Seven Key Principles of Program and Project Success: A Best Practices Survey

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Organization Design Team (ODT), consisting of 20 seasoned program and project managers and systems engineers from a broad spectrum of the aerospace industry, academia, and government, was formed to support the Next Generation Launch Technology (NGLT) Program and the Constellation Systems Program. The purpose of the ODT was to investigate organizational factors that can lead to success or failure of complex government programs, and to identify tools and methods for the design, modeling, and analysis of new and more-efficient program and project organizations. The ODT conducted a series of workshops featuring invited lectures from seasoned program and project managers representing 25 significant technical programs spanning 50 years of experience. The result was the identification of seven key principles of program success that can be used to help design and operate future program organizations. This paper presents the success principles and examples of best practices that can significantly improve the design of program, project, and performing technical line organizations, the assessment of workforce needs and organization performance, and the execution of programs and projects

Quantifying possible bias in clinical and epidemiological studies with quantitative bias analysis: common approaches and limitations

Bias in epidemiological studies can adversely affect the validity of study findings. Sensitivity analyses, known as quantitative bias analyses, are available to quantify potential residual bias arising from measurement error, confounding, and selection into the study. Effective application of these methods benefits from the input of multiple parties including clinicians, epidemiologists, and statisticians. This article provides an overview of a few common methods to facilitate both the use of these methods and critical interpretation of applications in the published literature. Examples are given to describe and illustrate methods of quantitative bias analysis. This article also outlines considerations to be made when choosing between methods and discusses the limitations of quantitative bias analysis

Standardizing data reporting in the research community to enhance the utility of open data for SARS-CoV-2 wastewater surveillance

SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in wastewater is being rapidly developed and adopted as a public health monitoring tool worldwide. With wastewater surveillance programs being implemented across many different scales and by many different stakeholders, it is critical that data collected and shared are accompanied by an appropriate minimal amount of meta-information to enable meaningful interpretation and use of this new information source and intercomparison across datasets. While some databases are being developed for specific surveillance programs locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally, common globally-adopted data standards have not yet been established within the research community. Establishing such standards will require national and international consensus on what meta-information should accompany SARS-CoV-2 wastewater measurements. To establish a recommendation on minimum information to accompany reporting of SARS-CoV-2 occurrence in wastewater for the research community, the United States National Science Foundation (NSF) Research Coordination Network on Wastewater Surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 hosted a workshop in February 2021 with participants from academia, government agencies, private companies, wastewater utilities, public health laboratories, and research institutes. This report presents the primary two outcomes of the workshop: (i) a recommendation on the set of minimum meta-information that is needed to confidently interpret wastewater SARS-CoV-2 data, and (ii) insights from workshop discussions on how to improve standardization of data reporting

Reproducibility of the internal load and performance-based responses to simulated amateur boxing

This is a non-final version of an article published in final form in Thomson, E., & Lamb, K. (2017). Reproducibility of the internal load and performance-based responses to simulated amateur boxing. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31(12), 3396-3402. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001749The aim of this study was to examine the reproducibility of the internal load and performance-based responses to repeated bouts of a three-round amateur boxing simulation protocol (BOXFIT). Twenty-eight amateur boxers completed two familiarisation trials before performing two complete trials of the BOXFIT, separated by 4-7 days. To characterise the internal load, mean (HRmean) and peak (HRpeak) heart rate, breath-by-breath oxygen uptake (V ̇O2), aerobic energy expenditure (EEaer), excess carbon dioxide production (CO2excess) and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were recorded throughout each round and blood lactate determined post-BOXFIT. Additionally, an indication of the performance-based demands of the BOXFIT was provided by a measure of acceleration of the punches thrown in each round. Analysis revealed there were no significant differences (P > 0.05) between repeated trials in any round for all dependent measures. The typical error (coefficient variation %) for all but one marker of internal load (CO2excess) was 1.2 – 16.5% and reflected a consistency that was sufficient for the detection of moderate changes in variables owing to an intervention. The reproducibility of the punch accelerations was high (CV% range = 2.1 – 2.7%). In general, these findings suggest that the internal load and performance-based efforts recorded during the BOXFIT are reproducible and thereby offers practitioners a method by which meaningful changes impacting on performance could be identified

The reporting of studies conducted using observational routinely collected health data statement for pharmacoepidemiology (RECORD-PE).

