Error message

The page you requested does not exist. For your convenience, a search was performed using the query about us interactive decision month 2017 08.

Page not found

You are here

Funded by Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Funding Years: 2013 - 2014.

Patients and the public are being inundated with a flood of health data and being asked to take a greater role in applying this data to make medical decisions regarding their own health. While general guidelines exist for "best practices" in medical risk communication, this work has not always considered the specific communication goals of the risk message or the specific information or practical needs of the patient. The Communicating Health and Risk Messages (CHARM) project will address the gap in our current knowledge by informing the design of health risk data visualizations across the full spectrum of risk communication goals.

PI(s): Victor Strecher

Co-I(s): Lawrence An, Angela Fagerlin, Kenneth Resnicow, Brian Zikmund-Fisher

Funded by Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Funding Years: 2013-2014

Patients and the public are being inundated with a flood of health data and being asked to take a greater role in applying this data to make medical decisions regarding their own health. While general guidelines exist for "best practices" in medical risk communication, this work has not always considered the specific communication goals of the risk message or the specific information or practical needs of the patient. The  Communicating Health and Risk Messages (CHARM) project will address the gap in our current knowledge by informing the design of health risk data visualizations  across the full spectrum of risk communication goals.

PI(s): Vic Strecher, PhD, MPH

Co-I(s): Lawrence An, Angela Fagerlin, Kenneth Resnicow, Brian Zikmund-Fisher

Funded by National Institutes of Health

Funding Years: 2015-2018

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) provide oversight to clinical research involving human subjects to protect participants and ensure ethical research conduct. Local IRBs review research performed just at their own site, while Central Institutional Review Boards (CIRBs) review research being conducted at many sites. Regardless of whether reviews are performed locally or centrally, they must take into account any local context specific to the site where the research will be performed. CIRBs may provide more effective, equitable, and efficient review of large multicenter clinical trials, but whether CIRBs can effectively consider local context is unknown. Local context review is especially important in a kind of research called exception from informed consent for emergency research. In this kind of research, patients who are comatose or otherwise critically ill and unable to consent for themselves may still participate in trials if thir condition is life-threatening and the experimental therapy is only effective if given right away. To perform this kind of trial, researchers must also consult with the community and publically disclose information about the study. Information about those consultations must then be considered by an IRB as part of local context review. The purpose of this project is to explore, revise, and test measures of local context review of community consultation for this type of research, by local and central IRBs. We will work with key stakeholders to identify goals and processes, use these data to develop measures in domains such as trustworthiness and acceptability, and then use these measures to compare local IRB reviews to those of a simulated CIRB for a real trial. This project will be conducted within the Neurological Emergencies Treatment Trials (NETT) network and the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN). These networks will serve as an "empirical ethics lab" in which best practices are developed.

PI(s): Robert Silbergleit

Co-I(s): Michael Fetters, Michael Geisser, Adrianne Haggins, Alan Sugar, Sacha Montas

Dr. Jason Karlawish, Professor of Medicine and Medical Ethics at the University of Pennsylvania, will discuss his forthcoming novel, "Open Wound: The Tragic Obsession of Dr. William Beaumont" on Thursday, October 20, 3-5 pm, at the Biomedical Research Science Building (BSRB), Room 1130.  "Open Wound" is a fictional account of true events along the early 19th century American frontier, tracing the relationship between Dr. William Beaumont and his illiterate French Canadian patient.  The young trapper sustains an injury that never heals, leaving a hole in his stomach that the curious doctor uses as a window both to understand the mysteries of digestion and to advance his career.  A reception will follow the talk, and books will be available for purchase on site from Nicola's Books.  The event is co-sponsored by the Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, the Center for the History of Medicine, and the University of Michigan Press.  Click here for more information about the book. 

Please consider attending the Health Services Research Group Launch Symposium at the North Campus Research Complex (Building 18) on Thursday, May 26, 7:30am - 5:00 pm.  The purpose is to discuss the HSR Group's goals and future plans, discuss relevant topics in healthcare policy, and network with colleagues.  Even if you are unable to attend, go to the registration page to indicate your interest in health services research and health policy so that you may be contacted again in the future.  Click here to register.


In addition, there is an effort to collect information on all HSR groups on campus for purposes of networking and for junior investigators or newcomers to U-M to find colleagues and collaborators.  Preliminary information will be provided at the Symposium and later a Wiki website will be created.  Please send the main research theme(s) of the group/center; rough idea about the investigators, divisions, departments, schools; website URL, if applicable; seminar information, if applicable; and contact information to Joe Zogaib at jwzogaib@umich.edu.

The Genetics in Primary Care Institute recently launched its new website, featuring co-chairperson Beth Tarini, M.D., assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan’s C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital.

Along with Robert Saul, M.D., Tarini co-chairs the Institute, which aims to take genetic advances made during the last decade and help make them useful in the practice of primary care pediatrics.

The new website, www.geneticsinprimarycare.org, features information for primary care providers related to genetics testing, ethical, legal and social issues, patient communication and family history.

