The school bullying research program: How it has developed, 1976-2020

Quality-improvement practices and research are important in radiology for multiple reasons [1–9]. For all of us involved in medical imaging, regardless of the type of practice, part of our vision and mission is improving the health of all patients through imaging delivery. While certainly this involves direct patient care, improving the practice of medical imaging delivery as well as sharing clinical experiences can expand our vision and our mission beyond the immediate patients we are serving. In addition, patients as well as regulatory bodies are increasingly demanding that physicians practice quality improvement through mechanisms such as the maintenance of certification [10] and the potential maintenance of licensure. It can also be argued that participation in quality-improvement and research activities can increase work satisfaction and engagement of radiologists. Finally, active quality-improvement and research programs are essential for radiology to preserve its leadership role in medical imaging [1–6]. At our institution, we have put in place a Quality Improvement in Research and Imaging (QuIRI) program. The purpose of this manuscript is to describe the QuIRI process and how it has positively affected our research and qualityimprovement program. A productive research program can enhance the prestige and clout of a radiology department within its institution and of the subspecialty of radiology within medicine. Cultivation of quality-improvement and research activities is essential to optimizing radiology’s role in health care reform. Quality will be a differentiating factor in a commodity imaging market [9]. A number of barriers have been identified, making development of research and quality-improvement initiatives difficult in radiology [11–14]. These include the historical lack of research training as a component of radiology training, increased clinical responsibilities related to increasing imaging volumes and decreased reimbursement, the inability to cover total research expenses even in successful grant-funded programs, the NIH salary cap being lower than most radiologists’ salaries, alignment of radiologists’ incentives and culture, and vacant positions within academic radiology departments [11–14]. These problems have prompted a number of articles describing important steps in programmatic aspects necessary to create a successful quality-improvement and research program in a department of radiology [1–15]. In our department, we have put in place a number of ways to stress the importance of research among our clinical radiologists and to promote a culture of research [7] as well as establish processes to promote quality and safety [15–21]. More recently, we have put in place the QuIRI program. L. F. Donnelly Departments of Radiology and Pediatrics, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA

In the last 20 years NASA has worked in collaboration with industry to develop enabling technologies needed to make aircraft safer and more affordable, extend their lifetime, improve their reliability, better understand their behavior, and reduce their weight. To support these efforts, research programs starting with ideas and culminating in full-scale structural testing were conducted at the NASA Langley Research Center. Each program contained development efforts that (a) started with selecting the material system and manufacturing approach; (b) moved on to experimentation and analysis of small samples to characterize the system and quantify behavior in the presence of defects like damage and imperfections; (c) progressed on to examining larger structures to examine buckling behavior, combined loadings, and built-up structures; and (d) finally moved to complicated subcomponents and full-scale components. Each step along the way was supported by detailed analysis, including tool development, to prove that the behavior of these structures was well-understood and predictable. This approach for developing technology became known as the approach. In the Advanced Composites Technology Program and the High Speed Research Program the building-block approach was used to develop a true understanding of the response of the structures involved through experimentation and analysis. The philosophy that if the structural response couldn't be accurately predicted, it wasn't really understood, was critical to the progression of these programs. To this end, analytical techniques including closed-form and finite elements were employed and experimentation used to verify assumptions at each step along the way. This paper presents a discussion of the utilization of the building-block approach described previously in structural mechanics research and development programs at NASA Langley Research Center. Specific examples that illustrate the use of this approach are included from recent research and development programs for both subsonic and supersonic transports.

