A Structured Framework and Resources to Use to Get Your Medical Education Work Published.

IntroductionMedical educators often have great ideas for medical education scholarship but have difficulty converting their educational abstract or project into a published manuscript.MethodsDuring this workshop, participants addressed common challenges in developing an educational manuscript. In small-group case scenarios, participants discovered the importance of the "So what?" in making the case for their project. Incorporating conceptual frameworks, participants chose appropriate outcome metrics, discussed how to frame the discussion section, and ensured appropriate journal fit. After each small-group exercise, large-group discussions allowed the small groups to report back so that facilitators could highlight and reinforce key learning points. At the conclusion of the workshop, participants left with a checklist for creating an educational manuscript and an additional resources document to assist them in avoiding common pitfalls when turning their educational abstract/project into a publishable manuscript.ResultsThis workshop was presented in 2016 and 2017. Presenter evaluations were completed by 33 participants; 11 completed conference evaluations. The mean overall rating on presenter evaluations was 4.55 out of 5, while the conference evaluations mean was 3.73 out of 4. Comments provided on both evaluation tools highlighted the perceived effectiveness of the delivery and content. More than 50% of respondents stated that they planned to incorporate the use of conceptual frameworks in future work.DiscussionThis workshop helped participants address common challenges by providing opportunities for hands-on practice as well as tips and resources for use when submitting a medical education manuscript for publication

Comparison of total body water estimates from O-18 and bioelectrical response prediction equations

Identification of an indirect, rapid means to measure total body water (TBW) during space flight may aid in quantifying hydration status and assist in countermeasure development. Bioelectrical response testing and hydrostatic weighing were performed on 27 subjects who ingested O-18, a naturally occurring isotope of oxygen, to measure true TBW. TBW estimates from three bioelectrical response prediction equations and fat-free mass (FFM) were compared to TBW measured from O-18. A repeated measures MANOVA with post-hoc Dunnett's Test indicated a significant (p less than 0.05) difference between TBW estimates from two of the three bioelectrical response prediction equations and O-18. TBW estimates from FFM and the Kushner & Schoeller (1986) equation yielded results that were similar to those given by O-18. Strong correlations existed between each prediction method and O-18; however, standard errors, identified through regression analyses, were higher for the bioelectrical response prediction equations compared to those derived from FFM. These findings suggest (1) the Kushner & Schoeller (1986) equation may provide a valid measure of TBW, (2) other TBW prediction equations need to be identified that have variability similar to that of FFM, and (3) bioelectrical estimates of TBW may prove valuable in quantifying hydration status during space flight

Uncertainty Types and Transitions in the Entrepreneurial Process

While judgment has hitherto typically been viewed as a discrete decision process, we propose that it be conceptualized instead as a continuous and dynamic process of reassessment and revision. Adopting this approach, we revisit the nature of entrepreneurial decision making under uncertainty. We begin with a novel typology of uncertainty that defines and delineates different types of uncertain contexts. We then examine the nature of decision making within these distinct contexts, highlighting differences in how entrepreneurs make decisions within different types of uncertainty. We build these insights into a theory of the entrepreneurial process that highlights the transitory nature of uncertainty as entrepreneurs make certain judgments and revise those judgments over time. We discuss how uncertainty transitions throughout the judgment process, how the judgment process continues dynamically even after a judgment is made, and how the nature of uncertainty shifts over time due to endogenous and exogenous change