New Journal, Same Ongoing Challenge: Advancing Policies that Promote the Health and Well-Being of Children and Families

The publication of the inaugural issue of the Journal of Applied Research on Children is a notable milestone for its sponsoring organization, CHILDREN AT RISK (www.childrenatrisk.org). With the release of “Volume 1, Number 1,” we as the Co-Editors in Chief would like to take the opportunity to thank the inaugural contributors whose articles follow and to answer the obvious question of “Why publish a new journal?”

CONFORMATIONAL CHANGES IN THE EXTRACELLULAR DOMAIN OF GLUTAMATE RECEPTORS

The family of membrane protein called glutamate receptors play an important role in the central nervous system in mediating signaling between neurons. Glutamate receptors are involved in the elaborate game that nerve cells play with each other in order to control movement, memory, and learning. Neurons achieve this communication by rapidly converting electrical signals into chemical signals and then converting them back into electrical signals. To propagate an electrical impulse, neurons in the brain launch bursts of neurotransmitter molecules like glutamate at the junction between neurons, called the synapse. Glutamate receptors are found lodged in the membranes of the post-synaptic neuron. They receive the burst of neurotransmitters and respond by fielding the neurotransmitters and opening ion channels. Glutamate receptors have been implicated in a number of neuropathologies like ischemia, stroke and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Specifically, the NMDA subtype of glutamate receptors has been linked to the onset of Alzheimer’s disease and the subsequent degeneration of neuronal cells. While crystal structures of AMPA and kainate subtypes of glutamate receptors have provided valuable information regarding the assembly and mechanism of activation; little is known about the NMDA receptors. Even the basic question of receptor assembly still remains unanswered. Therefore, to gain a clear understanding of how the receptors are assembled and how agonist binding gets translated to channel opening, I have used a technique called Luminescence Resonance Energy Transfer (LRET). LRET offers the unique advantage of tracking large scale conformational changes associated with receptor activation and desensitization. In this dissertation, LRET, in combination with biochemical and electrophysiological studies, were performed on the NMDA receptors to draw a correlation between structure and function. NMDA receptor subtypes GluN1 and GluN2A were modified such that fluorophores could be introduced at specific sites to determine their pattern of assembly. The results indicated that the GluN1 subunits assembled across each other in a diagonal manner to form a functional receptor. Once the subunit arrangement was established, this was used as a model to further examine the mechanism of activation in this subtype of glutamate receptor. Using LRET, the correlation between cleft closure and activation was tested for both the GluN1 and GluN2A subunit of the NMDA receptor in response to agonists of varying efficacies. These investigations revealed that cleft closure plays a major role in the mechanism of activation in the NMDA receptor, similar to the AMPA and kainate subtypes. Therefore, suggesting that the mechanism of activation is conserved across the different subtypes of glutamate receptors.

Managing the risks of medical technology: Do hazard surveillance systems provide an early warning of medical device problems?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for risk assessment and risk management in the post-market surveillance of the U.S. medical device industry. One of the FDA regulatory mechanisms, the Medical Device Reporting System (MDR) is an adverse event reporting system intended to provide the FDA with advance warning of device problems. It includes voluntary reporting for individuals, and mandatory reporting for device manufacturers. ^ In a study of alleged breast implant safety problems, this research examines the organizational processes by which the FDA gathers data on adverse events and uses adverse event reporting systems to assess and manage risk. The research reviews the literature on problem recognition, risk perception, and organizational learning to understand the influence highly publicized events may have on adverse event reporting. Understanding the influence of an environmental factor, such as publicity, on adverse event reporting can provide insight into the question of whether the FDA's adverse event reporting system operates as an early warning system for medical device problems. ^ The research focuses on two main questions. The first question addresses the relationship between publicity and the voluntary and mandatory reporting of adverse events. The second question examines whether government agencies make use of these adverse event reports. ^ Using quantitative and qualitative methods, a longitudinal study was conducted of the number and content of adverse event reports regarding breast implants filed with the FDA's medical device reporting system during 1985–1991. To assess variation in publicity over time, the print media were analyzed to identify articles related to breast implant failures. ^ The exploratory findings suggest that an increase in media activity is related to an increase in voluntary reporting, especially following periods of intense media coverage of the FDA. However, a similar relationship was not found between media activity and manufacturers' mandatory adverse event reporting. A review of government committee and agency reports on the FDA published during 1976–1996 produced little evidence to suggest that publicity or MDR information contributed to problem recognition, agenda setting, or the formulation of policy recommendations. ^ The research findings suggest that the reporting of breast implant problems to FDA may reflect the perceptions and concerns of the reporting groups, a barometer of the volume and content of media attention. ^

