vol 11 | issue 2 | fall 2011

One-On-One Colleague InterviewsThe Bear Bones sits down with former Clinician Scholar, Dr. David Joyce and Registered Psychologist, Dr. Marjolaine Limbos

Scholarship of EducationDr. Joanna Bates explores medical education and teaching as a scholarly activity

Medical Education Research Dr. Ian Scott discusses how to engage in medical education research

Publications, Grants,Awards & Presentations

Submissions from January 1 toJune 30, 2011 listed on pages 20-31

PERSPECTIVES ON PRIMARY CARE RESEARCH

Colleagues: Drs. David Joyce and Marjolaine Limbos

Engaging in Medical Education Research By Dr. Ian Scott

Scholarship of EducationBy Dr. Joanna Bates

A conversation with Dr. Kevin Eva

Grants

Awards

Publications

Sue Harris Family Practice Research Grant

Presentations

4

8

14

18

20

21

22

26

27Cover Image

Photo by Brebca | fotolia.com

Please send all correspondence to the following address:

UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

Suite 320–5950 University Boulevard Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3

email: research.office@familymed.ubc.ca

phone: 604.827.4129 | fax: 604.827.4184

Editors

Debra Hanberg | debra.hanberg@familymed.ubc.ca

Sharon Mah | sharon.mah@familymed.ubc.ca

Graphic Designer

Michael Nomura | www.michaelnomura.com

the Bear Bones is available online at

www.familymed.ubc.ca/department/researchoffice

On June 30, 2011, Dr. Janusz Kaczorowski stepped down from his position as Research Director at the Department of Family Practice’s (DFP) Research Office.

Kaczorowski first began working for the Research Office in 2006, succeeding interim appointee Dr. Karim Khan as Research Director. He published prolifically during his time with UBC, producing 66 peer reviewed journal articles, 11 book chapters, 53 published conference proceedings and 60 posters, among other publications during his five year appointment. He won several awards including, in 2010, the prestigious Distinguished Presentation award at the annual meeting of the North American Primary Care Researchers Group (NAPCRG). Kaczorowski served as a mentor, collaborator and advisor to many faculty members within the department, advising both junior and senior researchers on experimental design, statistical analysis, presentation and the finer points of publishing.

His accomplishments and contributions to the Department were celebrated at the Department’s 2011 Faculty Research Day, where he gave an inspiring keynote address about the importance of persistence and consistent effort to the success of long-term research projects.

Kaczorowski assumed the role of Research Director, Faculté de médecine at l’Université de Montréal on August 1, 2011. He currently holds the Doctor Sadok Besrour Chair in Family Medicine at l’Université de Montréal and looks forward to continuing his collaboration with several of the department’s researchers.

The Department of Family Practice is currently searching for a permanent Research Director. In the interim, the Research Office will be led by Dr. Morgan Price, Assistant Professor. Dr. Price – who lives, practices and teaches in Victoria, BC – is the lead faculty for informatics in the

Department’s Family Medicine Residency Program. His research interests include health system improvements and clinical informatics. Dr. Price has worked in a number of areas of the healthcare system as a provider of primary and secondary care and has held administrative positions, including as Medical Director for Primary Care for the Vancouver Island Health Authority, and Medical Advisor to Ministry of Health Services eHealth group. In 2010, he completed his PhD on continuity of care.

The Department of Family Practice wishes Dr. Kaczorowski every success in his new role at Université de Montréal and welcomes Dr. Price into his new role as interim Research Director for the department.

Research Office Bids Farewell to Dr. Janusz Kaczorowski

Dr. Janusz Kaczorowski and Dr. Wendy Norman share a laugh at the farewell reception held

after Faculty Research Day.

