Ellen Engelhardt, PhD
Editor
|
Aisha Langford, PhD
Deputy Editor
|
|
by Ellen Engelhardt, PhD; The Netherlands
Here in the Netherlands, it is already summer and almost time for a well-earned summer vacation. Hopefully, you can all look back on a fruitful first half of this year and enjoy some time off to recharge. If not, there will be better days ahead!
In this issue of the newsletter, the exciting activities resulting from SMDM’s 2022-2024 Strategic Plan are highlighted from different perspectives. Starting with an update from SMDM President Olga Kostopoulou on all the new Task Forces working on different aspects of the strategic plan. SMDM Fellows highlight how they as well as other early career researchers can contribute to the goals in the strategic plan, which is not only great for the Society, but also for their careers. I echo Olga and the Fellows’ call to consider volunteering, it’s a very enriching experience and you can tailor your involvement to the time you have available.
In her Hot Topics column, Aisha Langford (Deputy Newsletter Editor), talks about education and other skills the next generation of decision scientists need to further their career and the field. Take a look at her column and take the MDM poll to share your thoughts on what kind of methods and other skill building courses SMDM can offer to support you.
Brian Zikmund-Fisher (Editor of Medical Decision Making and MDM Policy & Practice) discusses MDM Journal Policies on Individual Classification Variables Such as Race and Gender. It’s a thought-provoking piece and good to reflect on these issues in our own work. Mary Politi and Jesse Jansen (co-chairs) introduce SMDM’s Patient Advocacy Council (PAC). Work with PAC members is an opportunity to expand the reach and scope of SMDM into the patient advocacy community. If you have any ideas to help and support this important initiative, please reach out.
To end, alongside these interesting columns, you’ll also find updates about the upcoming North American and European meetings, new funding opportunities in the Member News section and lots more. Take a look! I hope you enjoy this newsletter. As always, if you have any ideas, suggestions, please get in touch (e.engelhardt@nki.nl). |
|
|
|
Olga Kostopoulou, PhD
SMDM President
|
|
by Olga Kostopoulou, PhD; United States
We have just passed the solstice, summer in the northern hemisphere where I am based, winter in the southern hemisphere where several other SMDM members reside. I picture SMDM as a centre from which rays of influence emanate to both hemispheres. Cosmic metaphors aside, one of the main goals of our new strategic plan is to increase collaboration within and between disciplines and application areas where SMDM members and stakeholders operate. We have started working towards this goal: a Member-to-Member Communications Task Force has been set up, co-chaired by Michael Kattan and Jenny Spencer. They are in the process of finalising task force membership and will have done so by the time this goes to ‘print’. They are tasked with updating the listserv, our website, and our member portal. These tasks are important for communication between members, but also external visibility, job announcements, and the ability to find and contact experts in a particular discipline or methodology. If you have any suggestions for this activity, do not hesitate to send them to Diane Nickolson info@SMDM.org , who will direct them to the task force.
Another important activity, which will impact at least two of the three superordinate goals of our strategic plan (Access and Collaboration) is rethinking our meetings structure, including format, location, timing, and rotation. This is necessary because the pandemic has changed the way people meet to work, network, and collaborate, and it has established a hybrid meeting format as the preferred format for the foreseeable future. We have been discussing at length what “hybrid” means, and the different versions that this umbrella term might encompass. With the co-chairs of the Seattle meeting, we have been trying to find a combination of in-person and virtual elements that is effective as well as affordable. The pandemic is offering us the opportunity to redesign our meetings to be more inclusive and accessible, but also enjoyable and productive; events where great science is shared, and fruitful collaborations are initiated, and where not everyone is sitting in the same room. A Task Force responsible for this initiative has been convened, co-chaired by me and Beate Sander (President-Elect), with Bob Beck, Beate Jahn, Lisa Prosser, Victoria Shaffer, Alan Schwartz, and Anthony Sunjana as members. We NEED your views and have thus prepared a VERY SHORT survey inviting you to comment on the different versions of the future that we are contemplating. Please complete the survey here.
