Error message

The page you requested does not exist. For your convenience, a search was performed using the query cbssm med umich edu people andrew shuman md.

Page not found

You are here

Thu, July 26, 2018

A new study published in Cancer by Reshma Jagsi and colleagues found that many patients experience a heavy financial impact from their diagnosis and treatment for breast cancer, and that they feel their doctors’ offices aren’t adequately addressing these concerns. Dr. Jagsi was also interviewed by Michigan Radio about this study. CBSSM faculty Sarah Hawley was also an author on this study.

CBSSM Seminar: Timothy R. B. Johnson, M.D.

Tue, October 03, 2017, 3:00pm
Location: 
NCRC, Building 10, G065

Timothy R. B. Johnson, M.D.
Arthur F. Thurnau Professor and Chair, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Bates Professor of the Diseases of Women and Children
Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Women’s Studies
Research Professor, CHGD

Title: Global Health Ethics and Reproductive Justice: Breadth and Depth in CBSSM

Global Health Ethics and Reproductive Justice (in this instance sexual rights and gender equity, specifically gender and sexual harassment/assault in Academic Medical Centers) appear to be areas where a number of CBSSM members have interest, expertise and are working inter-disciplinarily in domains that will differentiate CBSSM nationally and internationally. Could and should these develop into CBSSM thematic interests? Whatever the case, they will remain topics of significant interest across CBSSM and are worthy of broad discussion and  understanding.

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.

Janice Firn, PhD, MSW

Faculty

Dr. Firn has a BS from Michigan State University, MSW from the University of Michigan, and PhD from Lancaster University (UK). Janice is a Clinical Assistant Professor in the Department of Learning Health Sciences (DLHS), Division of Professional Education. Before DLHS, Janice worked in oncology and palliative care at Michigan Medicine. She is also part of the Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine (CBSSM), and serves as a Clinical Ethicist for the Clinical Ethics Service.

Last Name: 
Firn

Bioethics Grand Rounds: “Examining the Ethics of Victors Care”

Wed, February 28, 2018, 12:00pm
Location: 
Univerisity Hospital Ford Auditorium

Michigan Medicine has launched Victors Care, a concierge medical care model designed to deliver increased access, convenience and individually-tailored support within a primary care practice for patients who pay for membership. Like all concierge care programs, Victors Care raises ethical issues relating to justice, fairness, access, and consistency with the mission of Michigan Medicine. This Bioethics Grand Rounds will address the ethical issues of concierge care in a panel format with institutional leaders. The panel will address your questions directly. Questions will be solicited during the session, and can be submitted in advance via: https://umichumhs.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_b4nJWM70ahHQtjD.

Panelists
Marschall S. Runge, M.D., Ph.D., EVPMA and Dean
Reshma Jagsi, M.D., D.Phil, Director, Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine
David J. Brown, M.D., Associate Vice President and Associate Dean for Health Equity and Inclusion

Facilitators
Andrew Shuman, M.D., F.A.C.S & Christian J. Vercler, M.D, M.A, F.A.C.S – Service Chiefs, Clinical Ethics Service, Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine

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.

Geoffrey Barnes, MD, MSc

Faculty

Geoff Barnes is a cardiologist and vascular medicine specialist at the University of Michigan Health System. He completed his undergraduate degree in biomedical engineering at Washington University in St. Louis (2003) followed by medical school at the University of Michigan (2007).  He then completed a residency (2010), chief residency (2011) in internal medicine, cardiology fellowship (2014) and vascular medicine fellowship (2014) at the University of Michigan.  His areas of research interest include anticoagulation, venous thromboembolism, quality improvement and shared decision making.

Research Interests: 
Last Name: 
Barnes

Bioethics Grand Rounds - Dr. Michael Jibson

Wed, August 26, 2015, 12:00pm
Location: 
Ford Auditorium

This month's grand rounds features: Michael Jibson, MD, Psychiatry Department speaking about "Psychiatry, Law, and Society: Ethical and Legal Issues in Mental Health"

Lunch provided!

Please join us for a lively discussion of medical ethics. The Bioethics Grand Rounds is co-sponsored by the Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, the UMHS Adult and Pediatric 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 credit is available. 

To meet ACCME requirements for Faculty Planner disclosure and Presenter Disclosure to participants of CME activities at UM, please be advised that the following faculty planner(s)/co-planner(s) and presenter have no personal financial relationships relevant to the activity listed below:
Planners: 

  • Andrew Shuman, MD
  • Christian Vercler, MD

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Pages