Colleagues: Drs. David Joyce and Marjolaine Limbos

Engaging in Medical Education Research By Dr. Ian Scott

Scholarship of EducationBy Dr. Joanna Bates

A conversation with Dr. Kevin Eva

Grants

Awards

Publications

Sue Harris Family Practice Research Grant

Presentations

4

8

14

18

20

21

22

26

27Cover Image

Photo by Brebca | fotolia.com

Please send all correspondence to the following address:

UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

Suite 320–5950 University Boulevard Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3

email: research.office@familymed.ubc.ca

phone: 604.827.4129 | fax: 604.827.4184

Editors

Debra Hanberg | debra.hanberg@familymed.ubc.ca

Sharon Mah | sharon.mah@familymed.ubc.ca

Graphic Designer

Michael Nomura | www.michaelnomura.com

the Bear Bones is available online at

www.familymed.ubc.ca/department/researchoffice

On June 30, 2011, Dr. Janusz Kaczorowski stepped down from his position as Research Director at the Department of Family Practice’s (DFP) Research Office.

Kaczorowski first began working for the Research Office in 2006, succeeding interim appointee Dr. Karim Khan as Research Director. He published prolifically during his time with UBC, producing 66 peer reviewed journal articles, 11 book chapters, 53 published conference proceedings and 60 posters, among other publications during his five year appointment. He won several awards including, in 2010, the prestigious Distinguished Presentation award at the annual meeting of the North American Primary Care Researchers Group (NAPCRG). Kaczorowski served as a mentor, collaborator and advisor to many faculty members within the department, advising both junior and senior researchers on experimental design, statistical analysis, presentation and the finer points of publishing.

His accomplishments and contributions to the Department were celebrated at the Department’s 2011 Faculty Research Day, where he gave an inspiring keynote address about the importance of persistence and consistent effort to the success of long-term research projects.

Kaczorowski assumed the role of Research Director, Faculté de médecine at l’Université de Montréal on August 1, 2011. He currently holds the Doctor Sadok Besrour Chair in Family Medicine at l’Université de Montréal and looks forward to continuing his collaboration with several of the department’s researchers.

The Department of Family Practice is currently searching for a permanent Research Director. In the interim, the Research Office will be led by Dr. Morgan Price, Assistant Professor. Dr. Price – who lives, practices and teaches in Victoria, BC – is the lead faculty for informatics in the

Department’s Family Medicine Residency Program. His research interests include health system improvements and clinical informatics. Dr. Price has worked in a number of areas of the healthcare system as a provider of primary and secondary care and has held administrative positions, including as Medical Director for Primary Care for the Vancouver Island Health Authority, and Medical Advisor to Ministry of Health Services eHealth group. In 2010, he completed his PhD on continuity of care.

The Department of Family Practice wishes Dr. Kaczorowski every success in his new role at Université de Montréal and welcomes Dr. Price into his new role as interim Research Director for the department.

Research Office Bids Farewell to Dr. Janusz Kaczorowski

Dr. Janusz Kaczorowski and Dr. Wendy Norman share a laugh at the farewell reception held

after Faculty Research Day.

Co

llea

gu

es

� the BEAR BONES fall 2011 �vol 11 | issue 2 UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

The Bear Bones: How prevalent is developmental delay in children?

David Joyce: Developmental delay affects anywhere between 10 and 15 per cent of children. In the last census, Statistics Canada showed that it is the most disabling condition in children under the age of six. In our study, we randomly examined 334 children and found that 10 per cent had some form of developmental delay. As a family doctor, I cannot say that I see one in ten children with developmental delay, but that is the fact...

TBB: How do you define the term developmental delay?

Marjolaine Limbos: Developmental delay is a broad term that includes developmental disabilities as well as delays in other areas of development such as motor, cognitive, or receptive and expressive language. Only

a subset of the group with developmental delay will have cognitive or intellectual disabilities, so there is a distinction to be made there. In our study, we looked at children who were scoring below the 10th percentile on either their cognitive or developmental measures as well as children who had receptive or expressive language or motor delays. There are different ways to describe delays in cognitive development. One is to say that a child is falling behind their peer group – maybe they’re scoring in the low-average to below-average range or below the 25th percentile. In our study, we looked at children below the 10th percentile because we found that that it was too liberal to look below 25th percentile.

TBB: What age do you start testing for developmental delay?