A third Task Force, chaired by Torbjørn Wisløff and with Stavroula Chrysanthopoulou, James Stahl, Glen Taksler, Margo Wheatley, Ellen Engelhardt, and Brian Zikmund-Fisher as members, is busy working on ideas for sponsoring Scientific Consensus / Guidance Papers on methods/practices of healthcare decision making. This aligns with our other strategic goal of strengthening our brand as methodological experts, and I am looking forward to hearing what topics they will propose.
As I mentioned, the Board has been busy discussing and planning the mixture of in-person and virtual elements for our October meeting in Seattle. The meeting chairs, Davene Wright and Sarah Munro, have worked hard and relentlessly to prepare an exciting programme of parallel sessions, symposia, and poster sessions, presented in innovative ways. I can confirm that everyone’s favourite sessions (Presidential Address, Business Meeting, and Award Presentations) will be live-streamed. As for the long-awaited Berlin meeting, the dates have now been announced – mark your calendars! It will take place on 21-23 May 2023 at the Langenbeck Virchow Haus, a prime Berlin conference venue. The call for abstracts & short courses will open in November 2022. Co-Chairs Beate Jahn, Uwe Siebert, Silke Siebert, and Tobias Kurth are preparing an exciting programme of events, including a guided bicycle tour, so start brushing up on your cycling skills!
I am also pleased to report that DART, the Diversity, Antiracism & Transformation Team, is our new standing committee, co-chaired by Heather Gold and Beate Jahn. DART is mandated to educate SMDM members about anti-racism, diversity and inclusion, and to identify methods for addressing structural and interpersonal racism and exclusion within SMDM and society. Following a call for volunteers, DART now numbers 6 members: Kevin Frick, Anton Avancena, Cara McDermott, Tran Doan, Ellen Engelhardt, and Jesse Jansen. We look forward to hearing about DART’s initiatives in due course.
Finally, the process of electing the new SMDM officers has started. You have been sent the current slate of nominees for Officers and members of the Board of Trustees, as put together by the 2022 Nominating Committee, chaired by Tasha Stout and with Amber Barnato, Hilary Bekker, Dan Greenberg & Lisa Proser as members. At this stage, you have the opportunity to add nominees to the slate by petition until the 1st of July. Proposing and electing nominees is a very important function of the membership – you are electing the leadership that can shape the Society’s future.
And with this, I wish you a relaxing and rejuvenating summer.
|
|
|
|
The opinions stated in the following commentaries are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the opinions of the Society for Medical Decision Making or the author's institution. |
|
Aisha Langford, PhD
Deputy Editor
|
|
By Aisha Langford, PhD; United States
Education and skill needs for the next generation of decision scientists
In many fields, there is ongoing discussion about what future professionals need to know to advance their individual careers and the field overall. Decision science is no different, although there are differing opinions about the “best” approach for developing the next generation of decision scientists.
On the one hand, you can argue that specialization is the right approach. For example, you can focus on decision-analytic modeling and get deep expertise in one approach such as agent-based simulation modeling. One the other hand, you can argue that generalization is the right approach because medical decision making research is complex and therefore requires expertise in various areas. For example, the term “health communication” can arguably include risk communication, numeracy, health literacy, graph literacy, and patient education -- each of which are specialized topics in their own right, but all potentially helpful for improving medical decision making.
The question of “what makes a good decision scientist” can be as complicated as the question “what is a good medical decision?” I suppose it all depends on the goal. If the goal is to have more decision scientists with broader skill sets, taking several diverse trainings can be helpful (i.e., breadth vs. depth). If the goal is to have more decision scientists with very specific skills, taking topically-related trainings at conferences, getting specialized certificates, or obtaining a full degree in an area makes sense. Beyond methodological skills, there are also conversations about what other skills decision scientists need to be successful. These conversations may include topics like science communication, public speaking, developing graphical abstracts, and academic writing.