Tarini’s research focuses on the communication process and the health outcomes associated with genetic testing in pediatrics. She is particularly interested in pediatric population-based screening programs, such as newborn screening. Through her research, Tarini seeks to optimize communication about genetic testing between parents and providers in an effort to maximize health and minimize harm.

The UMHS press release can be found here. Dr. Tarini's featured page can be found here

Mon, June 06, 2016

A recent internet study on the effect of the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) on vaccine acceptance and trust was featured in "The Conversation." This study found telling participants about VAERS, without having them read the actual reports, improved vaccine acceptance only very slightly. However, when participants read the detailed reports, both vaccine acceptance and trust in the CDC’s conclusion that vaccines are safe declined significantly. This was true, even though the vast majority of respondents believed that the vaccine caused few or none of the reported deaths and disabilities.

For the original study:

Scherer LD, Shaffer VA, Patel N, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Can the vaccine adverse event reporting system be used to increase vaccine acceptance and trust?. Vaccine. 2016 May 5;34(21):2424-9.

Research Topics: 
Fri, October 30, 2015

Brian Zikmund-Fisher was quoted by a number of news outlets on the relaunch of 23andme.

In an interview for the LA Time article regarding the relaunch, “Genetic testing evolves, along with health and ethics debates,” Brian Zikmund-Fisher disagrees that more information is always good.  Dr. Zikmund-Fisher points out, "Providing people with more information is not helpful if they can't do anything about it, or it leads them to focus on the wrong thing" — on their genes rather than their lifestyles, for example.”

Funded by National Institutes of Health

Funding Years: 2014-2016

Nearly half of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) nationwide are exposed to red blood cell (RBC) products. While large volumes (3+ units) of transfusions may be delivered to a given patient to preserve life in cases of acute blood loss, evidence suggests that even small amounts (1-2 units) of RBCs often transfused to address poor oxygen delivery are associated with a 16% increase in a patient's risk of mortality and a 27% increase in morbidity, even after case mix adjustment. It is vitally important to allocate RBC products appropriately, given both that cardiac surgery utilizes between 20-25% of the total national blood supply, and the Red Cross reports that 32 of their 36 regions had less than a day's supply available to meet hospital needs. In short, it is important to improve our understanding of how and in what context decisions are made regarding 1-2 units of RBCs, given its association with morbidity, mortality and resource utilization. Growing evidence suggests that some transfusions may be discretionary. In the state of Michigan, nearly 40% of CABG patients are exposed to 1-2 units of RBCs, although the absolute rate varies 32% across institutions. Center-specific variation in transfusion practices is likely attributed to thelack of consensus regarding the indications, setting and hematocrit trigger for transfusions. Given this uncertainty, transfusion rates may be the consequence of differences in organizational (e.g. protocols, types of decision-makers, lack of performance feedback regarding transfusion practice) and provider (e.g. knowledge, beliefs concerning the benefit/harm of transfusions, and inclination to transfuse) factors. Interventions to reduce the rate of unnecessary transfusions first require identifying the set of determinants (at the organizational or provider level) that mot fully explain the observed variation in RBC utilization across regional medical centers. We will use the prospective data and infrastructure of the Michigan Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons Quality Collaborative (MSTCVS-QC), a consortium of all 33 cardiac surgical programs in Michigan, to: (1) Develop, pilot, and implement surveys to hospitals and clinical providers within the state of Michigan to describe determinants of 1-2 units of RBC transfusions during cardiac surgery, and (2) Identify the primary organizational and provider characteristics contributing to variability in transfusions. Results from this study will set the sage for a behavioral modification study aimed at reducing the rate of RBC transfusions in the setting of cardiac surgery.

PI(s): Richard Prager, Donald Likosky

Co-I(s): Darin Zahuranec, Min Zhang, Marc Zimmerman, Milo Engoren

Working Group

The Working Group provides a forum for project focused discussions and interdisciplinary collaborations in topics related to bioethics, health communication, decision making and any other topic that fits within the 5 domains of CBSSM.

Working group meetings provide an opportunity for investigators to receive feedback on research proposals, drafts of papers, grant applications, or any other aspects of projects at any stage of development. These sessions are to help move forward a project in any stage of its development. So if your project is in the works, in the planning stages, or perhaps it is still just an idea, you design the session and determine how to best solicit the help and support of your colleagues.
Some examples could be:

  • Outline sketch of specific aims for a grant. (Presenter would provide a one page summary before the session)
  • Outline of a proposed paper or paper in draft stage. (Discussion would be based on one page summary. Presenter would walk the group through the outline or draft, and solicit feedback on significance and coherence of ideas)
  • Determining a paper’s relevance. (Presenter could ask group members to read a paper, in order to discuss/determine if that paper is crucial to the project that the person has in mind-- different from a journal club exercise.)

This meeting is designed as an informal working group not a formal presentation.

The working group usually meets on Tuesdays or Wednesdays at 4pm in NCRC B16-266C. To be added to the email list, please contact Amy Lynn at lynnam@umich.edu OR join our email list.

 

 

 

 

Pages