OVERVIEW: The challenge for research management is to drive research projects forward without stifling creativity. At W. R. Grace, this challenge is met with a project tracking system to manage a research program consisting of approximately 100 research projects. The tracking system consists of three features: (1) A two-page Fact Sheet summaries key project commercial and technical information; (2) milestones establish technical goals; (3) performance against milestones is used to evaluate progress. The tracking system is effective for monitoring individual research projects as well as measuring performance of the overall research program. The system has become a useful communication tool with operating divisions and a means to establish and maintain credibility with corporate management. Research and development programs, by their very nature, are difficult to monitor and control. With too much control, creativity is stifled, innovation suffers and goals are set to be easily met. On the other hand, without control, programs can languish, drift away from their intended objectives, or create unrealistic expectations. The challenge for research management is to strike a balance between these two extremes to develop a workable and productive system to manage projects. At W. R. Grace & Co., a project tracking system has been developed which, over the last ten years, has evolved into an effective management tool to track and measure performance of research programs. This system has been instrumental in establishing credibility for the RD the system can then be used as a tool to measure the performance of the organization and of researchers and managers on their projects. The system can also be used to identify poorly performing projects. In addition to these internal needs, new product development requires close communication between the research organization and the operating divisions. A tracking system provides a mechanism for discussing and formalizing projects. Project success depends on mutual understanding of project objectives and the specifications of the products to be developed. Credibility with top corporate management is a key requirement of any research organization. Having formal documents with clearly defined objectives and timetables, against which performance can be measured, helps to create and sustain credibility. With a project tracking system, results of research can be forecast based on established performance rather than unfounded speculation. CORPORATE RESEARCH IN W. R. GRACE W. R. Grace & Co. is a specialty chemical and health care company comprised of global product lines. To support the technology needs of the corporation, Grace has a Corporate Research organization that accounts for approximately one-third of the total R&D activity within the company. The mission of Corporate Research is to develop new products through applications-oriented research. Corporate Research is an interdisciplinary organization with approximately 600 scientists, technicians and support staff working in three locations. The organization maintains close working relationships with the product lines within Grace. The broad skill base and diverse product line orientations within Corporate Research help to create synergies that can lead to new product concepts. An example is a progesterone test kit for the dairy industry, which will be described to illustrate the tracking system in detail. …

The Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab or LBNL) is a multi-program national research facility operated by the University of California for the Department of Energy (DOE). As an integral element of DOE's National Laboratory System, Berkeley Lab supports DOE's missions in fundamental science, energy resources, and environmental quality. Berkeley Lab programs advance four distinct goals for DOE and the nation: (1) To perform leading multidisciplinary research in the computing sciences, physical sciences, energy sciences, biosciences, and general sciences in a manner that ensures employee and public safety and protection of the environment. (2) To develop and operate unique national experimental facilities for qualified investigators. (3) To educate and train future generations of scientists and engineers to promote national science and education goals. (4) To transfer knowledge and technological innovations and to foster productive relationships among Berkeley Lab's research programs, universities, and industry in order to promote national economic competitiveness.

This paper describes a new program for female undergraduate computer science students. The program uses recognized strategies for engaging women in computer science. It includes multi-faceted mentoring, community building activities, and a research program with significant educational components. The research component gives women an opportunity to work in research teams under the direction of a female faculty member who serves as role model. While there are other programs that allow students to work with female faculty on their research, this research program was designed to develop our female students. The research team presents its research at an appropriate conference each year. The team members also reach out to other students by participating in recruiting activities and presenting their research to high school students at local career days. Our program is currently in its second year. This paper describes the program and changes that we have made based on what we learned during the first year.

The Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program was created by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to encourage comparative study of ecological phenomena that occur over decades and centuries. The vision, mission, and goals of the LTER network have evolved to address current societal needs: to understand the dynamics of key ecosystems, to interpret effects on ecosystem services of importance to humans, and to forecast the effects of future ecosystem scenarios. Challenges inherent in sustaining a long-term research program include building effective plans for research, governance, and transitions among generations of scientists. The LTER program has been extremely successful at meeting its original goals, but increased expectations for cross-site and network-level synthesis are not yet fully realized. The initial absence of a shared conceptual model inhibited progress toward large-scale synthesis. Recent agreement on a conceptual framework that includes multiple disciplines has begun to address this issue. On February 12, 1980, I began my first real job with the Center for Energy and Environment Research (CEER) at the University of Puerto Rico. I was hired to work on an ongoing program funded by the Department of Energy that had begun 17 years earlier under the direction of Howard Odum. Along with my colleagues, Laurence Tilly and Douglas Reagan of CEER, and Ariel Lugo of the US Forest Service, I was also to participate in a proposal that had just been submitted for a new NSF initiative called the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) Program. None of us knew very much about this program, and the request for proposals described it in five short paragraphs. Not only was it a new program, it was very different from other NSF programs. Proposals needed to involve groups of investigators working on core research topics, and the proposed work should be coordinated in some way with a network of other sites. Principal investigators were warned to be prepared to make long-term time commitments. Little did we know. Our first proposal was unsuccessful, as was the second. By 1986, I had become head of the Terrestrial Ecology Division at CEER. In that capacity, I represented the University of Puerto Rico as co–principal investigator, along with Ariel Lugo, on our third attempt at becoming an LTER site.