As more team science occurs, perhaps it is less critical to build expertise in many different areas. A well-constructed team can provide critical skills and fill in your gaps. Wherever you stand regarding which skills to learn yourself vs. outsource, it is good to know that SMDM provides education and career tools year-round. The Society also provides many opportunities for skill building at the North American annual meeting. Enhancing educational offerings is included in the 2022-2024 SMDM Strategic Plan. Stay tuned for new webinars and trainings!
|
|
|
|
In this MDM poll, we would like to know what kind of methods and other skill building courses SMDM can offer to support you. |
|
|
Results MDM Poll Issue 4, 2021 - The Personal and Professional Impact of 2 Years of COVID-19
by Ellen Engelhardt, PhD; The Netherlands
Last year, as we neared the end of a second year marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, we asked you to share what the impact has been on you personally and professionally. Many of you (N=108) again contributed your experiences, thank you! Most respondents (78%) were based in North America, 32% work in the subfield of Decision Psychology and Shared Decision Making, 31% in the subfield of Health Services Outcomes and Policy Research and 23% in the subfield of Applied Health Economics.
Half of respondents shifted or expanded their research focus to topics related to COVID-19. Compared to before the pandemic, most respondents indicated that they worked an equal number of hours (41%) or longer hours (42%). Sixty percent of respondents felt that their productivity was equal or higher than before the COVID-19 pandemic, but a third indicated that their productivity had been lower than before the pandemic. Overall, 54% of respondents’ level of concern about experiencing a burn-out increased compared to prior to the pandemic. Eight out of 10 respondents miss the (impromptu) interactions with colleagues at the office. Yet, many (64%) enjoy working from home. Most (75%) respondents did not experience changes in their job security, but those who did reported a wide range of issues (e.g., salary cut, or no annual salary increase, problems with contract renewal or paycheck delay). A third of respondents were worried that the COVID-19 pandemic will negatively impact their (long-term) career prospects. One respondent explained “A large chunk of research funding has been allocated to covid research, thereby significantly decreasing funding opportunities for other fields. This impact on our careers has yet to come.”
Compared to prior to the pandemic, experienced work-life balance was worse for 45%, the same for 30%, and better for 25% of respondents. For some it was the "life" part of the balance that had changed in ways that made them feel much less "balanced", whereas others for example struggled more juggling clinical work and research. About four out of 10 respondents experienced “COVID fatigue” (i.e., being tired of all the COVID-19 discussions in TV shows, newspapers, radio programs and/or feeling stressed out from following all of the behavioral regulations and recommendations around COVID-19). About half of respondents were satisfied with their overall (55%), physical (47%) and mental wellbeing (53%), but only 30% of respondents were satisfied with their social wellbeing.
|
|
Mary Politi
PhD
Co-chair PAC
|
Jesse Jansen
PhD
Co-chair PAC
|
|
SMDM Patient Advocacy Council (PAC) |
Involving patients and stakeholders in research, from design to implementation to analysis to dissemination, improves our science and ensures that our findings reflect the needs of all who can benefit from our work. At SMDM, our mission and vision statements emphasize the importance of engaging with patients, clinicians, policy makers and the public. Many of our members have significant expertise in incorporating stakeholders into research. However, until recently, SMDM did not have a core group of patient and stakeholder advisors liaising with the Board.
Last fall, we formally launched our Patient Advisory Council and are excited to share some of the work we are doing. The PAC consists of four patients/patient representatives, one patient engagement advisor (Mary Politi) and one board liaison (Jesse Jansen). Our PAC is international with representatives from three countries. The PAC has met monthly since Nov 2021. Below we summarize the activities underway, and we encourage you to reach out to us with suggestions for how we can serve the society, members and community around the world.
Activities Underway
- We are in the process of developing a plain language glossary of SMDM related terms for new members as well as patient and stakeholder representatives that we will soon post on our SMDM website.
- We will work with the meeting planning committee to ensure that all meeting abstracts have a rating level (beginner, intermediate, or advanced) so people can choose to attend accessible presentations if they are new to SMDM.
- We have developed guidelines for lay summaries of abstracts that we will encourage keynote speakers, plenary presenters, and those with “beginner” level ratings on abstracts to use. These guidelines can help summarize their work in a way that is accessible for new members and patient and stakeholder representatives.