DJ: There is such variability in the age that children meet ‘normal’ developmental milestones. Our study of two developmental screening tools – the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ) and the Parents’ Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) – found that the tests were very useful. Unaided, family physicians and pediatricians struggle to identify children with developmental delay. These screening tools have a set of questions for any given age-range. Screening for developmental delay can begin in infancy, but we studied it in preschool children aged one to five.

TBB: Can you describe the different types of screening tools?

DJ: Most Canadian family physicians use a truncated screening tool which is included in the Rourke Baby Record. The Rourke is a child monitoring tool that includes a

Dr. Marjolaine LimbosPsychologist, clinical instructorand researcher

Dr. David Joyce Family Physician, clinician scholar,and researcher

Dr. David Joyce is a family physician at the Pender Community

Health Centre in Vancouver and a Clinical Assistant Professor with

the UBC Department of Family Practice. He recently completed the

R3 Clinical Scholar Program and has an active research program

on developmental screening in primary care settings.

number of manoeuvres. For example, it indicates that I should measure and weigh the child, give the child DPTP vaccine, remind the parents to switch to a different car seat, and also ask a few questions about development. This tool, however, has not been validated for developmental screening, so doctors might be falsely assured that they are doing an adequate developmental check.

The ASQ and the PEDS are quite different. Both are brief and parent-administered. Doctors are busy, so having a tool that is parent-administered and then checked by the doctor can save a lot of time. As such, both tests are ideally suited for a primary care setting. The PEDS uses 10 open-ended questions asking parents about their concerns. One question is, “Do you have any concerns about your child’s ability to communicate?” The

response options would be “yes, no, or a little.” The test leaves a space where parents can write comments if they have a concern. It is a simple test that takes five minutes to complete and could be handed to someone in a waiting room. It doesn’t take too much planning or involvement of the child.

The ASQ has more psychometric questions, takes 15 minutes to complete, and is divided by age-group. Each age-group section has about 30 items. The parent is asked if their child is able to perform a specific task such as “does your child throw a ball in a forward motion?” (at 18 months) or “is your child able to help get himself or herself dressed?” (at two and a half years of age). It asks parents to do the test and if they don’t know the respsonse, it asks them to try the task with their child. There is a specific test in

each of the domains – speech, expressive speech, motor, receptive, cognitive, and adaptive functioning. The ASQ is similar to a test that a psychologist would perform, but much simpler and very brief.

TBB: Who sets the guidelines for testing on developmental delay?

DJ: The American Academy of Pediatrics, whose committee on developmental delay suggests screening at 9, 18, and 30 months, provides the best guidelines. In Canada, we focus more on the 18-month well-baby visit because there is a lot you can look for at that age. These guidelines are not as formal but have been set by the Ontario College of Family Physicians. It’s also a practical time to screen because the vaccine schedule changes after 18 months – there are no more vaccinations until the child begins school. We’re proposing that family

GPs may be the only professionals that have access to the

pre-school child and the ability to make further referrals if

there are concerns [about developmental delay].

Dr. Marjolaine Limbos is a registered psychologist, specializing in child

clinical psychology. She is a staff psychologist with the Renal and

Multi-Organ Transplant teams at BC Children’s Hospital, and works in

private practice in Vancouver. Her research interests relate to screening

for autism, developmental and learning problems in children, particularly

those with complex genetic and medical conditions. Photo by Elenathewise | fotolia.com

Co

llea

gu

es

� the BEAR BONES fall 2011 �vol 11 | issue 2 UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

The Bear Bones: How prevalent is developmental delay in children?

David Joyce: Developmental delay affects anywhere between 10 and 15 per cent of children. In the last census, Statistics Canada showed that it is the most disabling condition in children under the age of six. In our study, we randomly examined 334 children and found that 10 per cent had some form of developmental delay. As a family doctor, I cannot say that I see one in ten children with developmental delay, but that is the fact...

TBB: How do you define the term developmental delay?