This chapter focuses on the application of Research Oriented Action Research (RO-AR) to research inter-organizational collaboration within and across the public and non-profit sectors. RO-AR is a phenomenological action research methodology developed by Colin Eden and Chris Huxham (1996, 2006) which they and others have used to research aspects of management and organizations generally and inter-organizational collaboration specifically; the latter being the focus here. To that end, this chapter draws on a program of empirical research into governing, leading and managing collaborations that has been ongoing since 1989, and which has relied primarily on RO-AR. As a program of research, it is concerned with the development of conceptual knowledge that can inform practice and which has accumulated into the still evolving theory of collaborative advantage (TCA) (Huxham and Vangen 2005; Vangen and Huxham 2014). The aim in this chapter is to provide a brief introduction to RO-AR and to explore its applicability to research on collaboration. Action Research, of which RO-AR is a particular type, was pioneered in the United States in the 1940s, most notably by Kurt Lewin (1946). Lewin argued that research for social practice needs to be concerned with ‘the study of general laws … and the diagnosis of specific situations’ (36). He pointed, among other things, to the need to design methods for recording ill-structured data and to focus on the relationship between perception and action through taking an interpretist approach to research. In a similar vein, action research aimed at understanding organizations and organizational change began at the Tavistock Institute in the United Kingdom (UK) in 1947. With the aim of conducting research and developing knowledge, the Tavistock Institute developed new participative approaches to organization change and development. In the years that have followed, a number of related approaches have emerged including action science (Argyris, Putnam, and Smith 1985), action inquiry (Torbert 1976), action learning (Mwaluko and Ryan 2000; Revans 1982), appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider and Srivastva 1987; Cooperrider, Whitney, and Stavros 2008) and participatory action research (Argyris and Schon 1991; Whyte 1991). Given the growth in popularity of these kinds of research methods, the literature is unsurprisingly both large and somewhat confusing. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding inherent differences, these methods all involve learning from interventions in organizations with the purpose of bringing about change and advancing knowledge. A distinguishing feature between them is the relative emphasis on change (or practical transformation) and the development of more general knowledge (i.e. theory). The primary purpose of the systematic engagement with action in praxis may be the immediate development of an individual, an organization or a community (e.g. via appreciative inquiry or action learning) or it may be to inform the development of theory on the aspect of management or organizations that is being researched, as is the case with RO-AR. The validity of RO-AR, however, rests fundamentally on the intervention being useful in practice. This close relationship with practice enhances the potential of a theory ultimately developed to inform other contexts. Eden and Huxham distinguish RO-AR from other action research approaches in the following ways (2006: 388): • from organizational intervention projects that do not satisfy characteristics of rigorous research • from research within an organization that does not satisfy characteristics of action orientation • from forms of action research that do not have research output as their primary rasion d’etre. The aim of this chapter is to highlight key features of RO-AR and to show how it may be used to produce good research on collaboration. In what follows, we look at the relevance of RO-AR to research on collaboration, provide and account of the application of the method in developing the theory of collaborative advantage, along with an overview of issues pertaining to data capture and analysis. The chapter also offers a brief evaluation of the method and some thoughts on rigor and relevance for researchers who may wish to apply the methods in future research on collaboration.