In pharmacoepidemiology, routinely collected data from electronic health records (including primary care databases, registries, and administrative healthcare claims) are a resource for research evaluating the real world effectiveness and safety of medicines. Currently available guidelines for the reporting of research using non-randomised, routinely collected data - specifically the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) and the Strengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statements - do not capture the complexity of pharmacoepidemiological research. We have therefore extended the RECORD statement to include reporting guidelines specific to pharmacoepidemiological research (RECORD-PE). This article includes the RECORD-PE checklist (also available on www.record-statement.org) and explains each checklist item with examples of good reporting. We anticipate that increasing use of the RECORD-PE guidelines by researchers and endorsement and adherence by journal editors will improve the standards of reporting of pharmacoepidemiological research undertaken using routinely collected data. This improved transparency will benefit the research community, patient care, and ultimately improve public health

COVID-19 collateral: Indirect acute effects of the pandemic on physical and mental health in the UK

ABSTRACTBackgroundConcerns have been raised that the response to the UK COVID-19 pandemic may have worsened physical and mental health, and reduced use of health services. However, the scale of the problem is unquantified, impeding development of effective mitigations. We asked what has happened to general practice contacts for acute physical and mental health outcomes during the pandemic?MethodsUsing electronic health records from the Clinical Research Practice Datalink (CPRD) Aurum (2017-2020), we calculated weekly primary care contacts for selected acute physical and mental health conditions (including: anxiety, depression, acute alcohol-related events, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] exacerbations, cardiovascular and diabetic emergencies). We used interrupted time series (ITS) analysis to formally quantify changes in conditions after the introduction of population-wide restrictions (‘lockdown’) compared to the period prior to their introduction in March 2020.FindingsThe overall population included 9,863,903 individuals on 1st January 2017. Primary care contacts for all conditions dropped dramatically after introduction of population-wide restrictions. By July 2020, except for unstable angina and acute alcohol-related events, contacts for all conditions had not recovered to pre-lockdown levels. The largest reductions were for contacts for: diabetic emergencies (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.25-0.50), depression (OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.52-0.53), and self-harm (OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.54-0.58).InterpretationThere were substantial reductions in primary care contacts for acute physical and mental conditions with restrictions, with limited recovery by July 2020. It is likely that much of the deficit in care represents unmet need, with implications for subsequent morbidity and premature mortality. The conditions we studied are sufficiently severe that any unmet need will have substantial ramifications for the people experiencing the conditions and healthcare provision. Maintaining access must be a key priority in future public health planning (including further restrictions).FundingWellcome Trust Senior Fellowship (SML), Health Data Research UK.RESULTS IN CONTEXTEvidence before this studyA small study in 47 GP practices in a largely deprived, urban area of the UK (Salford) reported that primary care consultations for four broad diagnostic groups (circulatory disease, common mental health problems, type 2 diabetes mellitus and malignant cancer) declined by 16-50% between March and May 2020, compared to what was expected based on data from January 2010 to March 2020. We searched Medline for other relevant evidence of the indirect effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on physical and mental health from inception to September 25th 2020, for articles published in English, with titles including the search terms (“covid*” or “coronavirus” or “sars-cov-2”), and title or abstracts including the search terms (“indirect impact” or “missed diagnos*” or “missing diagnos*” or “delayed diagnos*” or ((“present*” or “consult*” or “engag*” or “access*”) AND (“reduction” or “decrease” or “decline”)). We found no further studies investigating the change in primary care contacts for specific physical- and mental-health conditions indirectly resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic or its control measures. There has been a reduction in hospital admissions and presentations to accident and emergency departments in the UK, particularly for myocardial infarctions and cerebrovascular accidents. However, there is no published evidence specifically investigating the changes in primary care contacts for severe acute physical and mental health conditions.Added value of this studyTo our knowledge this is the first study to explore changes in healthcare contacts for acute physical and mental health conditions in a large population representative of the UK. We used electronic primary care health records of nearly 10 million individuals across the UK to investigate the indirect impact of COVID-19 on primary care contacts for mental health, acute alcohol-related events, asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, and cardiovascular and diabetic emergencies up to July 2020. For all conditions studied, we found primary care contacts dropped dramatically following the introduction of population-wide restriction measures in March 2020. By July 2020, with the exception of unstable angina and acute alcohol-related events, primary care contacts for all conditions studied had not recovered to pre-lockdown levels. In the general population, estimates of the absolute reduction in the number of primary care contacts up to July 2020, compared to what we would expect from previous years varied from fewer than 10 contacts per million for some cardiovascular outcomes, to 12,800 per million for depression and 6,600 for anxiety. In people with COPD, we estimated there were 43,900 per million fewer contacts for COPD exacerbations up to July 2020 than what we would expect from previous years.Implicatins of all the available evidenceWhile our results may represent some genuine reduction in disease frequency (e.g. the restriction measures may have improved diabetic glycaemic control due to more regular daily routines at home), it is more likely the reduced primary care conatcts we saw represent a substantial burden of unmet need (particularly for mental health conditions) that may be reflected in subsequent increased mortality and morbidity. Health service providers should take steps to prepare for increased demand in the coming months and years due to the short and longterm ramifications of reduced access to care for severe acute physical and mental health conditions. Maintaining access to primary care is key to future public health planning in relation to the pandemic.</jats:sec

