Helping Children Through Evidence-based Trauma Treatments, Initial Findings from the Massachusetts Child Trauma Project (MCTP)

Background-The Massachusetts Child Trauma Project (MCTP) is a statewide collaboration to implement improvements to the Massachusetts child welfare system in order to increase access to trauma services for children within the system. Purpose-This analysis compares PTSD symptoms and other behavioral and functional impairments at baseline and at 6-month follow-up/discharge among children enrolled in MCTP. Methods-The 166 clinicians trained in MCTP were required to enroll 2-3 children in the care of DCF into the evaluation process. Descriptive statistics were performed on the 300 children enrolled at baseline, as of Fall 2013. Paired t-tests were performed on the 73 children who had follow-up data to assess longitudinal differences in symptoms, behaviors, impairments, and functioning. Results-The baseline results indicate that children enrolled in MCTP present with clinical levels of symptoms of PTSD and behavioral/functional impairment. There were statistically significant decreases in PTSD severity (p=0.005), according to the UCLA PTSD Index Child/Adolescent Version. Additionally, internalizing behaviors, such as anxiety and/or depression, decreased (p=0.05), as assessed by the Child Behavior Checklist. However, the UCLA PTSD Index Parent Version and the externalizing measure of the Child Behavior Checklist showed symptom reduction, but were not statistically significant. Clinician reported progress, ascertained by the Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS), showed mixed findings. Conclusion-While there was no comparison group, these results suggest that the trauma treatments provided by MCTP trained mental health providers is reducing symptamotolgy and improving functioning among children in DCF care who experienced trauma. Baseline findings indicate that most children present with symptoms in the clinical range of PTSD and other trauma-related impairments, while longitudinal results show that these children are experiencing symptom reduction, and improved functioning, suggesting that the trainings that MCTP has provided have been effective

Women\u27s Choir with Lost Mountain Middle School 7th and 8th Grade Choirs

Kennesaw State University School of Music presents Women\u27s Choir with Lost Mountain Middle School 7th and 8th Grade Choirs with Brenda Brent, piano.https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/musicprograms/1873/thumbnail.jp

Great Places to Work

As prospective employees, we want to know what kinds of values our employers possess and which of our values they welcome. By researching what to look for in a company before graduating, we will have a better understanding of what a company stands for so we can narrow our search to a place where we can fit in, yet stand out and contribute effectively to our employers\u27 mission and success. In order to find that perfect company, we looked at several lists of the top 100 companies in the areas where we plan to live upon graduation, then we narrowed down our options to what made each company stand out from other companies in the same industry. We also conducted primary research to find out what qualities potential employees look for in future employers and how current employees view their workplace

Effect of Doximity Residency Rankings on Residency Applicants’ Program Choices

Introduction: Choosing a residency program is a stressful and important decision. Doximity released residency program rankings by specialty in September 2014. This study sought to investigate the impact of those rankings on residency application choices made by fourth year medical students. Methods: A 12-item survey was administered in October 2014 to fourth year medical students at three schools. Students indicated their specialty, awareness of and perceived accuracy of the rankings, and the rankings’ impact on the programs to which they chose to apply. Descriptive statistics were reported for all students and those applying to Emergency Medicine (EM).  Results: A total of 461 (75.8%) students responded, with 425 applying in one of the 20 Doximity ranked specialties. Of the 425, 247 (58%) were aware of the rankings and 177 looked at them. On a 1-100 scale (100=very accurate), students reported a mean ranking accuracy rating of 56.7 (SD 20.3). Forty-five percent of students who looked at the rankings modified the number of programs to which they applied. The majority added programs. Of the 47 students applying to EM, 18 looked at the rankings and 33% changed their application list with most adding programs.Conclusion: The Doximity rankings had real effects on students applying to residencies as almost half of students who looked at the rankings modified their program list. Additionally, students found the rankings to be moderately accurate. Graduating students might benefit from emphasis on more objective characterization of programs to assess in light of their own interests and personal/career goals

Effect of Doximity Residency Rankings on Residency Applicants’ Program Choices

Introduction: Choosing a residency program is a stressful and important decision. Doximity released residency program rankings by specialty in September 2014. This study sought to investigate the impact of those rankings on residency application choices made by fourth year medical students. Methods: A 12-item survey was administered in October 2014 to fourth year medical students at three schools. Students indicated their specialty, awareness of and perceived accuracy of the rankings, and the rankings’ impact on the programs to which they chose to apply. Descriptive statistics were reported for all students and those applying to Emergency Medicine (EM). Results: A total of 461 (75.8%) students responded, with 425 applying in one of the 20 Doximity ranked specialties. Of the 425, 247 (58%) were aware of the rankings and 177 looked at them. On a 1-100 scale (100=very accurate), students reported a mean ranking accuracy rating of 56.7 (SD 20.3). Forty-five percent of students who looked at the rankings modified the number of programs to which they applied. The majority added programs. Of the 47 students applying to EM, 18 looked at the rankings and 33% changed their application list with most adding programs. Conclusion: The Doximity rankings had real effects on students applying to residencies as almost half of students who looked at the rankings modified their program list. Additionally, students found the rankings to be moderately accurate. Graduating students might benefit from emphasis on more objective characterization of programs to assess in light of their own interests and personal/career goal

Effect of Doximity Residency Rankings on Residency Applicants’ Program Choices

Introduction: Choosing a residency program is a stressful and important decision. Doximity released residency program rankings by specialty in September 2014. This study sought to investigate the impact of those rankings on residency application choices made by fourth year medical students. Methods: A 12-item survey was administered in October 2014 to fourth year medical students at three schools. Students indicated their specialty, awareness of and perceived accuracy of the rankings, and the rankings’ impact on the programs to which they chose to apply. Descriptive statistics were reported for all students and those applying to Emergency Medicine (EM). Results: A total of 461 (75.8%) students responded, with 425 applying in one of the 20 Doximity ranked specialties. Of the 425, 247 (58%) were aware of the rankings and 177 looked at them. On a 1-100 scale (100=very accurate), students reported a mean ranking accuracy rating of 56.7 (SD 20.3). Forty-five percent of students who looked at the rankings modified the number of programs to which they applied. The majority added programs. Of the 47 students applying to EM, 18 looked at the rankings and 33% changed their application list with most adding programs. Conclusion: The Doximity rankings had real effects on students applying to residencies as almost half of students who looked at the rankings modified their program list. Additionally, students found the rankings to be moderately accurate. Graduating students might benefit from emphasis on more objective characterization of programs to assess in light of their own interests and personal/career goal

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field