Parental substance abuse as a risk factor for physical child abuse and neglect: A systematic review of the literature

Case control and retrospective studies have identified parental substance abuse as a risk factor for physical child abuse and neglect (Dore, Doris, & Wright, 1995, May; S. R. Dube et al., 2001; Guterman & Lee, 2005, May; Walsh, MacMillan, & Jamieson, 2003). The purpose of this paper is to present the findings of a systematic review of prospective studies from 1975 through 2005 that include parental substance abuse as a risk factor for physical child abuse or neglect. Characteristics of each study such as the research question, sample information, data collection methods and results, including the parent assessed and definitions of substance abuse and physical child abuse and neglect, are discussed. Five studies were identified that met the search criteria. Four of five studies found that parental substance abuse was a significant variable in predicting physical child abuse and neglect.^

A stakeholder analysis of the Texas Youth Commission issue for the Texas 80th Legislative Session

The following is a policy analysis based on the Advocacy Coalition Framework by Paul Sabatier. The study question was who were the stakeholders in the legislative process for the issue of the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) overhaul during the Texas 80th Legislative Session. This analysis included the stakeholders identifying characteristics including beliefs and interests, goals and resources, and finally, the winning legislative solutions as embodied in three bills that were passed. The study linked the stakeholders with three bills and expanded on the literature for the stakeholder group of Policy Brokers. The conclusions were that all stakeholders including Youth Advocates, the Policy People and Policy Brokers were effective in advancing legislative solutions to address the need for an agency overhaul of TYC and that the three new policies will be evaluated in the future as either short term change or long-term reforms based on their implementation. ^

Campaign contributions to congressional candidates by the healthcare sector from 1990 to 2008

Stakeholder groups with special interests as donors to finance congressional campaigns have been a controversial issue in the United Sates. While previous studies concentrated on whether a connection existed between the campaign contributions provided by stakeholder groups and the voting behavior of congressional members, there is little evidence to show the trend of allocation of their campaign contributions to their favorite candidates during the elections. This issue has become increasingly important in the health sector since the health care reform bill was passed in early 2010.^ This study examined the long-term trend of campaign contributions offered by various top healthcare stakeholder groups to particular political parties (i.e. Democrat and Republican). The main focus of this paper was to observe and describe the financial donations provided by these healthcare stakeholder groups in the congressional election cycles from 1990 to 2008 in order to obtain an overview of their patterns of campaign contributions. Their contributing behaviors were characterized based on the campaign finance data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). Specifically, I answered the questions: (1) to which political party did specific healthcare stakeholder groups give money and (2) what was the pattern of their campaign contributions from 1990 to 2008?^ The findings of my study revealed that the healthcare stakeholder groups had different political party preferences and partisanship orientations regarding the Democratic or Republican Party. These differences were obvious throughout the election cycles from 1990 to 2008 and their distinct patterns of financial contribution were evident across industries in the health sector as well. Among all the healthcare stakeholder groups in this study, physicians were the top contributors in the congressional election. The pharmaceutical industry was the only group where the majority of contribution funds were allocated to Republicans in every election period studied. This study found that no interest group has succeeded in electing the preferred congressional candidate by giving the majority of its financial support to the winning party in every election. Chiropractors, hospitals/nursing homes, and health services/HMOs performed better than other healthcare stakeholder groups by supporting the electoral winner 8 out of 9 election cycles.^

Nurse likelihood to report a pediatric medication error: Examination of the "pre-reporting" period

Each year, hospitalized patients experience 1.5 million preventable injuries from medication errors and hospitals incur an additional $3.5 billion in cost (Aspden, Wolcott, Bootman, & Cronenwatt; (2007). It is believed that error reporting is one way to learn about factors contributing to medication errors. And yet, an estimated 50% of medication errors go unreported. This period of medication error pre-reporting, with few exceptions, is underexplored. The literature focuses on error prevention and management, but lacks a description of the period of introspection and inner struggle over whether to report an error and resulting likelihood to report. Reporting makes a nurse vulnerable to reprimand, legal liability, and even threat to licensure. For some nurses this state may invoke a disparity between a person‘s belief about him or herself as a healer and the undeniable fact of the error.^ This study explored the medication error reporting experience. Its purpose was to inform nurses, educators, organizational leaders, and policy-makers about the medication error pre-reporting period, and to contribute to a framework for further investigation. From a better understanding of factors that contribute to or detract from the likelihood of an individual to report an error, interventions can be identified to help the nurse come to a psychologically healthy resolution and help increase reporting of error in order to learn from error and reduce the possibility of future similar error.^ The research question was: "What factors contribute to a nurse's likelihood to report an error?" The specific aims of the study were to: (1) describe participant nurses' perceptions of medication error reporting; (2) describe participant explanations of the emotional, cognitive, and physical reactions to making a medication error; (3) identify pre-reporting conditions that make it less likely for a nurse to report a medication error; and (4) identify pre-reporting conditions that make it more likely for a nurse to report a medication error.^ A qualitative research study was conducted to explore the medication error experience and in particular the pre-reporting period from the perspective of the nurse. A total of 54 registered nurses from a large private free-standing not-for-profit children's hospital in the southwestern United States participated in group interviews. The results describe the experience of the nurse as well as the physical, emotional, and cognitive responses to the realization of the commission of a medication error. The results also reveal factors that make it more and less likely to report a medication error.^ It is clear from this study that upon realization that he or she has made a medication error, a nurse's foremost concern is for the safety of the patient. Fear was also described by each group of nurses. The nurses described a fear of several things including physician reaction, manager reaction, peer reaction, as well as family reaction and possible lack of trust as a result. Another universal response was the description of a struggle with guilt, shame, imperfection, blaming oneself, and questioning one's competence.^