Indirect acute effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on physical and mental health in the UK: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: There are concerns that the response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK might have worsened physical and mental health, and reduced use of health services. However, the scale of the problem is unquantified, impeding development of effective mitigations. We aimed to ascertain what has happened to general practice contacts for acute physical and mental health outcomes during the pandemic. METHODS: Using de-identified electronic health records from the Clinical Research Practice Datalink (CPRD) Aurum (covering 13% of the UK population), between 2017 and 2020, we calculated weekly primary care contacts for selected acute physical and mental health conditions: anxiety, depression, self-harm (fatal and non-fatal), severe mental illness, eating disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, acute alcohol-related events, asthma exacerbation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation, acute cardiovascular events (cerebrovascular accident, heart failure, myocardial infarction, transient ischaemic attacks, unstable angina, and venous thromboembolism), and diabetic emergency. Primary care contacts included remote and face-to-face consultations, diagnoses from hospital discharge letters, and secondary care referrals, and conditions were identified through primary care records for diagnoses, symptoms, and prescribing. Our overall study population included individuals aged 11 years or older who had at least 1 year of registration with practices contributing to CPRD Aurum in the specified period, but denominator populations varied depending on the condition being analysed. We used an interrupted time-series analysis to formally quantify changes in conditions after the introduction of population-wide restrictions (defined as March 29, 2020) compared with the period before their introduction (defined as Jan 1, 2017 to March 7, 2020), with data excluded for an adjustment-to-restrictions period (March 8-28). FINDINGS: The overall population included 9 863 903 individuals on Jan 1, 2017, and increased to 10 226 939 by Jan 1, 2020. Primary care contacts for almost all conditions dropped considerably after the introduction of population-wide restrictions. The largest reductions were observed for contacts for diabetic emergencies (odds ratio 0·35 [95% CI 0·25-0·50]), depression (0·53 [0·52-0·53]), and self-harm (0·56 [0·54-0·58]). In the interrupted time-series analysis, with the exception of acute alcohol-related events (0·98 [0·89-1·10]), there was evidence of a reduction in contacts for all conditions (anxiety 0·67 [0·66-0·67], eating disorders 0·62 [0·59-0·66], obsessive-compulsive disorder [0·69 [0·64-0·74]], self-harm 0·56 [0·54-0·58], severe mental illness 0·80 [0·78-0·83], stroke 0·59 [0·56-0·62], transient ischaemic attack 0·63 [0·58-0·67], heart failure 0·62 [0·60-0·64], myocardial infarction 0·72 [0·68-0·77], unstable angina 0·72 [0·60-0·87], venous thromboembolism 0·94 [0·90-0·99], and asthma exacerbation 0·88 [0·86-0·90]). By July, 2020, except for unstable angina and acute alcohol-related events, contacts for all conditions had not recovered to pre-lockdown levels. INTERPRETATION: There were substantial reductions in primary care contacts for acute physical and mental conditions following the introduction of restrictions, with limited recovery by July, 2020. Further research is needed to ascertain whether these reductions reflect changes in disease frequency or missed opportunities for care. Maintaining health-care access should be a key priority in future public health planning, including further restrictions. The conditions we studied are sufficiently severe that any unmet need will have substantial ramifications for the people with the conditions as well as health-care provision. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust Senior Fellowship, Health Data Research UK

