Joel D. Howell is a Professor at the University of Michigan in the departments of Internal Medicine (Medical School), Health Management and Policy (School of Public Health), and History (College of Literature, Science, and the Arts), as well as the Victor C. Vaughan Professor of the History of Medicine. He received his M.D. at the University of Chicago, and stayed at that institution for his internship and residency in internal medicine. At the University of Pennsylvania, he was a Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar, and received his Ph.D. in the History and Sociology of Science.
Page not found
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 email@example.com.
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.
In videos for The Trust Project, bioethicist and sociologist Raymond De Vries explores trust in medicine from a sociological perspective.
In How Trust Shapes the Medical Field: A Sociologist's Perspective, De Vries offers a historical perspective on trust in medicine:
- What role did industrialization play in changing interpersonal trust?
- What can we learn about trusting relationships from past societies?
In The Rise of Bioethics in Response to Medical Distrust: Key Findings, De Vries discusses some key research in the field of trust and bioethics:
- How did the erosion of trust in medicine lead to the rise in the study of bioethics?
- Does the bureaucracy that comes with research ethics committees enhance or undermine trust?
An another video, Evolution of Trust in Bioethics medical research ethics.
The Trust Project at Northwestern University features scholars and executives exploring Trust in videos that cover theory, research and practice. By combining multiple and diverse perspectives, The Trust Project aspires to illuminate new insights for research and management.
Peter Jacobson, J.D., M.P.H.
Professor of Health Law and Policy
Director, Center for Law, Ethics, and Health
Title: Addressing Health Equity Through Health in All Policies Initiatives.
Scholars and public health advocates have expressed optimism about the potential for Health in All Policies (HiAP) initiatives to improve both health equity and population health. HiAP is a collaborative approach across multiple sectors. In a qualitative study to assess these concepts, we found considerable variation across the sites on: how HiAP and equity initiatives are defined and governed; the integration of equity as a core goal; institutional capacity; and the determination of actual policy changes. We found a general migration from a HiAP-centered strategy to one based more on health equity. Regardless of the specific nomenclature, the implementation focus was directed more toward changing practices than policies.
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.