Marjolaine Limbos: Developmental delay is a broad term that includes developmental disabilities as well as delays in other areas of development such as motor, cognitive, or receptive and expressive language. Only

a subset of the group with developmental delay will have cognitive or intellectual disabilities, so there is a distinction to be made there. In our study, we looked at children who were scoring below the 10th percentile on either their cognitive or developmental measures as well as children who had receptive or expressive language or motor delays. There are different ways to describe delays in cognitive development. One is to say that a child is falling behind their peer group – maybe they’re scoring in the low-average to below-average range or below the 25th percentile. In our study, we looked at children below the 10th percentile because we found that that it was too liberal to look below 25th percentile.

TBB: What age do you start testing for developmental delay?

DJ: There is such variability in the age that children meet ‘normal’ developmental milestones. Our study of two developmental screening tools – the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ) and the Parents’ Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) – found that the tests were very useful. Unaided, family physicians and pediatricians struggle to identify children with developmental delay. These screening tools have a set of questions for any given age-range. Screening for developmental delay can begin in infancy, but we studied it in preschool children aged one to five.

TBB: Can you describe the different types of screening tools?

DJ: Most Canadian family physicians use a truncated screening tool which is included in the Rourke Baby Record. The Rourke is a child monitoring tool that includes a

Dr. Marjolaine LimbosPsychologist, clinical instructorand researcher

Dr. David Joyce Family Physician, clinician scholar,and researcher

Dr. David Joyce is a family physician at the Pender Community

Health Centre in Vancouver and a Clinical Assistant Professor with

the UBC Department of Family Practice. He recently completed the

R3 Clinical Scholar Program and has an active research program

on developmental screening in primary care settings.

number of manoeuvres. For example, it indicates that I should measure and weigh the child, give the child DPTP vaccine, remind the parents to switch to a different car seat, and also ask a few questions about development. This tool, however, has not been validated for developmental screening, so doctors might be falsely assured that they are doing an adequate developmental check.

The ASQ and the PEDS are quite different. Both are brief and parent-administered. Doctors are busy, so having a tool that is parent-administered and then checked by the doctor can save a lot of time. As such, both tests are ideally suited for a primary care setting. The PEDS uses 10 open-ended questions asking parents about their concerns. One question is, “Do you have any concerns about your child’s ability to communicate?” The

response options would be “yes, no, or a little.” The test leaves a space where parents can write comments if they have a concern. It is a simple test that takes five minutes to complete and could be handed to someone in a waiting room. It doesn’t take too much planning or involvement of the child.

The ASQ has more psychometric questions, takes 15 minutes to complete, and is divided by age-group. Each age-group section has about 30 items. The parent is asked if their child is able to perform a specific task such as “does your child throw a ball in a forward motion?” (at 18 months) or “is your child able to help get himself or herself dressed?” (at two and a half years of age). It asks parents to do the test and if they don’t know the respsonse, it asks them to try the task with their child. There is a specific test in

each of the domains – speech, expressive speech, motor, receptive, cognitive, and adaptive functioning. The ASQ is similar to a test that a psychologist would perform, but much simpler and very brief.

TBB: Who sets the guidelines for testing on developmental delay?

DJ: The American Academy of Pediatrics, whose committee on developmental delay suggests screening at 9, 18, and 30 months, provides the best guidelines. In Canada, we focus more on the 18-month well-baby visit because there is a lot you can look for at that age. These guidelines are not as formal but have been set by the Ontario College of Family Physicians. It’s also a practical time to screen because the vaccine schedule changes after 18 months – there are no more vaccinations until the child begins school. We’re proposing that family

GPs may be the only professionals that have access to the

pre-school child and the ability to make further referrals if

there are concerns [about developmental delay].

Dr. Marjolaine Limbos is a registered psychologist, specializing in child

clinical psychology. She is a staff psychologist with the Renal and

Multi-Organ Transplant teams at BC Children’s Hospital, and works in

private practice in Vancouver. Her research interests relate to screening

for autism, developmental and learning problems in children, particularly

those with complex genetic and medical conditions. Photo by Elenathewise | fotolia.com

� the BEAR BONES fall 2011 �vol 11 | issue 2 UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

physicians administer the screening tools because GPs may be the only professionals that have access to the pre-school child and they have the ability to make further referrals if there are concerns.

