Barriers to reporting child maltreatment: do emergency medical services professionals fully understand their role as mandatory reporters?

BACKGROUND: Child maltreatment is underreported in the United States and in North Carolina. In North Carolina and other states, mandatory reporting laws require various professionals to make reports, thereby helping to reduce underreporting of child maltreatment. This study aims to understand why emergency medical services (EMS) professionals may fail to report suspicions of maltreatment despite mandatory reporting policies. METHODS: A web-based, anonymous, voluntary survey of EMS professionals in North Carolina was used to assess knowledge of their agency's written protocols and potential reasons for underreporting suspicion of maltreatment (n=444). Results were based on descriptive statistics. Responses of line staff and leadership personnel were compared using chi-square analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-eight percent of respondents were unaware of their agency's written protocols regarding reporting of child maltreatment. Additionally, 25% of EMS professionals who knew of their agency's protocol incorrectly believed that the report should be filed by someone other than the person with firsthand knowledge of the suspected maltreatment. Leadership personnel generally understood reporting requirements better than did line staff. Respondents indicated that peers may fail to report maltreatment for several reasons: they believe another authority would file the report, including the hospital (52.3%) or law enforcement (27.7%); they are uncertain whether they had witnessed abuse (47.7%); and they are uncertain about what should be reported (41.4%). LIMITATIONS: This survey may not generalize to all EMS professionals in North Carolina. CONCLUSIONS: Training opportunities for EMS professionals that address proper identification and reporting of child maltreatment, as well as cross-agency information sharing, are warranted.

Gender differences in the risk of HIV infection among persons reporting abstinence, monogamy, and multiple sexual partners in northern Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: Monogamy, together with abstinence, partner reduction, and condom use, is widely advocated as a key behavioral strategy to prevent HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa. We examined the association between the number of sexual partners and the risk of HIV seropositivity among men and women presenting for HIV voluntary counseling and testing (VCT) in northern Tanzania. METHODOLOGY/ PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Clients presenting for HIV VCT at a community-based AIDS service organization in Moshi, Tanzania were surveyed between November 2003 and December 2007. Data on sociodemographic characteristics, reasons for testing, sexual behaviors, and symptoms were collected. Men and women were categorized by number of lifetime sexual partners, and rates of seropositivity were reported by category. Factors associated with HIV seropositivity among monogamous males and females were identified by a multivariate logistic regression model. Of 6,549 clients, 3,607 (55%) were female, and the median age was 30 years (IQR 24-40). 939 (25%) females and 293 (10%) males (p<0.0001) were HIV seropositive. Among 1,244 (34%) monogamous females and 423 (14%) monogamous males, the risk of HIV infection was 19% and 4%, respectively (p<0.0001). The risk increased monotonically with additional partners up to 45% (p<0.001) and 15% (p<0.001) for women and men, respectively with 5 or more partners. In multivariate analysis, HIV seropositivity among monogamous women was most strongly associated with age (p<0.0001), lower education (p<0.004), and reporting a partner with other partners (p = 0.015). Only age was a significant risk factor for monogamous men (p = 0.0004). INTERPRETATION: Among women presenting for VCT, the number of partners is strongly associated with rates of seropositivity; however, even women reporting lifetime monogamy have a high risk for HIV infection. Partner reduction should be coupled with efforts to place tools in the hands of sexually active women to reduce their risk of contracting HIV.

PARTAKE survey of public knowledge and perceptions of clinical research in India.

BACKGROUND: A public that is an informed partner in clinical research is important for ethical, methodological, and operational reasons. There are indications that the public is unaware or misinformed, and not sufficiently engaged in clinical research but studies on the topic are lacking. PARTAKE - Public Awareness of Research for Therapeutic Advancements through Knowledge and Empowerment is a program aimed at increasing public awareness and partnership in clinical research. The PARTAKE Survey is a component of the program. OBJECTIVE: To study public knowledge and perceptions of clinical research. METHODS: A 40-item questionnaire combining multiple-choice and open-ended questions was administered to 175 English- or Hindi-speaking individuals in 8 public locations representing various socioeconomic strata in New Delhi, India. RESULTS: Interviewees were 18-84 old (mean: 39.6, SD ± 16.6), 23.6% female, 68.6% employed, 7.3% illiterate, 26.3% had heard of research, 2.9% had participated and 58.9% expressed willingness to participate in clinical research. The following perceptions were reported (% true/% false/% not aware): 'research benefits society' (94.1%/3.5%/2.3%), 'the government protects against unethical clinical research' (56.7%/26.3%/16.9%), 'research hospitals provide better care' (67.2%/8.7%/23.9%), 'confidentiality is adequately protected' (54.1%/12.3%/33.5%), 'participation in research is voluntary' (85.3%/5.8%/8.7%); 'participants treated like 'guinea pigs'' (20.7%/53.2%/26.0%), and 'compensation for participation is adequate' (24.7%/12.9%/62.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest the Indian public is aware of some key features of clinical research (e.g., purpose, value, voluntary nature of participation), and supports clinical research in general but is unaware of other key features (e.g., compensation, confidentiality, protection of human participants) and exhibits some distrust in the conduct and reporting of clinical trials. Larger, cross-cultural surveys are required to inform educational programs addressing these issues.

Barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias: thematic analysis of scholarly articles and stakeholder interviews.

