Design, recruitment, and retention of African-American smokers in a pharmacokinetic study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>African-Americans remain underrepresented in clinical research despite experiencing a higher burden of disease compared to all other ethnic groups in the United States. The purpose of this article is to describe the study design and discuss strategies used to recruit and retain African-American smokers in a pharmacokinetic study.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The parent study was designed to evaluate the differences in the steady-state concentrations of bupropion and its three principal metabolites between African-American menthol and non-menthol cigarette smokers. Study participation consisted of four visits at a General Clinical Research Center (GCRC) over six weeks. After meeting telephone eligibility requirements, phone-eligible participants underwent additional screening during the first two GCRC visits. The last two visits (pharmacokinetic study phase) required repeated blood draws using an intravenous catheter over the course of 12 hours.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Five hundred and fifteen African-American smokers completed telephone screening; 187 were phone-eligible and 92 were scheduled for the first GCRC visit. Of the 81 who attended the first visit, 48 individuals were enrolled in the pharmacokinetic study, and a total of 40 individuals completed the study (83% retention rate).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Although recruitment of African-American smokers into a non-treatment, pharmacokinetic study poses challenges, retention is feasible. The results provide valuable information for investigators embarking on non-treatment laboratory-based studies among minority populations.</p

An Estimate of Avian Mortality at Communication Towers in the United States and Canada

Avian mortality at communication towers in the continental United States and Canada is an issue of pressing conservation concern. Previous estimates of this mortality have been based on limited data and have not included Canada. We compiled a database of communication towers in the continental United States and Canada and estimated avian mortality by tower with a regression relating avian mortality to tower height. This equation was derived from 38 tower studies for which mortality data were available and corrected for sampling effort, search efficiency, and scavenging where appropriate. Although most studies document mortality at guyed towers with steady-burning lights, we accounted for lower mortality at towers without guy wires or steady-burning lights by adjusting estimates based on published studies. The resulting estimate of mortality at towers is 6.8 million birds per year in the United States and Canada. Bootstrapped subsampling indicated that the regression was robust to the choice of studies included and a comparison of multiple regression models showed that incorporating sampling, scavenging, and search efficiency adjustments improved model fit. Estimating total avian mortality is only a first step in developing an assessment of the biological significance of mortality at communication towers for individual species or groups of species. Nevertheless, our estimate can be used to evaluate this source of mortality, develop subsequent per-species mortality estimates, and motivate policy action

Not all flavor expertise is equal : The language of wine and coffee experts

People in Western cultures are poor at naming smells and flavors. However, for wine and coffee experts, describing smells and flavors is part of their daily routine. So are experts better than lay people at conveying smells and flavors in language? If smells and flavors are more easily linguistically expressed by experts, or more "codable", then experts should be better than novices at describing smells and flavors. If experts are indeed better, we can also ask how general this advantage is: do experts show higher codability only for smells and flavors they are expert in (i.e., wine experts for wine and coffee experts for coffee) or is their linguistic dexterity more general? To address these questions, wine experts, coffee experts, and novices were asked to describe the smell and flavor of wines, coffees, everyday odors, and basic tastes. The resulting descriptions were compared on a number of measures. We found expertise endows a modest advantage in smell and flavor naming. Wine experts showed more consistency in how they described wine smells and flavors than coffee experts, and novices; but coffee experts were not more consistent for coffee descriptions. Neither expert group was any more accurate at identifying everyday smells or tastes. Interestingly, both wine and coffee experts tended to use more source-based terms (e.g., vanilla) in descriptions of their own area of expertise whereas novices tended to use more evaluative terms (e.g., nice). However, the overall linguistic strategies for both groups were en par. To conclude, experts only have a limited, domain-specific advantage when communicating about smells and flavors. The ability to communicate about smells and flavors is a matter not only of perceptual training, but specific linguistic training too