TBB: Who scores the test?

DJ: Both tests have manuals that describe scoring, but it is very simple. Usually it is an administrative person who scores the test in the family doctor’s office. The health professional reviews it, makes a clinical judgment, and if needed, makes a referral.

TBB: What made you decide to research this topic?

DJ: This study came out of Marjolaine’s PhD in psychology which looked at learning disabilities and how teachers could help with early identification. We did a preliminary survey in Ontario and out of 150 family physicians, no one used the ASQ and PEDS, a handful used the Nippissing District Developmental Screen (NDDS), and even the Rourke Baby Record wasn’t performed by everyone. As a family doctor, I didn’t do much in the way of screening for developmental delay in the past. I’d read about the tests and knew they were being discussed in the literature, but in practice I just wasn’t seeing them used. ML: In psychology, there is this idea that we don’t have tests available to identify problems with children early on. Or often people say, “They’re young and they’ll grow out of it” or “let it be and see what happens.” Some children do grow out of their difficulties, but some do not and the earlier the intervention is put into place the better the outcome is for the child. In some children, we can see the problems right away and want to intervene before there are long-term effects and problems start to be compounded by social and emotional issues and peer relations.

TBB: How did you recruit participants for your study?

DJ: We started our study in Ontario and recruited children who were presenting to

their family physician for any reason, not necessarily developmental delay. Eighty primary care providers allowed us to recruit from their offices and 20 became involved in the larger study. Parents self-referred from posters and we had a summer research student recruiting from waiting rooms, so it was a convenience rather than random sample.

TBB: Can you describe how the tests for developmental delay were conducted?

DJ: We had parents self-administer the ASQ, PEDS, NDDS, Rourke Baby Record and the Modified Checklist for Autism (MCHAT); at the same time, Marjolaine did a battery of psychological testing on the children in a separate room. The parents completed a demographic survey to inform us about their child’s developmental history, signs of developmental delay, and medical problems. We also asked about the parents’ family history, drug use, smoking, socio-economic status, and ethnic background. In addition, we had permission to review the medical charts at their doctor’s office. At the end of the study, we had the results of the screening tests, the results of the gold standard to compare against, and demographic information about the children. We chose to compare the ASQ and the PEDS first because they seem to be a hot topic in the medical literature at this time.

TBB: What is the gold standard and why is it significant?

ML: The gold standard is an actual assessment by a psychologist, administration of well-established and standardized psychological measures, and giving an adaptive behavior interview. All three pieces are used to identify kids at risk. No one in previous studies had integrated an adequate gold standard as a comparison in their methodology, so we included it to improve on what had been done in the past.

TBB: What were your preliminary findings?

DJ: The ASQ has some advantage over the PEDS. We found that the ASQ has a sensitivity of 82 per cent and specificity of 78 per cent. Ratings above 70 per cent are considered acceptable and above 80 per cent is ideal. For the PEDS, we saw that sensitivity was still adequate at 74 per cent, but its specificity was only 64 per cent. If you have a low specificity it means that you will be telling a lot of kids there is a problem when there isn’t one. You don’t want the specificity to fall too low.

Even if we looked at the children who met stringent criteria for developmental disability, we saw that the ASQ stayed in the 75 to 80 per cent range for sensitivity and specificity across the age groups and across definitions. The PEDS always seemed to fall a little short in either the sensitivity or the specificity.

TBB: What impact does this study have on the current research?

DJ: There have been other studies comparing the ASQ and the PEDS, but they have never been administered together in a single study. Our study addresses this issue and also specifically addresses the group under the 10th percentile for developmental delay. If we only took the most disabled children it is different than looking at delayed children, which is also different than evaluating 25 per cent of all children.

In many of the other studies, researchers used a single developmental category or only administered the gold standard to those who scored positive on the screening test, which means that they know nothing about the false negative rates. Sensitivity and specificity are calculated based on formulas using true positive, false negative, true negative rates, and false positive rates, so when you only apply the gold standard to the positive screens you don’t know if children who test negative were truly negative. Assuming that all negatives were true negatives really throws off your calculation of sensitivity.