BACKGROUND: When the nature and direction of research results affect their chances of publication, a distortion of the evidence base - termed publication bias - results. Despite considerable recent efforts to implement measures to reduce the non-publication of trials, publication bias is still a major problem in medical research. The objective of our study was to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to prevent or reduce publication bias. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the scholarly literature and extracted data from articles. Further, we performed semi-structured interviews with stakeholders. We performed an inductive thematic analysis to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 39 articles. Thirty-four of 89 invited interview partners agreed to be interviewed. We clustered interventions into four categories: prospective trial registration, incentives for reporting in peer-reviewed journals or research reports, public availability of individual patient-level data, and peer-review/editorial processes. Barriers we identified included economic and personal interests, lack of financial resources for a global comprehensive trial registry, and different legal systems. Facilitators identified included: raising awareness of the effects of publication bias, providing incentives to make data publically available, and implementing laws to enforce prospective registration and reporting of clinical trial results. CONCLUSIONS: Publication bias is a complex problem that reflects the complex system in which it occurs. The cooperation amongst stakeholders to increase public awareness of the problem, better tailoring of incentives to publish, and ultimately legislative regulations have the greatest potential for reducing publication bias.

Perceived cannabis use norms and cannabis use among adolescents in the United States.

Due to changes in cannabis policies, concerns about cannabis use (CU) in adolescents have increased. The population of nonwhite groups is growing quickly in the United States. We examined perceived CU norms and their association with CU and CU disorder (CUD) for White, Black, Hispanic, Native-American, Asian-American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (NH/PI), and mixed-race adolescents. Data were from adolescents (12-17 years) in the 2004-2012 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health (N = 163,837). Substance use and CUD were assessed by computer-assisted, self-interviewing methods. Blacks, Hispanics, Native-Americans, and mixed-race adolescents had greater odds of past-year CU and CUD than Whites. Among past-year cannabis users (CUs), Hispanics and Native-Americans had greater odds of having a CUD than Whites. Asian-Americans had the highest prevalence of perceived parental or close friends' CU disapproval. Native-Americans and mixed-race adolescents had lower odds than Whites of perceiving CU disapproval from parents or close friends. In adjusted analyses, adolescent's disapproval of CU, as well as perceived disapproval by parents or close friends, were associated with a decreased odds of CU in each racial/ethnic group, except for NHs/PIs. Adolescent's disapproval of CU was associated with a decreased odds of CUD among CUs for Whites (personal, parental, and close friends' disapproval), Hispanics (personal, parental, and close friends' disapproval), and mixed-race adolescents (personal, close friends' disapproval). Racial/ethnic differences in adolescent CU prevalence were somewhat consistent with adolescents' reports of CU norm patterns. Longitudinal research on CU health effects should oversample nonwhite adolescents to assure an adequate sample for analysis and reporting.

Conflicts of Interest and Outcomes of Cardiovascular Trials.

Conflicts of interests have long been recognized as potential sources of influence in the conduct and reporting of clinical trials. This controversy was again rekindled after the publication of the latest statin guidelines and a series of studies regarding competing interests in leading medical journals. We investigate the association between declared author conflicts and the outcomes of large cardiovascular trials. We searched the Medline (PubMed) database to identify "phase 2" and "phase 3" clinical trials using the search term "cardiovascular" over the past decade using "10 years" as the filter. We perceived the competing interest as present regardless of the nature such as consulting fees, honoraria, travel imbursements, stock holding, and employment. Of the 699 titles retrieved, 114 studies met the inclusion criteria. Nearly 80% of studies had at least a single author with competing interests. The 114 studies had a total of 1,433 investigators, of which 725 had declared conflicts of interests (50.6%). A total of 66 studies (58%) had half or >50 percent of investigators who had some conflicts of interests. Of these studies, 54 studies had favorable outcomes and only 12 had unfavorable outcomes (p <0.001). Among the type of competing interests, consulting or personal fees was the most common present in 58 investigators (51%). This was followed by research grants present in 55 the researchers (48%). Among 25 (22%) studies, at least one investigator reported stakes in the industry, of which only 2 studies had unfavorable outcomes for the intervention being investigated. Just 1 of the 25 clinical trials with a sample size of >1,000 had no investigators with competing interests. In conclusion, authors conflicts are associated with favorable outcomes in cardiovascular outcome trials.

Quantifying Eukaryotic Gene Regulation in Hormone Response and Disease.

Quantifying the function of mammalian enhancers at the genome or population scale has been longstanding challenge in the field of gene regulation. Studies of individual enhancers have provided anecdotal evidence on which many foundational assumptions in the field are based. Genome-scale studies have revealed that the number of sites bound by a given transcription factor far outnumber the genes that the factor regulates. In this dissertation we describe a new method, chromatin immune-enriched reporter assays (ChIP-reporters), and use that approach to comprehensively test the enhancer activity of genomic loci bound by the glucocorticoid receptor (GR). Integrative genomics analyses of our ChIP-reporter data revealed an unexpected mechanism of glucocorticoid (GC)-induced gene regulation. In that mechanism, only the minority of GR bound sites acts as GC-inducible enhancers. Many non-GC-inducible GR binding sites interact with GC-induced sites via chromatin looping. These interactions can increase the activity of GC-induced enhancers. Finally, we describe a method that enables the detection and characterization of the functional effects of non-coding genetic variation on enhancer activity at the population scale. Taken together, these studies yield both mechanistic and genetic evidence that provides context that informs the understanding of the effects of multiple enhancer variants on gene expression.