In 2006, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), guided by the leadership of Elias Zerhouni, launched the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program to jump-start transformative change in the nation’s research agenda to emphasize translating discovery from the bench to implementation in the community.1-5 Much of the funding for the CTSAs was garnered by rolling NIH funding of General Clinical Research Centers and educational K and T awards. Successful applicants were then asked to utilize these funds to (as stated in the Request for Applications) “transform the local, regional and national environments for clinical and translational science and to increase the safety, efficiency and speed of clinical and translational research.”4 Each of the 60 CTSA institutions has approached addressing this transformation in slightly different ways; however, it has become clear over the last 5 years that substantive changes, as a result of CTSA funding at academic institutions, are transforming medical research and the infrastructure that supports it. Each of the CTSA’s is required to address specific key functions to advance the consortium goals. These required key functions are (1) expertise in Biomedical Informatics, (2) a program in Research Education, Training, and Career Development, (3) a program in Community Engagement and Research, (4) an Evaluation component, (5) Pilot Projects in Translational and Clinical Studies, and (6) a Regulatory Knowledge and Support component. Optional CTSA key functions include (1) support of the Development of Novel Clinical and Translational Methodologies, (2) components or cores to support Research Design, Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Clinical Research Ethics, (3) Clinical Research Resources and Facilities, and (4) components or cores that develop Translational Technologies and Resources. It is also encouraged for institutions to support research in Child Health. Addressing these key functions at the University of Michigan, for example, has led to transformational change in the structure and culture of the institution. After receiving a CTSA award in 2007, the University of Michigan (U-M) conducted a strategic assessment of the translational research enterprise through over 100 extensive interviews of faculty and staff providing the infrastructure for translational research, as well as the investigators conducting that research. The institution then conducted a survey of research team members involved in human subject research to identify and describe the current challenges facing translational research—specifically, the administrative processes associated with its planning and execution. In addition to identifying the issues, the team rated the technical and cultural/political levels of difficulty in implementing the solutions, as well as the corresponding impact each solution would potentially bring. These were then graphically mapped on a three-dimensional bubble chart (Figure 1). This stratification assisted in the planning, design, and prioritization of solutions, offering insights that guide the refinement efforts of a clinical research enterprise’s organization, business, and information technology (IT) processes. Bubble chart of implementation complexity. The chart orders tasks by level of execution difficulty—both technical and fiscal execution difficulty—as well as organizational and cultural complexity. The bubble size represents impact such that the bigger the bubble, the bigger the impact the change will have on improving translational research. For instance, enhancing study coordinator programs is relatively easy both technically and from an institutional buy-in perspective and was judged to provide a relatively large impact. Creating integrated informational technology systems involves significant investment, is more technically complex, requiring buy-in from multiple parties within the institution but is pivotal for achieving the goal of doing more effective translational research. The visual mapping provides context and definition to the challenge of enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of translational research not only at the University of Michigan but all of the CTSAs. IT = Information Technology, CTSU = Clinical Trials Support Unit. Eight areas were identified as solution categories. The topics include organizational, procedural, financial, structural, educational, technological, and cultural elements. Transform and expedite study and contract approval process. The contract approval process, especially in regard to industry protocols, was recognized by the faculty as their number one area of discontent. The approval process was not clear to research team members and varied widely by unit and department as well as by type of sponsor. Educational and process improvement opportunities were identified. To address these issues, U-M has set a goal to expedite study approval process so that the contract and regulatory processes are executed within 60 days from submission for all studies and 45 days for industry-sponsored studies. The primary strategy to accomplish this aggressive goal was to create a team consisting of members of the units involved and to reengineer processes and conduct a demonstration project for feasibility within 1 year. Secondary strategies included increasing the transparency of contracting within the system to allow better tracking of proposals by the faculty and study teams, publishing desirable contract terms on a website for faculty and staff to use as protocols are developed, and to create an interactive, web-based research road map to guide faculty and staff through the necessary administrative steps to conduct translational research.6 Establish a clinical research support unit with best practice tools. The current translational research enterprise consists of multiple units with redundant functions of varying quality. The primary strategy was to create a leveraging of the resources of the CTSA to develop a franchisable model built on best practice modules that could then be easily adopted by other units throughout the university. Develop a customer friendly, transparent financial system that spans clinical trial budget creation to account reconciliation and study close out. The lack of transparent and integrated