- We are planning a tuition-free webinar in September of 2022 where we will discuss the concept of equity in relation to shared decision making, and what it means in different regions of the world.
Future Activities
- We plan to create a Resource Center on the website.
- We hope to host more webinars for members and non-members to engage them in some of the work we are doing at SMDM. Example topics could be defining health decision making from a patient engagement perspective across countries, discussing how we use patient stories and narratives in our work, reviewing how data is presented and interpreted by the media, and we can help the public identify good sources of evidence.
- We hope to host virtual “watch parties” for community groups to view annual meeting presentations that are available on video, for those who are unable to attend the meeting or want to learn more about SMDM outside of the annual meeting.
- We will work on ways that members of SMDM can contact our PAC to engage in projects or be connected to other patients and stakeholders for project collaboration.
We are excited to work with our PAC members to expand the reach and scope of SMDM into the patient advocacy community. We encourage you to reach out to us with any ideas you have to help and support this important initiative. Just email info@SMDM.org with your suggestions.
|
|
|
Eline Krijkamp,
PhD Student
SMDM Fellow
|
Kyu Eun Lee, PhD
SMDM Fellow
|
Ruth Ndjaboue Njike, PhD
SMDM Fellow
|
Rachel Pozzar, PhD, RN
SMDM Fellow
|
|
SMDM Fellows Column:
Advancing the SMDM Strategic Plan as Early Career Investigators
|
By Rachel Pozzar, PhD
Advancing the SMDM Strategic Plan as Early Career Investigators
With the assistance of dozens of stakeholders, the SMDM Board of Trustees developed the Society’s 2022-2024 Strategic Plan in 2021. The Strategic Plan is an explicit statement of the Society’s mission, purpose, vision, and values. Like many early career investigators (ECIs), we have benefited immensely from our involvement in the Society and are eager to give back. In today’s column, we’ll explore some of the ways ECIs can advance the SMDM Strategic Plan in a way that supports our colleagues and careers.
The three main goals of the 2022-2024 Strategic Plan are:
- To create opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration.
- Expand access to SMDM educational offerings.
- Strengthen SMDM’s brand and reputation as methods experts.
To facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration, ECIs can engage with other members at SMDM meetings; on the member portal, SMDM Connect; on committees; and in research interest groups. ECIs may also collaborate to organize a Hackathon, in which interdisciplinary teams of ECIs brainstorm innovative approaches to solve a health challenge. Finally, ECIs can introduce interdisciplinary colleagues to the SMDM educational modules and short courses, which provide a comprehensive introduction to the field of medical decision-making.
To expand access to SMDM educational offerings, ECIs may inform colleagues and mentees about the SMDM trainee membership category, which provides trainees with full access to SMDM training and networking opportunities at a discounted rate. ECIs can also provide SMDM leadership with insight into what their needs are by reaching out or responding to member surveys. ECIs who have ideas for novel meeting formats or strategies that may expand access to SMDM resources should consider joining the Education Committee, which develops and evaluates the Society’s educational offerings.
Finally, to strengthen SMDM’s brand and reputation as methods experts, ECIs should take advantage of the Society’s training and mentorship opportunities. These opportunities include one-to-one mentoring, career development workshops and panels, speed mentoring sessions, and dinners with SMDM experts at the Annual Meeting. ECIs represent the next generation of methods experts. Full engagement with the Society is a way to enhance our training– which, in turn, will strengthen the Society and the field.
|
|
|
|
New MDM Journal Policies on Individual Classification Variables Such as Race and Gender
by Brian Zikmund-Fisher, PhD USA
In the summer of 2020, as I was beginning my preparations to become Editor of Medical Decision Making and MDM Policy & Practice, a colleague shared with me an article that changed my understanding of what it means to be a researcher and now an editor. The article, titled: “On Racism: A New Standard for Publishing on Racial Health Inequities” was published in Health Affairs Blog in July 2020 by Rhea Boyd, Edwin Lindo, Lachelle Weeks, and Monica McLemore (who you may recognize as our keynote speaker at the October 2021 SMDM meeting).