ML: Some past studies of these screening tools indicated that they seemed to be failing, but if you haven’t tested the

children correctly then you can’t really say that for sure. It is important to correctly classify children as delayed or not using an adequate gold standard.

DJ: It’s interesting to note that family doctors were getting the message from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health care that there is sufficient evidence to exclude developmental screening form periodic health exams. This recommendation was given as a result of a single study done in Canada where children were screened and then followed up. The problem was that the study used the Denver Developmental Screening Test, which has very low sensitivity and specificity. That study also didn’t offer much in the way of intervention for those identified with problems, so it is no wonder that the study showed no benefit of screening.

TBB: Do you think screening tools should be implemented in a primary care setting?

DJ: Absolutely. As a family doctor, there are so many things to keep your eye on, so it’s nice to have a tool that simplifies the process. You still have to apply your clinical judgment, but it is useful to have a validated screening test that lays out the levels of development at any given age. It has the potential to make a difference. We know that 10 per cent of children have a developmental delay – that’s quite a large number. We also know that about 30 per cent of children who have problems aren’t identified until they get to school, so children are seeing their doctor through this pre-school period and not being identified.

TBB: How do you start to implement it into family practice?

DJ: It takes a concerted effort to add one more new test to a doctor’s repertoire. In Ontario, there is a big push to use the Rourke and NDDS at the 18 month well-baby visit. There is an educational campaign taking place to promote their use. The government of Ontario bought the rights to the NDDS, so it is free for Ontario physicians to download and

doctors can also bill the health plan for the screening. This may overcome many of the barriers to using screening tools. No similar program exists in BC that I am aware of.

TBB: Why do you think they chose the NDDS over some of the other available tools?

DJ: Family physicians in Canada don’t seem to be aware of the ASQ and the PEDS. A group of experts in Ontario developed the NDDS – psychologists, pediatricians, family physicians, and leaders in the field of developmental delay. The NDDS is also brief, parent-administered and easy to interpret, but lacks validation. So I’m not sure why the NDDS was chosen over other well validated tests. We studied the NDDS in our cohort and we’re going to roll-out that data soon.

TBB: What would you say that is the most important thing you’ve learned from the research project or the process?

DJ: Parents were happy to participate and would spend three hours with our team. Parents want to know about their child’s development and get help if they are having

problems. I learned that it is the process of doing this screening with the families that is helpful. Dialoguing with parents gives them information that they can take home and helps them cope.

Even if the tests are used as a stepping stone to offer parents some advice, to support the family, or to follow-up, it can help all children develop better, delayed or not.

ML: There were a couple of severely challenged kids who were detected from our screening process who hadn’t been identified before, so that demonstrated that this process can be useful.

TBB: Is there one message that you want to get out to family physicians?

DJ: Doctors need to see the benefits of testing for developmental delay and keep an open mind. They should know that there are easy ways to screen children. They should also be confident that when we identify children early on, there is effective treatment that will benefit the children now, and more importantly, down the line.

Photo by Fotomorgana | dreamstime.com

the BEAR BONES

� the BEAR BONES fall 2011 �vol 11 | issue 2 UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

physicians administer the screening tools because GPs may be the only professionals that have access to the pre-school child and they have the ability to make further referrals if there are concerns.

TBB: Who scores the test?

DJ: Both tests have manuals that describe scoring, but it is very simple. Usually it is an administrative person who scores the test in the family doctor’s office. The health professional reviews it, makes a clinical judgment, and if needed, makes a referral.

TBB: What made you decide to research this topic?