financial systems to track costs and other financial aspects of clinical research including budgeting and billing remains a challenge for study team members. The University of Michigan Office of Research has created the Calendar Review and Analysis Office (CRAO) to assist researchers with this process and is currently implementing a clinical study budget tool, eThority, to create standard billing calenders and processes across the organization. CRAO will also champion the evaluation of financial feasibility prior to proposal initiation; provide more assistance to PIs and research team members with study budgets, through increased training on best practices, budget negotiators, and standardized internal budget; and generate a new reconciliation report that will make study account statements more easily understood by research teams. Improve regulatory approval process and reduce Institutional Review Board (IRB) turn-around time. Significant gains have been made, resulting in a 40% improvement in IRB cycle time. Study teams will be advantaged by continuous improvements to the process. Embedded within the goal to expedite study approval is the goal to reduce IRB turnaround time (TAT) to 21 days for full convened board approval, including ancillary committees, and reduce no more than minimal risk studies to 5 days TAT. U-M is investigating strategies for greater IRB board participation of faculty, instituting another IRB board specifically for industry-based studies, as well as dedicating a board to minimal risk studies. The CTSA is also identifying various research teams to extract best practices. The CTSA has created an IND/IDE consultation and support team for researchers that have already helped over 100 investigators with IND/IDE applications. Create a home for study coordinators to promote education and sharing of best practices. A strong research team, anchored by a solid study coordinator, is critical to clinical research success. Study coordinator turnover was noted to be 18% a year. Of all study coordinators, 75% have been at U-M less than 3 years, compared to 44% of the rest of U-M staff and 56% of study coordinators nationally. Study coordinators noted that there was no coherent program or “home” for them within the system. Several strategies have been developed and are being enacted to address this problem. The CTSA created a virtual, web-based site for study coordinator support that will eventually include standardized resources such as workflow steps, templates, forms, and answers to common questions. A monthly study coordinator forum has been enacted to share challenges and best practices. Human resources has been engaged to develop uniform study coordinator job descriptions and to mentor the coordinators to develop a meaningful career path. Increase patient participation (enrollment) in research. The institution has set an ambitious goal to double patient participation in research in 5 years, while decreasing the number of studies that do not enroll a subject to 5%. A primary strategy to accomplish this was the creation of a web-based participant registry (UMclinicalstudies.org) to help match interested patients and volunteers with open studies. Currently, over 7,000 participants are registered. U-M is also investing in an electronic medical record system that better enables queries and “flags” potentially eligible patients. Further investigation by a study team is necessary to determine the underlying reasons for poor accrual to studies, whether due to missed competitive enrollment periods, rare disease studies that inherently will be challenged to accrue, registry studies with open enrollment, lack of ability to find enough patients within the patient population, or unwillingness to ask patients to participate. Understanding and addressing the underlying issues provides an opportunity for the CTSA to improve the quality, and potentially reduce “waste,” in the proposal and regulatory systems. Achieve efficiencies through integration of multiple, fragmented IT systems. More than 30 IT systems, as well as paper records, were identified that are currently utilized by investigators to perform clinical and translational research. Moreover, multiple IT service providers exist across the institution with poorly defined roles, responsibilities, and accountability. Alignment of key IT systems and personnel that support clinical and translational research is imperative. The CTSA is playing a central role in developing and leading a cohesive strategy that integrates IT for researchers’ benefits. For example, the institution is investing in a system-wide approach to develop an overall architecture that will create a clinical data repository. Evolve the culture of U-M to be more supportive and enthusiastic of clinical research. Like many academic institutions, the University of Michigan has struggled to value clinical research to the same extent as the basic sciences. In interviews and surveys, many faculty noted that choosing a career in clinical research can be seen as “falling between the cracks” or not as respected as a career in basic research. While improving infrastructure demonstrates value to these researchers, it is not enough. The CTSA has advocated to create a working group to make recommendations to University leadership to increase recognition for excellence in clinical research, to refine promotion and incentive criteria to value scholarly clinical activity and emphasize collaboration and innovation across all disciplines (team science). Furthermore, a plan is being developed to expand training programs to support training of those who want to become clinical and translational researchers, beyond the few slots that the CTSA (K and T programs) can currently support. The mission of the CTSA to enhance an investigator’s ability to conduct translational research at the University of Michigan has resulted in concrete organizational plans and investments to improve infrastructure of translational research and increase the satisfaction of participants, faculty, and staff who are engaged in these activities.7 Similar changes are occurring at CTSA institutions all over the country, validating the vision of Dr. Zerhouni and the investment in these vehicles of change by the NIH. Supported by UL 1RR024986 NIH/NCRR—Clinical and Translation Science Award.

