Search

Summary: Background: Pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide among adults and effective treatment options remain elusive. Data harmonization efforts, such as through core outcome sets (COS), could improve care by highlighting cross-cutting pain mechanisms and treatments. Existing pain-related COS often focus on specific conditions, which can hamper data harmonization across various pain states. Methods: Our objective was to develop four overarching COS of domains/subdomains (i.e., what to measure) that transcend pain conditions within different pain categories. We hosted a meeting to assess the need for these four COS in pain research and clinical practice. Potential COS domains/subdomains were identified via a systematic literature review (SLR), meeting attendees, and Delphi participants. We conducted an online, three step Delphi process to reach a consensus on domains to be included in the four final COS. Survey respondents were identified from the SLR and pain-related social networks, including multidisciplinary health care professionals, researchers, and people with lived experience (PWLE) of pain. Advisory boards consisting of COS experts and PWLE provided advice throughout the process. Findings: Domains in final COS were generally related to aspects of pain, quality of life, and physical function/activity limitations, with some differences among pain categories. This effort was the first to generate four separate, overarching COS to encourage international data harmonization within and across different pain categories. Interpretation: The adoption of the COS in research and clinical practice will facilitate comparisons and data integration around the world and across pain studies to optimize resources, expedite therapeutic discovery, and improve pain care. Funding: Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Join Undertaking; European Union Horizon 2020 research innovation program, European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) provided funding for IMI-PainCare. RDT acknowledges grants from Esteve and TEVA.

Abstract Background There is increasing interest in actively involving patients in the process of medical research to help ensure research is relevant and important to both researchers and people affected by the disease under study. This project examined the recently formed Vasculitis Patient-Powered Research Network (VPPRN), a rare disease research network, to better understand what investigators and patients learned from working on research teams together. Methods Qualitative interviews were conducted by phone with patients, physician/PhD-investigators, and study managers/staff who participated in the network. The question guiding the interviews and observational analysis was: “What have investigators and patients learned about working together while working on VPPRN teams?” Interview transcripts were analyzed in combination with observations from multiple in-person and telephone meetings. Results Transcripts and notes were reviewed and coded from 22 interviews conducted among 13 patient-partners, 5 study managers/staff, and 4 MD or PhD-investigators, and 6 in-person and 42 telephone/web-conference meetings. Patient-partners and investigators characterized their working relationships with one another, what they learned from their collaborations, and provided recommendations for future teams of patient-partners and investigators. Major themes included the great benefits of communicating about activities, being open to listening to each group member, and the importance of setting reasonable expectations. Conclusions Direct engagement in research design and development by patient-partners and co-learning between investigators and patient-partners can result in a positive and productive working relationship for all members of a medical research team. This bi-directional engagement directly benefits and impacts research design, participant recruitment to studies, and study subject retention.

Using data from the 2012 Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership (n = 74,938), this study examines the relationships among gender, ROTC participation, students' sense of belonging, and perceptions of campus climate. Findings reveal that gender describes little variance in sense of belonging when perceptions of climate are taken into consideration; at the same time, cadets broadly, regardless of gender, report greater instances of discrimination on campus than the general student populations. Implications are addressed.

The purpose of this comparative study was to investigate and compare the academic policies of the Korean University Sport Federation (KUSF) and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). A qualitative, multiple case study design was utilized for this study. Specifically, in-depth interviews were completed with current South Korean (N = 3) and US (N = 3) college women's tennis players to understand their experiences and perceptions linked to the KUSF's and NCAA's academic policies. A total of three distinct themes emerged with US student-athletes: (a) academic advisor involvement, (b) academic regulations, and (c) study hall. One theme emerged with South Korean student-athletes: absence of academic support. The results of this study provide practical insights to administrators of South Korean intercollegiate athletics regarding their academic policies.

Colleges and universities increasingly rely on their websites to recruit students and convey information about tuition and costs of attendance. Given evidence of growing complexity in institutional tuition policies and cost-setting practices, the study examined how institutions' websites present financial information to the public. Through content analysis of website data from 50 public colleges and universities, researchers sought to characterize patterns in the scope and quality of tuition information on institutional websites and to understand how these patterns might influence individuals' conceptions of tuition and costs. The findings point to variation in informational quality across dimensions ranging from clarity of language use and terminology, to consistency and coherence of visual displays, which accompany navigational challenges stemming from information fragmentation and discontinuity across pages. Implications for research and improved institutional practice are discussed.

Women are underrepresented in many science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors and in some non-STEM majors (e.g., philosophy). Combining newly gathered data on students' perceptions of college major traits with data from the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002), we find that perceived gender bias against women emerges as the dominant predictor of the gender balance in college majors. The perception of the major being math or science oriented is less important. We replicate these findings using a separate sample to measure college major traits. Results suggest the need to incorporate major-level traits in research on gender gaps in college major choices and the need to recognize the impact of perceptions of potential gender discrimination on college major choices.

In recent decades, efforts to diversify Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields have relied on a variety of recruitment and retention programs designed to improve access and outcomes of traditionally underrepresented populations. Examining how such programs emerge within institutions of higher education in the United States -- including original motivations, sources of funding, and institutional agents involved in the development and stages of implementation of the program -- reveals a lack of strategic and systematic approach to diversifying these fields. Drawing on interviews with administrators representing nearly 40 STEM intervention programs at 10 universities in the United States, this study examines program origins through the lens of institutional isomorphism. The analyses provide evidence of mimetic and coercive isomorphism, and little evidence of strategic decision-making and resource allocation.