If you haven’t seen or read the article, I encourage you to do so. Boyd, et al. directly challenged both researchers and journals to raise their standards for how research on racial health inequities is conducted and reported. They emphasized the importance of defining race, specifying the reason for its use in a study, and naming racism as the underlying risk factor for disparate outcomes, among other measures. As incoming Editor, I felt called to action and forced to reckon with the important question of how these ideas were relevant to our field of medical decision making.
As I considered the issues of how race variables are used in MDM analyses and models, however, I realized that the conceptual concerns and issues raised by Boyd, et al. often exist in similar forms for many other constructs. For example, when gender is used in an analysis, is it representing biological sex or the effects of gender bias / sexism? From my perspective, the steps being proposed to improve the design and reporting of research on racial health inequities applied with equal value and force to many of the variables that researchers use to classify individual research participants.
Over the past year and a half, I have consulted with many scholars both within and outside of SMDM, as well as with the Associate Editors and Editorial Board members of the MDM journals, regarding steps that our journals could take in this regard. These efforts included reaching out to scholars of colour with expertise in studying racial and/or ethnic disparities and female scholars whose work focuses on gender disparities, among others. While no such policy is ever perfect, I believe that we have identified an approach that is appropriate for the wide range of topics and methodologies that exist within our field.
The April 2022 issue of Medical Decision Making contains a new journal policy statement titled:
|
|
“Put simply, authors should ask themselves the following questions regarding the analyses and models they report in manuscripts submitted to Medical Decision Making and MDM Policy & Practice:
Are any individual classification variables included in the presented analyses or models? If yes, for each included variable:
- Is it clear in the manuscript and/or supplementary material how this variable was measured and/or created?
- Is it clear in the manuscript why this variable needs to be included in the model or analysis?
- Is it clear to what causal factor(s) any observed differences or variations associated with this variable may be attributed?
Are there any key conceptually-relevant individual classification variables that either were available or could have been available that nonetheless were omitted from the model or analysis?
If yes, have these omissions been acknowledged?
In terms of journal operations, we operationalize these requirements by directing manuscript reviewers and editors to consider the above questions in their reviews of submitted manuscripts.
We believe that we have an obligation, as editors, to encourage high-quality research that considers the existence of inequities in health decision making and health outcomes. We commit to rewarding those researchers who are already carefully considering the ways that individual characteristics are associated with differential health outcomes, the potential causes of these inequities, and potential solutions. Through these efforts, we hope to encourage all researchers to take into consideration the role of such constructs in their work in a thoughtful and transparent manner.”
|
|
Sarah Munro, PhD
2022 Annual Meeting Co-Chair
|
Davene Wright, PhD
2022 Annual Meeting Co-Chair
|
|
2022 Annual Meeting Co-Chairs:
Sarah Munro, PhD; Canada
Davene Wright, PhD; United States
It is our great pleasure to invite you to join us for the 44th Annual North American Meeting to be held between October 23-26, 2022, in Seattle, USA.
Following the tradition of previous meetings, SMDM22 will offer attendees the opportunity to explore diverse topics in medical decision making by providing highly interactive forums for the presentation of novel research of various methodologies, as well as analytical models applied to health-related decisions. It will also serve as a great opportunity to network with colleagues from around the world.
|
|
|
|
Beate Jahn, PhD
2022 European Meeting Co-Chair
|
Tobias Kurth, MD, MSc, ScD
2022 European Meeting Co-Chair
|
Silke Siebert, MD
2022 European Meeting Co-Chair
|
Uwe Siebert, MD, MPH, MSc, ScD
2022 European Meeting Co-Chair
|
|
Mark Your Calendar for The 18th Biennial European Conference! |
2022 European Meeting Co-Chairs:
Beate Jahn, PhD; Austria
Tobias Kurth, MD, MSc, ScD; Germany
Silke Siebert, MD; Austria
Uwe Siebert, MD, MPH, MSc, ScD; Austria
It is our great pleasure to invite you to the 18th Biennial European Conference of SMDM, which will be held in Berlin, Germany on 21-23 May, 2023.