Trends in eczema prevalence in children and adolescents: A Global Asthma Network Phase I Study

Background: Eczema (atopic dermatitis) is a major global public health issue with high prevalence and morbidity. Our goal was to evaluate eczema prevalence over time, using standardized methodology. Methods: The Global Asthma Network (GAN) Phase I study is an international collaborative study arising from the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Children (ISAAC). Using surveys, we assessed eczema prevalence, severity, and lifetime prevalence, in global centres participating in GAN Phase I (2015–2020) and one/ both of ISAAC Phase I (1993–1995) and Phase III (2001–2003). We fitted linear mixed models to estimate 10‐yearly prevalence trends, by age group, income, and region. Results: We analysed GAN Phase I data from 27 centres in 14 countries involving 74,361 adolescents aged 13–14 and 47,907 children aged 6–7 (response rate 90%, 79%). A median of 6% of children and adolescents had symptoms of current eczema, with 1.1% and 0.6% in adolescents and children, respectively, reporting symptoms of severe eczema. Over 27 years, after adjusting for world region and income, we estimated small overall 10‐year increases in current eczema prevalence (adolescents: 0.98%, 95% CI 0.04%–1.92%; children: 1.21%, 95% CI 0.18%–2.24%), and severe eczema (adolescents: 0.26%, 95% CI 0.06%–0.46%; children: 0.23%, 95% CI 0.02%–0.45%) with larger increases in lifetime prevalence (adolescents: 2.71%, 95% CI 1.10%–4.32%; children: 3.91%, 95% CI 2.07%–5.75%). There was substantial heterogeneity in 10‐year change between centres (standard deviations 2.40%, 0.58%, and 3.04%), and strong evidence that some of this heterogeneity was explained by region and income level, with increases in some outcomes in high‐income children and middle‐income adolescents. Conclusions: There is substantial variation in changes in eczema prevalence over time by income and region. Understanding reasons for increases in some regions and decreases in others will help inform prevention strategies

Clinical outcomes and response to treatment of patients receiving topical treatments for pyoderma gangrenosum: a prospective cohort study

Background: pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is an uncommon dermatosis with a limited evidence base for treatment. Objective: to estimate the effectiveness of topical therapies in the treatment of PG. Methods: prospective cohort study of UK secondary care patients with a clinical diagnosis of PG suitable for topical treatment (recruited July 2009 to June 2012). Participants received topical therapy following normal clinical practice (mainly Class I-III topical corticosteroids, tacrolimus 0.03% or 0.1%). Primary outcome: speed of healing at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes: proportion healed by 6 months; time to healing; global assessment; inflammation; pain; quality-of-life; treatment failure and recurrence. Results: Sixty-six patients (22 to 85 years) were enrolled. Clobetasol propionate 0.05% was the most commonly prescribed therapy. Overall, 28/66 (43.8%) of ulcers healed by 6 months. Median time-to-healing was 145 days (95% CI: 96 days, ∞). Initial ulcer size was a significant predictor of time-to-healing (hazard ratio 0.94 (0.88;80 1.00); p = 0.043). Four patients (15%) had a recurrence. Limitations: No randomised comparator Conclusion: Topical therapy is potentially an effective first-line treatment for PG that avoids possible side effects associated with systemic therapy. It remains unclear whether more severe disease will respond adequately to topical therapy alone