Integrating information management knowledge and skills in the pre-clinical curriculum.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Clinical Competence↗
Biomedical subjects
Henry C Barry
Publications and source records attributed to Henry C Barry.
Infrastructure requirements for practice-based research networks.
BACKGROUND: The practice-based research network (PBRN) is the basic laboratory for primary care research. Although most PBRNs include some common elements, their infrastructures vary widely. We offer suggestions for developing and supporting infrastructures to enhance PBRN research success. METHODS: Information was compiled based on published articles, the PBRN Resource Center survey of 2003, our PBRN experiences, and discussions with directors and coordinators from other PBRNs. RESULTS: PBRN research ranges from observational studies, through intervention studies, clinical trials, and quality of care research, to large-scale practice change interventions. Basic infrastructure elements such as a membership roster, a board, a director, a coordinator, a news-sharing function, a means of addressing requirements of institutional review boards and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and a network meeting must exist to support these initiatives. Desirable elements such as support staff, electronic medical records, multiuser databases, mentoring and development programs, mock study sections, and research training are costly and difficult to sustain through project grant funds. These infrastructure elements must be selected, configured, and sized according to the PBRN's self-defined research mission. Annual infrastructure costs are estimated to range from $69,700 for a basic network to $287,600 for a moderately complex network. CONCLUSIONS: Well-designed and properly supported PBRN infrastructures can support a wide range of research of great direct value to patients and society. Increased and more consistent infrastructure support could generate an explosion of pragmatic, generalizable knowledge about currently understudied populations, settings, and health care problems.
Biomedical Research↗
Periodic abstinence from Pap (PAP) smear study: women's perceptions of Pap smear screening.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to explore attitudes, beliefs, and perceived barriers to risk-based cervical cancer screening through focus group interviews of patients. METHODS: We conducted 8 focus group interviews of women using semistructured interviews. The investigators independently reviewed the focus group transcripts and identified the overall themes and themes unique to each question using an immersion and crystallization approach. RESULTS: Women are in agreement that cervical cancer screening is important and that women should get Pap smears regularly as an important way of protecting their health. They are not open to the idea of reducing the frequency of Papanicolaou (Pap) smears, however, because they perceive annual screening to be successful in reducing cervical cancer mortality. Additionally, they have concerns about test accuracy. Women are distrustful of the rationale for reducing the frequency of Pap smears. Women's previous bad experiences have reinforced their need for self-advocacy. CONCLUSION: Women are reluctant to engage in risk-based cervical cancer screening. In this environment, risk-based cervical cancer screening recommendations are likely to be met with resistance.
Adult↗
Breaking through the glass ceiling: a survey of promotion rates of graduates of a primary care Faculty Development Fellowship Program.
BACKGROUND: Academic promotion has been difficult for women and faculty of minority race. We investigated whether completion of a faculty development fellowship would equalize promotion rates of female and minority graduates to those of male and white graduates. METHODS: All graduates of the Michigan State University Primary Care Faculty Development Fellowship Program from 1989-1998 were sent a survey in 1999, which included questions about academic status and appointment. We compared application and follow-up survey data by gender and race/ethnicity. Telephone calls were made to nonrespondents. RESULTS: A total of 175 (88%) graduating fellows responded to the follow-up survey. Information on academic rank at entry and follow-up was obtained from 28 of 48 fellows with missing information on promotion. Male and female graduates achieved similar academic promotion at follow-up, but there was a trend toward lower promotion rates for minority faculty graduates compared to white graduates. In the multivariate analysis, however, only age, years in rank, initial rank, and type of appointment (academic versus clinical) were significant factors for promotion. CONCLUSIONS: Academic advancement is multifactorial and appears most related to time in rank, stage of life, and career choice. Faculty development programs may be most useful in providing skill development and career counseling.
Age Factors↗