Interrelationships between the structural and functional aspects of social relationships, comorbidity and health related quality of life in breast cancer survivors

It is widely acknowledged in theoretical and empirical literature that social relationships, comprising of structural measures (social networks) and functional measures (perceived social support) have an undeniable effect on health outcomes. However, the actual mechanism of this effect has yet to be clearly understood or explicated. In addition, comorbidity is found to adversely affect social relationships and health related quality of life (a valued outcome measure in cancer patients and survivors). ^ This cross sectional study uses selected baseline data (N=3088) from the Women's Healthy Eating and Living (WHEL) study. Lisrel 8.72 was used for the latent variable structural equation modeling. Due to the ordinal nature of the data, Weighted Least Squares (WLS) method of estimation using Asymptotic Distribution Free covariance matrices was chosen for this analysis. The primary exogenous predictor variables are Social Networks and Comorbidity; Perceived Social Support is the endogenous predictor variable. Three dimensions of HRQoL, physical, mental and satisfaction with current quality of life were the outcome variables. ^ This study hypothesizes and tests the mechanism and pathways between comorbidity, social relationships and HRQoL using latent variable structural equation modeling. After testing the measurement models of social networks and perceived social support, a structural model hypothesizing associations between the latent exogenous and endogenous variables was tested. The results of the study after listwise deletion (N=2131) mostly confirmed the hypothesized relationships (TLI, CFI >0.95, RMSEA = 0.05, p=0.15). Comorbidity was adversely associated with all three HRQoL outcomes. Strong ties were negatively associated with perceived social support; social network had a strong positive association with perceived social support, which served as a mediator between social networks and HRQoL. Mental health quality of life was the most adversely affected by the predictor variables. ^ This study is a preliminary look at the integration of structural and functional measures of social relationships, comorbidity and three HRQoL indicators using LVSEM. Developing stronger social networks and forming supportive relationships is beneficial for health outcomes such as HRQoL of cancer survivors. Thus, the medical community treating cancer survivors as well as the survivor's social networks need to be informed and cognizant of these possible relationships. ^

Key Aspects Affecting Students’ Perception Regarding the Instructional Quality of Online and Web Based Courses

This study assessed the perceptions of college students regarding the instructional quality of online and web based courses via a content management system. [See PDF for complete abstract]

Strategies to the success of Online Course Development

Introduction Online courses provide flexible access to education from a distance. However, learners may encounter frustration and disappointment in the learning process for various reasons. Faculties might not be familiar with adult learning principles. The online course developer may have no knowledge, experience, or the skills necessary for developing online courseware. Online course development can take longer time and more resources. It can also take longer time to deliver the course. It is, therefore, important that online course development be made efficient and effective for best student learning. [See PDF for complete abstract]

Getting to Know You: Psychoeducational Groups to Counter Social Isolation of Neglectful Mothers

This research indicates a uniformly positive use of psychoeducational groups to counter social isolation of neglectful mothers. This research was supported by a National Child Welfare Fellowship from the U.S. Children 's Bureau to the author. The author thanks Nancy Dickinson, Sherrill Clark, and the staff of the California Social Work Education Center at the University of California for their oversight and guidance during (his fellowship. The author is also grateful to her fellow fellows for their input and guidance during this research effort. Special thanks to Rose Ben ham, Anna Bowen, Judith Brewington, Caron Byington, Scottye Cash. Dottie Dixon, and Verna Rickard for their support of this project.

Federally regulated institutional review boards: The aspects of a "model" IRB---Is the current system in need of a tune up or complete overhaul?

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are the primary gatekeepers for the protection of ethical standards of federally regulated research on human subjects in this country. This paper focuses on what general, broad measures that may be instituted or enhanced to exemplify a "model IRB". This is done by examining the current regulatory standards of federally regulated IRBs, not private or commercial boards, and how many of those standards have been found either inadequate or not generally understood or followed. The analysis includes suggestions on how to bring about changes in order to make the IRB process more efficient, less subject to litigation, and create standardized educational protocols for members. The paper also considers how to include better oversight for multi-center research, increased centralization of IRBs, utilization of Data Safety Monitoring Boards when necessary, payment for research protocol review, voluntary accreditation, and the institution of evaluation/quality assurance programs. ^ This is a policy study utilizing secondary analysis of publicly available data. Therefore, the research for this paper focuses on scholarly medical/legal journals, web information from the Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Drug Administration, and the Office of the Inspector General, Accreditation Programs, law review articles, and current regulations applicable to the relevant portions of the paper. ^ Two issues are found to be consistently cited by the literature as major concerns. One is a need for basic, standardized educational requirements across all IRBs and its members, and secondly, much stricter and more informed management of continuing research. There is no federally regulated formal education system currently in place for IRB members, except for certain NIH-based trials. Also, IRBs are not keeping up with research once a study has begun, and although regulated to do so, it does not appear to be a great priority. This is the area most in danger of increased litigation. Other issues such as voluntary accreditation and outcomes evaluation are slowing gaining steam as the processes are becoming more available and more sought after, such as JCAHO accrediting of hospitals. ^ Adopting the principles discussed in this paper should promote better use of a local IRBs time, money, and expertise for protecting the vulnerable population in their care. Without further improvements to the system, there is concern that private and commercial IRBs will attempt to create a monopoly on much of the clinical research in the future as they are not as heavily regulated and can therefore offer companies quicker and more convenient reviews. IRBs need to consider the advantages of charging for their unique and important services as a cost of doing business. More importantly, there must be a minimum standard of education for all IRB members in the area of the ethical standards of human research and a greater emphasis placed on the follow-up of ongoing research as this is the most critical time for study participants and may soon lead to the largest area for litigation. Additionally, there should be a centralized IRB for multi-site trials or a study website with important information affecting the trial in real time. There needs to be development of standards and metrics to assess the performance of the IRBs for quality assurance and outcome evaluations. The boards should not be content to run the business of human subjects' research without determining how well that function is actually being carried out. It is important that federally regulated IRBs provide excellence in human research and promote those values most important to the public at large.^