What does it mean to be affiliated with care?: Delphi consensus on the definition of unaffiliation and specialist in sickle cell disease

Accruing evidence reveals best practices for how to help individuals living with Sickle Cell Disease (SCD); yet, the implementation of these evidence-based practices in healthcare settings is lacking. The Sickle Cell Disease Implementation Consortium (SCDIC) is a national consortium that uses implementation science to identify and address barriers to care in SCD. The SCDIC seeks to understand how and why patients become unaffiliated from care and determine strategies to identify and connect patients to care. A challenge, however, is the lack of agreed-upon definition for what it means to be unaffiliated and what it means to be a SCD expert provider . In this study, we conducted a Delphi process to obtain expert consensus on what it means to be an unaffiliated patient with SCD and to define an SCD specialist, as no standard definition is available. Twenty-eight SCD experts participated in three rounds of questions. Consensus was defined as 80% or more of respondents agreeing. Experts reached consensus that an individual with SCD who is unaffiliated from care is someone who has not been seen by a sickle cell specialist in at least a year. A sickle cell specialist was defined as someone with knowledge and experience in SCD. Having knowledge means: being knowledgeable of the 2014 NIH Guidelines, Evidence-Based Management of SCD , trained in hydroxyurea management and transfusions, trained on screening for organ damage in SCD, trained in pain management and on SCD emergencies, and is aware of psychosocial and cognitive issues in SCD. Experiences that are expected of a SCD specialist include experience working with SCD patients, mentored by a SCD specialist, regular attendance at SCD conferences, and obtains continuing medical education on SCD every 2 years. The results have strong implications for future research, practice, and policy related to SCD by helping to lay a foundation for an new area of research (e.g., to identify subpopulations of unaffiliation and targeted interventions) and policies that support reaffiliation and increase accessibility to quality care

Physiological Correlates of Volunteering

We review research on physiological correlates of volunteering, a neglected but promising research field. Some of these correlates seem to be causal factors influencing volunteering. Volunteers tend to have better physical health, both self-reported and expert-assessed, better mental health, and perform better on cognitive tasks. Research thus far has rarely examined neurological, neurochemical, hormonal, and genetic correlates of volunteering to any significant extent, especially controlling for other factors as potential confounds. Evolutionary theory and behavioral genetic research suggest the importance of such physiological factors in humans. Basically, many aspects of social relationships and social activities have effects on health (e.g., Newman and Roberts 2013; Uchino 2004), as the widely used biopsychosocial (BPS) model suggests (Institute of Medicine 2001). Studies of formal volunteering (FV), charitable giving, and altruistic behavior suggest that physiological characteristics are related to volunteering, including specific genes (such as oxytocin receptor [OXTR] genes, Arginine vasopressin receptor [AVPR] genes, dopamine D4 receptor [DRD4] genes, and 5-HTTLPR). We recommend that future research on physiological factors be extended to non-Western populations, focusing specifically on volunteering, and differentiating between different forms and types of volunteering and civic participation

What does it mean to be affiliated with care?: Delphi consensus on the definition of "unaffiliation" and "specialist" in sickle cell disease.

Accruing evidence reveals best practices for how to help individuals living with Sickle Cell Disease (SCD); yet, the implementation of these evidence-based practices in healthcare settings is lacking. The Sickle Cell Disease Implementation Consortium (SCDIC) is a national consortium that uses implementation science to identify and address barriers to care in SCD. The SCDIC seeks to understand how and why patients become unaffiliated from care and determine strategies to identify and connect patients to care. A challenge, however, is the lack of agreed-upon definition for what it means to be unaffiliated and what it means to be a "SCD expert provider". In this study, we conducted a Delphi process to obtain expert consensus on what it means to be an "unaffiliated patient" with SCD and to define an "SCD specialist," as no standard definition is available. Twenty-eight SCD experts participated in three rounds of questions. Consensus was defined as 80% or more of respondents agreeing. Experts reached consensus that an individual with SCD who is unaffiliated from care is "someone who has not been seen by a sickle cell specialist in at least a year." A sickle cell specialist was defined as someone with knowledge and experience in SCD. Having "knowledge" means: being knowledgeable of the 2014 NIH Guidelines, "Evidence-Based Management of SCD", trained in hydroxyurea management and transfusions, trained on screening for organ damage in SCD, trained in pain management and on SCD emergencies, and is aware of psychosocial and cognitive issues in SCD. Experiences that are expected of a SCD specialist include experience working with SCD patients, mentored by a SCD specialist, regular attendance at SCD conferences, and obtains continuing medical education on SCD every 2 years." The results have strong implications for future research, practice, and policy related to SCD by helping to lay a foundation for an new area of research (e.g., to identify subpopulations of unaffiliation and targeted interventions) and policies that support reaffiliation and increase accessibility to quality care

