Towards a field-compatible optical spectroscopic device for cervical cancer screening in resource-limited settings: effects of calibration and pressure.

Quantitative optical spectroscopy has the potential to provide an effective low cost, and portable solution for cervical pre-cancer screening in resource-limited communities. However, clinical studies to validate the use of this technology in resource-limited settings require low power consumption and good quality control that is minimally influenced by the operator or variable environmental conditions in the field. The goal of this study was to evaluate the effects of two sources of potential error: calibration and pressure on the extraction of absorption and scattering properties of normal cervical tissues in a resource-limited setting in Leogane, Haiti. Our results show that self-calibrated measurements improved scattering measurements through real-time correction of system drift, in addition to minimizing the time required for post-calibration. Variations in pressure (tested without the potential confounding effects of calibration error) caused local changes in vasculature and scatterer density that significantly impacted the tissue absorption and scattering properties Future spectroscopic systems intended for clinical use, particularly where operator training is not viable and environmental conditions unpredictable, should incorporate a real-time self-calibration channel and collect diffuse reflectance spectra at a consistent pressure to maximize data integrity.

Protocol for the "Implementation, adoption, and utility of family history in diverse care settings" study.

BACKGROUND: Risk assessment with a thorough family health history is recommended by numerous organizations and is now a required component of the annual physical for Medicare beneficiaries under the Affordable Care Act. However, there are several barriers to incorporating robust risk assessments into routine care. MeTree, a web-based patient-facing health risk assessment tool, was developed with the aim of overcoming these barriers. In order to better understand what factors will be instrumental for broader adoption of risk assessment programs like MeTree in clinical settings, we obtained funding to perform a type III hybrid implementation-effectiveness study in primary care clinics at five diverse healthcare systems. Here, we describe the study's protocol. METHODS/DESIGN: MeTree collects personal medical information and a three-generation family health history from patients on 98 conditions. Using algorithms built entirely from current clinical guidelines, it provides clinical decision support to providers and patients on 30 conditions. All adult patients with an upcoming well-visit appointment at one of the 20 intervention clinics are eligible to participate. Patient-oriented risk reports are provided in real time. Provider-oriented risk reports are uploaded to the electronic medical record for review at the time of the appointment. Implementation outcomes are enrollment rate of clinics, providers, and patients (enrolled vs approached) and their representativeness compared to the underlying population. Primary effectiveness outcomes are the percent of participants newly identified as being at increased risk for one of the clinical decision support conditions and the percent with appropriate risk-based screening. Secondary outcomes include percent change in those meeting goals for a healthy lifestyle (diet, exercise, and smoking). Outcomes are measured through electronic medical record data abstraction, patient surveys, and surveys/qualitative interviews of clinical staff. DISCUSSION: This study evaluates factors that are critical to successful implementation of a web-based risk assessment tool into routine clinical care in a variety of healthcare settings. The result will identify resource needs and potential barriers and solutions to implementation in each setting as well as an understanding potential effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01956773.

A Theory and Test of How Speakers with Nonnative Accents are Evaluated in Entrepreneurial Settings

An abundance of research in the social sciences has demonstrated a persistent bias against nonnative English speakers (Giles & Billings, 2004; Gluszek & Dovidio, 2010). Yet, organizational scholars have only begun to investigate the underlying mechanisms that drive the bias against nonnative speakers and subsequently design interventions to mitigate these biases. In this dissertation, I offer an integrative model to organize past explanations for accent-based bias into a coherent framework, and posit that nonnative accents elicit social perceptions that have implications at the personal, relational, and group level. I also seek to complement the existing emphasis on main effects of accents, which focuses on the general tendency to discriminate against those with accents, by examining moderators that shed light on the conditions under which accent-based bias is most likely to occur. Specifically, I explore the idea that people’s beliefs about the controllability of accents can moderate their evaluations toward nonnative speakers, such that those who believe that accents can be controlled are more likely to demonstrate a bias against nonnative speakers. I empirically test my theoretical model in three studies in the context of entrepreneurial funding decisions. Results generally supported the proposed model. By examining the micro foundations of accent-based bias, the ideas explored in this dissertation set the stage for future research in an increasingly multilingual world.