With the theme “Linking Research to Evidence-Based Action for Patients, Providers and Policy Decision Makers,” SMDM 2023 European Conference will offer the latest updates in medical decision making and cover novel research of various methodologies tailored to the entire interprofessional SMDM community.
Berlin is among the largest and most diverse regions for science in Europe, making it the perfect destination for SMDM 2023 European Conference. Participants will have many social opportunities to connect and network with peers from around the globe, while exploring the historical German capital and the many cultural and touristic activities it has to offer.
Save the date and join us in Berlin for another unforgettable SMDM conference we have planned for the medical decision making community!
With warm regards,
SMDM European Conference Organizing Secretariat
|
|
|
|
Officers and Trustees Elections - 2022
On behalf of the Nominating Committee, the Officers and the Board of Trustees of the Society for Medical Decision Making, it is my great pleasure to present to you the slate of nominees for Officers and Trustees for election in 2022.
President-Elect (3-year term; 1 to be elected)
1. Marieke de Vries, PhD
2. Beate Jahn, PhD
3. Alan Schwartz PhD
Vice President-Elect (2-year term; 1 to be elected)
1. John Bridges, PhD
2. Ellen Lipstein, MD
3. Ankur Pandya, PhD
Secretary-Treasurer Elect (3-year term; 1 to be elected)
1. Jeff Hoch, PhD
2. Scott LaJoie, PhD
Trustees (3-year term; 3 to be elected, including 1 international trustee)
1. Christine Gunn, PhD
2. David Kim, PhD
3. Natalia Kunst, PhD (international nominee - Norway)
4. Dan Matlock, MD
5. Laura Scherer, PhD
6. Gaby Sroczynski, PhD (international nominee - Austria)
7. Channing Tate, PhD
8. Pete Wegier, PhD
9. William Wong, PhD
The slate of nominees, possibly expanded by petition, will be e-mailed to the membership with a link to an online ballot. Voting will open on Monday, July 3, 2022 and will include biographic sketches submitted by each nominee. Voting will be by secret ballot and will close on Friday, September 3, 2022 at 3:00 PM Eastern Time. All individual members in good standing as of June 1, 2022, regardless of membership type, are eligible to vote.
Your Nominating Committee has full confidence in the ability and dedication of each member on the slate. We look forward to your thoughtful consideration of these (and any possible additional) nominees.
A special thank you to members of the 2022 Nominating Committee for their hard work in developing the slate: Amber Barnato, Hilary Bekker, Dan Greenberg & Lisa Proser
Sincerely,
Natasha Stout
SMDM Nominating Committee Chair and Past President
|
|
Committees and Interest Groups |
|
SMDM is always looking for volunteers to join any of its committees or interest groups. Read more about the SMDM Committees and Interest Groups on the website. If you are interested in joining a committee or interest group, please write info@smdm.org with your interest and you will be directed to the appropriate chair.
We would also want to thank our SMDM Volunteers for all you do.
|
|
Impact of Public Health Guidance is Focus of New NSF Partnership with Social Science Research Council
The U.S. National Science Foundation is partnering with the Social Science Research Council to support research that advances scientific knowledge about public health guidance and its impact on the health and well-being of individuals and communities.
The Social Science Research Council (SSRC) will donate up to $7.5 million to NSF over the next two years to support fundamental research exploring the effects of public health guidance on society. NSF will invest $12.5 million for a combined total of up to $20 million in research funding.
SSRC is an independent nonprofit organization that has supported social science research since 1923. The partnership will leverage the unique capabilities of NSF and SSRC through their diverse connections to the research community and public health organizations.
“Fundamental social and behavioral science has the power to help every American live a healthier and more prosperous life,” says NSF Social and Economic Sciences Division Director Rayvon Fouché. “The societal benefits from robust exploratory research are amplified by dynamic partnerships like this one. We are grateful to SSRC for partnering with NSF in our shared mission to enhance the resilience and strength of communities across the entire country.”