Synthetic Glycomacromolecules of Defined Valency, Absolute Configuration, and Topology Distinguish between Human Lectins

Carbohydrate-binding proteins (lectins) play vital roles in cell recognition and signaling, including pathogen binding and innate immunity. Thus, targeting lectins, especially those on the surface of immune cells, could advance immunology and drug discovery. Lectins are typically oligomeric; therefore, many of the most potent ligands are multivalent. An effective strategy for lectin targeting is to display multiple copies of a single glycan epitope on a polymer backbone; however, a drawback to such multivalent ligands is they cannot distinguish between lectins that share monosaccharide binding selectivity (e.g., mannose-binding lectins) as they often lack molecular precision. Here, we describe the development of an iterative exponential growth (IEG) synthetic strategy that enables facile access to synthetic glycomacromolecules with precisely defined and tunable sizes up to 22.5 kDa, compositions, topologies, and absolute configurations. Twelve discrete mannosylated "glyco-IEGmers" are synthesized and screened for binding to a panel of mannoside-binding immune lectins (DC-SIGN, DC-SIGNR, MBL, SP-D, langerin, dectin-2, mincle, and DEC-205). In many cases, the glyco-IEGmers had distinct length, stereochemistry, and topology-dependent lectin-binding preferences. To understand these differences, we used molecular dynamics and density functional theory simulations of octameric glyco-IEGmers, which revealed dramatic effects of glyco-IEGmer stereochemistry and topology on solution structure and reveal an interplay between conformational diversity and chiral recognition in selective lectin binding. Ligand function also could be controlled by chemical substitution: by tuning the side chains of glyco-IEGmers that bind DC-SIGN, we could alter their cellular trafficking through alteration of their aggregation state. These results highlight the power of precision synthetic oligomer/polymer synthesis for selective biological targeting, motivating the development of next-generation glycomacromolecules tailored for specific immunological or other therapeutic applications

What does it mean to be affiliated with care?: Delphi consensus on the definition of “unaffiliation” and “specialist” in sickle cell disease

Accruing evidence reveals best practices for how to help individuals living with Sickle Cell Disease (SCD); yet, the implementation of these evidence-based practices in healthcare settings is lacking. The Sickle Cell Disease Implementation Consortium (SCDIC) is a national consortium that uses implementation science to identify and address barriers to care in SCD. The SCDIC seeks to understand how and why patients become unaffiliated from care and determine strategies to identify and connect patients to care. A challenge, however, is the lack of agreed-upon definition for what it means to be unaffiliated and what it means to be a “SCD expert provider”. In this study, we conducted a Delphi process to obtain expert consensus on what it means to be an “unaffiliated patient” with SCD and to define an “SCD specialist, ” as no standard definition is available. Twenty-eight SCD experts participated in three rounds of questions. Consensus was defined as 80% or more of respondents agreeing. Experts reached consensus that an individual with SCD who is unaffiliated from care is “someone who has not been seen by a sickle cell specialist in at least a year.” A sickle cell specialist was defined as someone with knowledge and experience in SCD. Having “knowledge” means: being knowledgeable of the 2014 NIH Guidelines, “Evidence-Based Management of SCD”, trained in hydroxyurea management and transfusions, trained on screening for organ damage in SCD, trained in pain management and on SCD emergencies, and is aware of psychosocial and cognitive issues in SCD. Experiences that are expected of a SCD specialist include experience working with SCD patients, mentored by a SCD specialist, regular attendance at SCD conferences, and obtains continuing medical education on SCD every 2 years.” The results have strong implications for future research, practice, and policy related to SCD by helping to lay a foundation for an new area of research (e.g., to identify subpopulations of unaffiliation and targeted interventions) and policies that support reaffiliation and increase accessibility to quality care