change over time.

A novel computer model, based on 2,386 patients previously treated, will provide this information. This project aims to develop and test methods of communicating this information to patients and to determine how patients use it in their treatment decisions. 

Aim 1. Develop several graphical methods for presenting the key pieces of numerical information in regard to predicted PSA response and clinical failure.

Aim 2: Pilot test the materials in urology and RT clinics to determine the best method for communicating the information to patients. Based on pilot testing, choose one graphical format for further evaluation.

Aim 3: Using the identified graphical format, test the use of these materials in encounters with patients who are actually making decisions regarding ADT. We assess anxiety, knowledge, risk perceptions, actual behavior in regard to ADT, self-efficacy for making a treatment decision, and satisfaction with the tool.

Daniel Hamstra (PI), Doris R. Brown (Co-I), Angela Fagerlin (Co-I), Shruti Jolly (Co-I), Karin Olson (Co-I), John Wei (Co-I).

 

Brian Zikmund-Fisher,  Angela Fagerlin, Nicole Exe, and Knoll Larkin have been involved in the Visualizing Health Project, which has recently launched an online style guide  for communicating health data. You can check it out at: www.vizhealth.org

The Visualizing Health project was a short and highly intense project funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation designed to push the envelope both in considering visual designs for communicating health risk data and in developing iterative research approaches for testing them. The project involved a large team combining researchers and staff from both the University of Michigan's Center for Health Communications Research and the Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine. The UM team then worked closely on a week by week basis with Thomas Goetz (former editor of Wired magazine) who envisioned the project, Tim Leong (graphic designer, author of Super Graphic), Andrea Ducas from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and teams of graphic designers that Tim recruited.

They created 16 distinct visual data display tasks related to health risks, had teams of graphic designers develop display concepts, and iteratively tested these displays using multiple online survey methodologies. The resulting designs and data were then assembled in a project website that included all the images, plus commentary and additional features such as a design "wizard" to help guide users to visual displays that best fit their personal needs.

Also, see the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Culture of health blog.

2012 Bishop Lecture featuring Jerome Groopman, MD and Pamela Hartzband, MD

Thu, May 10, 2012 (All day)

The 2012 Bishop Lecture featured New York Times best selling authors, Jerome Groopman, MD, Dina and Raphael Recanati Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, and Pamela Hartzband, MD, Assistant Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Drs. Groopman and Hartzband jointly presented the Bishop Lecture with a talk entitled, “When Experts Disagree: The Art of Medical Decision Making.” 

Drs. Groopman and Hartzband are co-authors of a 2011 book, “Your Medical Mind,” which outlines how patients can navigate health care choices when making medical decisions.  In addition to conducting research on blood development, cancer, and AIDS, Dr. Groopman writes regularly for the New Yorker, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, The New Republic, and the Washington Post.  A noted endocrinologist and educator, Dr. Hartzband specializes in disorders of the thyroid, adrenal, and pituitary glands, and in women’s health.  She has authored articles on the impact of electronic records, uniform practice guidelines, monetary incentives, and the Internet on the culture of clinical care.  

  • Click here for the video recording of the 2012 Bishop Lecture.

Seated: Jerome Groopman and Pamela Hartzband 

Standing from Left: Scott Kim, Susan Goold, Angela Fagerlin, Christine Bishop, Jane Bishop, and David Bishop

 

 

 

Get it out of me! (Dec-05)

A 5% chance of death or a 10% chance of death:  which would you choose?

Imagine that you have been diagnosed with a slow growing cancer. Right now, the cancer is not causing you to feel sick. For most people, the cancer will grow so slowly it will never cause them any trouble. For others, the cancer will grow to the point that it makes them sick. Untreated, five percent (5 out of 100) will die of the cancer. Your doctor tells you that you have two treatment options: watchful waiting or surgery. Watchful waiting means you will not do any treatment right away, but your doctor will follow your cancer closely and treat any symptoms that you have if it begins to spread. Although it would be too late to be cured, you would be comfortable and free of pain. There are no side effects to watchful waiting, but five percent (5 out of 100) of the people who choose this treatment will develop symptoms and die from their cancer within five years. On the other hand, the surgery would cure your cancer permanently. Following surgery you will feel more tired than usual and will experience stomach upset occasionally for the three months following your surgery. However, surgery has a ten percent (10 out of 100) risk of death during the surgery.

Imagine that both of these treatments are completely covered by your health insurance. Which would you choose?

  •  I would not take the surgery and accept the 5% chance of dying from this cancer.
  •  I would take the surgery and accept the 10% chance of dying from the surgery.

How do your answers compare?