The cost of insuring the uninsured in the U.S.

Objectives: This study included two overarching objectives. Through a systematic review of the literature published between 1990 and 2012, the first objective aimed to assess whether insuring the uninsured would result in higher costs compared to insuring the currently insured. Studies that quantified the actual costs associated with insuring the uninsured in the U.S. were included. Based upon 2009 data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), the second objective aimed to assess and compare the self-reported health of populations with four different insurance statuses. The second part of this study involved a secondary data analysis of both currently insured and currently uninsured individuals who participated in the MEPS in 2009. The null hypothesis was that there were no differences across the four categories of health insurance status for self-reported health status and healthcare service use. The alternative hypothesis was that were differences across the four categories of health insurance status for self-reported health status and healthcare service use. Methods: For the systematic review, three databases were searched using search terms to identify studies that actually quantified the cost of insuring the uninsured. Thirteen studies were selected, discussed, and summarized in tables. For the secondary data analysis of MEPS data, this study compared four categories of health insurance status: (1) currently uninsured persons who will become eligible for Medicaid under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) healthcare reforms in 2014; (2) currently uninsured persons who will be required to buy private insurance through the PPACA health insurance exchanges in 2014; (3) persons currently insured under Medicaid or SCHIP; and (4) persons currently insured with private insurance. The four categories were compared on the basis of demographic information, health status information, and health conditions with relatively high prevalence. Chi-square tests were run to determine if there were differences between the four groups in regard to health insurance status and health status. With some exceptions, the two currently insured groups had worse self-reported health status compared to the two currently uninsured groups. Results: The thirteen studies that met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review included: (1) three cost studies from 1993, 1995, and 1997; (2) four cost studies from 2001, 2003, and 2004; (3) one study of disabilities and one study of immigrants; (4) two state specific studies of uninsured status; and (5) two current studies of healthcare reform. Of the thirteen studies reviewed, four directly addressed the study question about whether insuring the uninsured was more or less expensive than insuring the currently insured. All four of the studies provided support for the study finding that the cost of insuring the uninsured would generally not be higher than insuring those already insured. One study indicated that the cost of insuring the uninsured would be less expensive than insuring the population currently covered by Medicaid, but more expensive to insure than the populations of those covered by employer-sponsored insurance and non-group private insurance. While the nine other studies included in the systematic review discussed the costs associated with insuring the uninsured population, they did not directly compare the costs of insuring the uninsured population with the costs associated with insuring the currently insured population. For the MEPS secondary data analysis, the results of the chi-square tests indicated that there were differences in the distribution of disease status by health insurance status. As anticipated, with some exceptions, the uninsured reported lower rates of disease and healthcare service use. However, for the variable attention deficit disorder, the uninsured reported higher disease rates than the two insured groups. Additionally, for the variables high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and joint pain, the currently insured under Medicaid or SCHIP group reported a lower rate of disease than the two currently insured groups. This result may be due to the lower mean age of the currently insured under Medicaid or SCHIP group. Conclusion: Based on this study, with some exceptions, the costs for insuring the uninsured should not exceed healthcare-related costs for insuring the currently uninsured. The results of the systematic review indicated that the U.S. is already paying some of the costs associated with insuring the uninsured. PPACA will expand health insurance coverage to millions of Americans who are currently uninsured, as the individual mandate and insurance market reforms will require. Because many of the currently uninsured are relatively healthy young persons, the costs associated with expanding insurance coverage to the uninsured are anticipated to be relatively modest. However, for the purposes of construing these results, it is important to note that once individuals obtain insurance, it is anticipated that they will use more healthcare services, which will increase costs. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)^