WriteSim TCExam - An open source text simulation environment for training novice researchers in scientific writing

BACKGROUND: The ability to write clearly and effectively is of central importance to the scientific enterprise. Encouraged by the success of simulation environments in other biomedical sciences, we developed WriteSim TCExam, an open-source, Web-based, textual simulation environment for teaching effective writing techniques to novice researchers. We shortlisted and modified an existing open source application - TCExam to serve as a textual simulation environment. After testing usability internally in our team, we conducted formal field usability studies with novice researchers. These were followed by formal surveys with researchers fitting the role of administrators and users (novice researchers) RESULTS: The development process was guided by feedback from usability tests within our research team. Online surveys and formal studies, involving members of the Research on Research group and selected novice researchers, show that the application is user-friendly. Additionally it has been used to train 25 novice researchers in scientific writing to date and has generated encouraging results. CONCLUSION: WriteSim TCExam is the first Web-based, open-source textual simulation environment designed to complement traditional scientific writing instruction. While initial reviews by students and educators have been positive, a formal study is needed to measure its benefits in comparison to standard instructional methods

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

Early but no long-term benefit of regional compared with general anesthesia for ambulatory hand surgery.

Background: The purpose of this study was to determine whether either regional anesthesia (RA) or general anesthesia (GA) provided the best analgesia with the fewest adverse effects up to 2 weeks after ambulatory hand surgery. Methods: Patients undergoing ambulatory hand surgery were randomly assigned to RA (axillary brachial plexus block; n = 50) or GA (n = 50). Before surgery, all patients rated their hand pain (visual analog scale) and pain-related disability (Pain-Disability Index). After surgery, eligibility for bypassing the postanesthesia care unit ("fast track") was determined, and pain, adverse effects, and home-readiness scores were measured. On postoperative days 1, 7, and 14, patients documented their pain, opioid consumption, adverse effects, Pain-Disability Index, and satisfaction. Results: More RA patients were fast-track eligible (P < 0.001), whereas duration of stay in the postanesthesia care unit was shorter in the RA group (P < 0.001). Time to first analgesic request was longer in the RA group (P < 0.001), and opioid consumption was reduced before discharge (P < 0.001). In the RA group, the pain ratings measured at 30, 60, 90, and 120 min after surgery were lower (P < 0.001), and patients spent less time in the hospital after surgery (P < 0.001). More GA patients experienced nausea/ vomiting during recovery in the hospital (P < 0.05). However, on postoperative days 1, 7, and 14, there were no differences in pain, opioid consumption, adverse effects, Pain-Disability Index, or satisfaction. Conclusions: Despite significant reduction in pain before discharge from the hospital after ambulatory hand surgery, singleshot axillary brachial plexus block does not reduce pain at home on postoperative day 1 or up to 14 days after surgery when compared with GA. However, RA does provide other significant early benefits, including reduction in nausea and faster discharge from the hospital