In this chapter, we outline a working definition of what a program of research is and describe some of the key components necessary for pursuing a program of research. We next highlight select programs of research within healthcare simulation, highlighting differing ways in which a program of research may arise (e.g., personal or organizational interests, research collaborations) and how programs grow and change as they mature. In keeping with the goals of this text, this chapter is primarily intended for individuals who are newly engaging in or are considering developing a program of research in healthcare simulation.

Two methods in search of science

Behavioral couples therapy (BCT) is an evidence-based couple therapy intervention for married or cohabitating substance abusers and their partners. This paper provides readers with a substantive and methodological review of Fals-Stewart, O'Farrell, and colleagues' program of research on BCT. The 23 studies included in this review provide support for the efficacy of BCT for improving substance use behavior, dyadic adjustment, child psychosocial outcomes, and reducing partner violence. This review includes a description of BCT, summaries of primary and secondary outcomes, highlights methodological strengths and weaknesses, notes barriers to dissemination, suggests future research directions, and provides clinical implications for couple and family therapists. Although there are several versions of BCT developed for the treatment of substance abuse this paper focuses on the version developed by O'Farrell, Fals-Stewart, and colleagues.

Although this research program is in the state of beginning, it seems like that the progress will be made more rapidly than expected. The reason is because new techniques and facilities derived from human genome research and other advanced genome program will overcome the current limitations and difficulties. Genome research cannot be accomplished by one or two research groups. That is why the program should be well organized and planned by scientists in various fields with common interest. Considering the tremendous amounts of time, money, and efforts required for performing genome research, the genome research programs should aim at concrete goals, such as getting new solutions that cannot be obtained by conventional approach, rather than remain as research for research is sake.

People from racial and ethnic minoritized groups, those with disabilities, and those from low-income backgrounds are underrepresented in biomedical careers. Increasing diversity in the biomedical workforce, particularly health care providers, is imperative to address the disparities faced by minoritized patients. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted disparities experienced by minoritized populations and emphasized the need for a more diverse biomedical workforce. Science internship, mentorship, and research programs, which have historically been conducted in person, have been shown to increase interest in biomedical fields for minoritized students. During the pandemic, many science internship programs pivoted to virtual programming. This evaluation focuses on two such programs for both early and late high school students and evaluates change in scientific identity and scientific tasks pre- and post-program. Additionally, early high school students were interviewed to obtain more in-depth information on the program experiences and effects. Early and late high school students reported increased scientific identity and comfort with scientific tasks compared pre- to post-program in several domains. Desire to pursue biomedical careers was maintained pre- to post-program for both groups. These results highlight the importance and acceptance of developing curricula for online platforms to help boost interest in biomedical fields and desire for biomedical careers.

IMPACT OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE: A LITERATURE REVIEW OF THE ALL OF US RESEARCH PROGRAM - AN NIH PRECISION MEDICINE INITIATIVE

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is conducting the Nuclear Plant Aging Research (NPAR) Program. This is a comprehensive hardware-oriented engineering research program focused on understanding the aging mechanisms of components and systems in nuclear plants. The NPAR program also focuses on methods for simulating and monitoring the aging-related degradation of these components and systems. In addition, it provides recommendations for effective maintenance to manage aging and for the implementation of the research results in the regulatory process. This document contains a listing and index of reports generated in the NPAR Program that were issued through May 1990 and summaries of those reports. Each summary describes the elements of the research covered in the report and outlines the significant results. For the convenience of the user, the reports are indexed by personal author, corporate author, and subject.