The influence of tumor regression, solar elastosis, and patient age on pathologists\u27 interpretation of melanocytic skin lesions.

It is not known whether patient age or tumor characteristics such as tumor regression or solar elastosis influence pathologists\u27 interpretation of melanocytic skin lesions (MSLs). We undertook a study to determine the influence of these factors, and to explore pathologist\u27s characteristics associated with the direction of diagnosis. To meet our objective, we designed a cross-sectional survey study of pathologists\u27 clinical practices and perceptions. Pathologists were recruited from diverse practices in 10 states in the United States. We enrolled 207 pathologist participants whose practice included the interpretation of MSLs. Our findings indicated that the majority of pathologists (54.6%) were influenced toward a less severe diagnosis when patients were70 years of age, or by the presence of tumor regression or solar elastosis (58.5%, 71.0%, and 57.0%, respectively). Generally, pathologists with dermatopathology board certification and/or a high caseload of MSLs were more likely to be influenced, whereas those with more years\u27 experience interpreting MSL were less likely to be influenced. Our findings indicate that the interpretation of MSLs is influenced by patient age, tumor regression, and solar elastosis; such influence is associated with dermatopathology training and higher caseload, consistent with expertise and an appreciation of lesion complexity

Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) 2015: advancing efficient methodologies through community partnerships and team science

It is well documented that the majority of adults, children and families in need of evidence-based behavioral health interventionsi do not receive them [1, 2] and that few robust empirically supported methods for implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) exist. The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) represents a burgeoning effort to advance the innovation and rigor of implementation research and is uniquely focused on bringing together researchers and stakeholders committed to evaluating the implementation of complex evidence-based behavioral health interventions. Through its diverse activities and membership, SIRC aims to foster the promise of implementation research to better serve the behavioral health needs of the population by identifying rigorous, relevant, and efficient strategies that successfully transfer scientific evidence to clinical knowledge for use in real world settings [3]. SIRC began as a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-funded conference series in 2010 (previously titled the “Seattle Implementation Research Conference”; $150,000 USD for 3 conferences in 2011, 2013, and 2015) with the recognition that there were multiple researchers and stakeholdersi working in parallel on innovative implementation science projects in behavioral health, but that formal channels for communicating and collaborating with one another were relatively unavailable. There was a significant need for a forum within which implementation researchers and stakeholders could learn from one another, refine approaches to science and practice, and develop an implementation research agenda using common measures, methods, and research principles to improve both the frequency and quality with which behavioral health treatment implementation is evaluated. SIRC’s membership growth is a testament to this identified need with more than 1000 members from 2011 to the present.ii SIRC’s primary objectives are to: (1) foster communication and collaboration across diverse groups, including implementation researchers, intermediariesi, as well as community stakeholders (SIRC uses the term “EBP champions” for these groups) – and to do so across multiple career levels (e.g., students, early career faculty, established investigators); and (2) enhance and disseminate rigorous measures and methodologies for implementing EBPs and evaluating EBP implementation efforts. These objectives are well aligned with Glasgow and colleagues’ [4] five core tenets deemed critical for advancing implementation science: collaboration, efficiency and speed, rigor and relevance, improved capacity, and cumulative knowledge. SIRC advances these objectives and tenets through in-person conferences, which bring together multidisciplinary implementation researchers and those implementing evidence-based behavioral health interventions in the community to share their work and create professional connections and collaborations

Comparing burden of dermatologic disease to search interest on google trends

Google Trends is a publicly available resource for comparing Internet search query frequency and trends interest in queries over time. The tool provides country, region, and city-specific data for term search volume on Google Search. Our study sought to compare the relative search interest to the burden of disease for the fifteen skin conditions studied by the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2010 project. Searches on Google Trends were conducted by using the most inclusive terms and true ICD code definitions as possible for the skin conditions studied. We report that relative interest on Google Trends did largely correlate to burden of disease reported by the GBD 2010 study, though some conditions were either underrepresented or overrepresented. Acne and herpes were the most Googled skin disease terms. This study provides further insight into what may be the most burdensome skin diseases because those with more burdensome diseases likely sought out information on their condition

Resident perspectives on a dermatology Quality Improvement curriculum: the University of Colorado experience

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have prioritized the objective of optimizing quality healthcare though quality improvement initiatives, yet research on dermatology-specific QI programs and their perceptions among dermatology residents remains limited. We explore residents’ opinions of a dermatology-specific QI scholarly project curriculum implemented at University of Colorado Denver (UCD) in 2010 and also evaluate residents’ attitudes regarding the value of this curriculum in aiding them to meet ACGME core competencies

Resident perspectives on a dermatology Quality Improvement curriculum: the University of Colorado experience

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have prioritized the objective of optimizing quality healthcare though quality improvement initiatives, yet research on dermatology-specific QI programs and their perceptions among dermatology residents remains limited. We explore residents’ opinions of a dermatology-specific QI scholarly project curriculum implemented at University of Colorado Denver (UCD) in 2010 and also evaluate residents’ attitudes regarding the value of this curriculum in aiding them to meet ACGME core competencies

The CRN Scholars Program: Career Development Within CRN

Background/Aims: The Cancer Research Network (CRN) Scholars Program was launched during the third cycle of the collaborative grant to increase research capacity within the CRN. Specific goals of the program include: (1) becoming a principal investigator on a successful investigator-initiated grant within the CRN, and (2) primary author on peer-reviewed, published manuscripts reporting original research from the CRN. In addition to developing research expertise utilizing CRN resources, the CRN Scholars Program fosters development of skills difficult to acquire in other training environments, including the initiation of collaborative research proposals involving stakeholders in integrated health care delivery systems, use and analysis of complex clinical, claims and pharmaceutical data, and strategic grant proposal development tailored to the unique resources and opportunities afforded by the CRN. Methods: The 26-month program facilitates individualized mentorship, creation of research advisory teams for each scholar comprised of investigators from their home institution and collaborating CRN sites. Monthly one-on-one mentoring meetings and quarterly mentoring team meetings enable scholars to gain familiarity with the CRN landscape to develop novel, investigator-initiated projects with CRN collaborators. Additionally, scholars attend semiannual in-person meetings and conduct bimonthly group conference calls examining academic career development, writing and review of research proposals, analytic design, discussing available funding opportunities, execution of multisite research studies, and media training. Results: The first two Scholars Program cohorts included CRN-affiliated junior investigators, while the current iteration of the Scholars Program (CRN4) has shifted focus to include external junior investigator researchers pursuing training in the conduct of multisite, multidisciplinary population-based studies. Members of the CRN4 cohort have successfully received career development awards and independent grants to support their CRN work, published several first-authored manuscripts and received awards honoring their research. Discussion: The CRN Scholars Program is working to expand the scope and scale of investigators conducting cancer research within integrated health care delivery systems, a goal of significant importance given nationwide shifts in policy and practice in the organization of medical care and emphasis on population health. Accordingly, the CRN Scholars Program is well positioned to produce future leaders in cancer research and, ultimately, improve the lives of patients