“Information networks are a critical component of our public health infrastructure. However, in today’s complex information ecosystem, accurate information is not equally accessible for everyone,” says SSRC President Anna Harvey. “This partnership will fund social and behavioral scientists to understand the causal impacts of methods that increase the sharing and uptake of critical health-related information, contributing to an information environment that benefits everyone.”
The challenge of understanding the diverse effects that public health guidance can have on U.S. society and the economy has been underscored by the COVID-19 pandemic. The health and well-being of individuals, communities and entire regions of the U.S. can be fortified through fundamental scientific insights into how public health guidance is created and distributed and how people perceive it.
NSF and SSRC invite research proposals that can reveal the complex factors that contribute to effective public health guidance and provide rigorous evidence that will be useful for decision-makers seeking to improve and protect the health of their communities.
|
FAM-NET Family Well-being Reached Network
by Janel Hanmer, MD, Lisa Prosser, PhD, and Eve Wittenberg, PhD
FAM-NET, a research network devoted to studying the measurement of family well-being across the lifespan, launched in June 2021, as a collaborative effort among the NIH, the University of Michigan, the Harvard Chan School, and the University of Pittsburgh. FAM-NET joins five existing networks advancing emotional well-being research funded by agencies across the NIH. Janel Hanmer at the University of Pittsburgh, Lisa Prosser at the University of Michigan, and Eve Wittenberg at Harvard University co-lead the project.
The network seeks to develop and advance new ideas and scalable approaches to contribute to the measurement and foundational knowledge of family well-being, including an emphasis on pediatric quality of life. We are requesting applications on a rolling basis for our Research Scholar Corps and proposals for Pilot Projects that address the measurement of well-being across the lifespan with an emphasis on family well-being and pediatric quality of life. Encompassing a lifespan perspective, eligible topics under this opportunity will range from childhood quality of life through and including older adults’ well-being, with an emphasis on family-focused metrics and analytic strategies. For more information and the complete RFA, please visit our website.
|
Garima Dalal, MSc.; University of Manchester
Garima is currently working on the PrefCoRe study which is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research for Patient Benefit scheme. PrefCoRe is led by Andrew Renehan, Professor of Cancer Studies and Surgery and is a collaboration between the Manchester Cancer Research Centre (Professor Andrew Renehan, Lee Malcomson) and The University of Manchester (Professor Katherine Payne, Dr Stuart Wright, Garima Dalal). This study aims to quantify patient and public preferences for the treatment of high-risk rectal cancer and develop a decision aid to help patients make difficult decisions regarding their treatment. The study methods involve an online survey comprising a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to understand the key drivers of preferences for surgery versus watch-and-wait for patients who have achieved a clinical complete response after chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer. The results from this survey will be used to inform a patient decision aid designed to improve the quality of patient decisions by creating a bespoke decision support tool based on the DCE results. The decision aid will be preliminarily tested using a range of methods including eye tracking and System Usability Scale (SUS) in the clinical setting to evaluate user friendliness, content integration and its position in the clinical care pathway.
|
Tom Newman, MD, MPH; UCSF
My old friend and colleague Warren Browner and I are leading the effort to write the 5th edition of Designing Clinical Research, a popular textbook that Stephen Hulley and Steven Cummings first wrote almost 35 years ago! We're joined by Steven Cummings, Deborah Grady, and (new to this text) Alison Huang, Alka Kanaya and Mark Pletcher. We're (finally) covering DAGS and many other new topics in what we hope will be a readable introduction.
|
|
|
|
Here are the most recent job opportunities since our last newsletter. SMDM members can stay current on the newest opportunities in the Resources Section of SMDM Connect.
|
|
The SMDM Lifetime Contributors list acknowledges the SMDM members who have made contributions to the Annual Fund and acknowledges donations and in-kind donations, received from October 2005 - June 1, 2022. Our heartfelt appreciation goes out to everyone who has supported our Society!
|
|
Editor-in-Chief
Netherlands Cancer Institute
|
|
Deputy Editor
New York University Grossman School of Medicine
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