In the real world, cancer patients sometimes choose treatments that may have devastating side effects over less invasive, yet equally or more effective, approaches. One explanation for this is that people may feel a strong need to "get the cancer out" of their bodies. Surgical removal of all potentially cancerous tissues may satisfy this desire so thoroughly that people end up ignoring important statistical information about adverse outcomes.

Making a choice not in their best interest

CBDSM investigators Angela Fagerlin, Brian Zikmund-Fisher, and Peter Ubel hypothesized that people perceive cancer diagnoses as a call to action, and more specifically, a call to get rid of the cancer through surgery, regardless of what statistical information might say to the contrary. Consequently, they predicted that when presented with hypothetical cancer diagnoses, many people would say they would pursue surgery even if such an action would decrease their chance of survival.

To explore the relative frequency of people's willingness to choose surgery when it wasn't in their best interest, the investigators designed a cancer scenario similar to the one you read on the previous page. Participants were presented either a surgery or a medication treatment that would either increase or decrease their chance of survival.

The investigators found that participants who were presented with the opportunity to rid themselves of their cancer through surgery were significantly more inclined to take action than those who were presented with the medication treatment. For example, when the treatment reduced their overall chance of survival, 65% chose the surgery, whereas only 38% chose the medication treatment. This suggests that people's treatment decisions may be based not on the effectiveness of the treatments, but rather on their beliefs about how cancer should be treated. Specifically, cancer diagnoses seem to conjure up a strong desire for active treatment. And people seem to have an intuitive belief that action should not just involve treatment, but surgical removal of the cancer.

Why these findings are important

The results of this study may resonate with many clinicians who have encountered cancer patients who seem to desire treatment for treatment's sake, or who have a preference for surgical intervention even before they learn about the pros and cons of their treatment alternatives. This study should serve to remind clinicians that patients' preference for action can be strong enough, at times, to be a bias. At a minimum, it is important for health care professionals to be aware of the potential for such biases, so they can decide whether to accept patients' preferences at face value, or try to convince patients that aggressively treating a tumor may not be in their best interests.

Read the article:

Cure me even if it kills me: Preferences for invasive cancer treatment.
Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. Medical Decision Making 2005;25(6):614-619.

2016 CBSSM Research Colloquium and Bishop Lecture (William Dale, MD, PhD)

Wed, April 27, 2016, 8:30am
Location: 
Founders Room, Alumni Center, 200 Fletcher St., Ann Arbor, MI

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

The CBSSM Research Colloquium featured the Bishop Lecture in Bioethics as the keynote address.  William Dale, MD, PhD presented 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.

 

The 2016 Research Colloquium Presentation Schedule:

  •     8:30 AM -- Check in & refreshments
  •     9:00 AM -- Welcome
  •     9:05 AM -- Katrina Hauschildt, MA, PhD Candidate, Department of Sociology: "Language and Communication as Professionalization Projects in Clinical Ethics Consultation"
  •     9:30 AM -- Devan Stahl, PhD, Assistant Professor of Clinical Ethics, MSU: "Is there a right not to know?"
  •     9:55 AM -- Chithra Perumalswami, MD MSc, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation/Veterans Affairs Clinical Scholar: "Insurance Status of Elderly Americans and Location of Death"
  •     10:20 AM -- Break
  •     10:35 AM -- William Dale, MD, PhD, 2016 Bishop Lecture in Bioethics: "Why Do We So Often Overtreat, Undertreat, and Mistreat Older Adults with Cancer?"
  •     12:00 PM -- Lunch
  •     12:45 PM -- Lauren B. Smith, M.D., Associate Professor, Department of Pathology/Ginny Sheffield, UM Medical Student (M3): "Special treatment for the VIP patient:  Is it ethical?  Is it dangerous?"
  •     1:10 PM -- Naomi Laventhal, MD, MA, Assistant Professor, Department of Pediatrics and Communicable Diseases: "Roman Charity Redux: The Moral Obligations of the Breastfeeding Physician"
  •     1:35 PM -- Archana Bharadwaj, Graduate Student, UM School of Public Health: "Patient understanding and satisfaction regarding the clinical use of whole genome sequencing: Findings from the MedSeq Project"
  •     2:00 PM -- Kayte Spector-Bagdady, JD, MBioethics, CBSSM Postdoctoral Research Fellow: "Direct‐to‐Consumer Biobanking"
  •     2:25 PM -- Break
  •     2:40 PM --Panel Presentation (Susan Goold, MD, MHSA, MA & colleagues) : "Community engagement in setting research priorities: Representation, Participation and Evaluation"
    • Why (and how) was CBPR supported in DECIDERS?
    • How were communities represented in DECIDERS decision making?
    • Why and how was the partnership evaluated?
    • How were the 47 focus groups engaged in setting research priorities?

Pages