DJ: This study came out of Marjolaine’s PhD in psychology which looked at learning disabilities and how teachers could help with early identification. We did a preliminary survey in Ontario and out of 150 family physicians, no one used the ASQ and PEDS, a handful used the Nippissing District Developmental Screen (NDDS), and even the Rourke Baby Record wasn’t performed by everyone. As a family doctor, I didn’t do much in the way of screening for developmental delay in the past. I’d read about the tests and knew they were being discussed in the literature, but in practice I just wasn’t seeing them used. ML: In psychology, there is this idea that we don’t have tests available to identify problems with children early on. Or often people say, “They’re young and they’ll grow out of it” or “let it be and see what happens.” Some children do grow out of their difficulties, but some do not and the earlier the intervention is put into place the better the outcome is for the child. In some children, we can see the problems right away and want to intervene before there are long-term effects and problems start to be compounded by social and emotional issues and peer relations.

TBB: How did you recruit participants for your study?

DJ: We started our study in Ontario and recruited children who were presenting to

their family physician for any reason, not necessarily developmental delay. Eighty primary care providers allowed us to recruit from their offices and 20 became involved in the larger study. Parents self-referred from posters and we had a summer research student recruiting from waiting rooms, so it was a convenience rather than random sample.

TBB: Can you describe how the tests for developmental delay were conducted?

DJ: We had parents self-administer the ASQ, PEDS, NDDS, Rourke Baby Record and the Modified Checklist for Autism (MCHAT); at the same time, Marjolaine did a battery of psychological testing on the children in a separate room. The parents completed a demographic survey to inform us about their child’s developmental history, signs of developmental delay, and medical problems. We also asked about the parents’ family history, drug use, smoking, socio-economic status, and ethnic background. In addition, we had permission to review the medical charts at their doctor’s office. At the end of the study, we had the results of the screening tests, the results of the gold standard to compare against, and demographic information about the children. We chose to compare the ASQ and the PEDS first because they seem to be a hot topic in the medical literature at this time.

TBB: What is the gold standard and why is it significant?

ML: The gold standard is an actual assessment by a psychologist, administration of well-established and standardized psychological measures, and giving an adaptive behavior interview. All three pieces are used to identify kids at risk. No one in previous studies had integrated an adequate gold standard as a comparison in their methodology, so we included it to improve on what had been done in the past.

TBB: What were your preliminary findings?

DJ: The ASQ has some advantage over the PEDS. We found that the ASQ has a sensitivity of 82 per cent and specificity of 78 per cent. Ratings above 70 per cent are considered acceptable and above 80 per cent is ideal. For the PEDS, we saw that sensitivity was still adequate at 74 per cent, but its specificity was only 64 per cent. If you have a low specificity it means that you will be telling a lot of kids there is a problem when there isn’t one. You don’t want the specificity to fall too low.

Even if we looked at the children who met stringent criteria for developmental disability, we saw that the ASQ stayed in the 75 to 80 per cent range for sensitivity and specificity across the age groups and across definitions. The PEDS always seemed to fall a little short in either the sensitivity or the specificity.

TBB: What impact does this study have on the current research?

DJ: There have been other studies comparing the ASQ and the PEDS, but they have never been administered together in a single study. Our study addresses this issue and also specifically addresses the group under the 10th percentile for developmental delay. If we only took the most disabled children it is different than looking at delayed children, which is also different than evaluating 25 per cent of all children.

In many of the other studies, researchers used a single developmental category or only administered the gold standard to those who scored positive on the screening test, which means that they know nothing about the false negative rates. Sensitivity and specificity are calculated based on formulas using true positive, false negative, true negative rates, and false positive rates, so when you only apply the gold standard to the positive screens you don’t know if children who test negative were truly negative. Assuming that all negatives were true negatives really throws off your calculation of sensitivity.

ML: Some past studies of these screening tools indicated that they seemed to be failing, but if you haven’t tested the

children correctly then you can’t really say that for sure. It is important to correctly classify children as delayed or not using an adequate gold standard.

DJ: It’s interesting to note that family doctors were getting the message from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health care that there is sufficient evidence to exclude developmental screening form periodic health exams. This recommendation was given as a result of a single study done in Canada where children were screened and then followed up. The problem was that the study used the Denver Developmental Screening Test, which has very low sensitivity and specificity. That study also didn’t offer much in the way of intervention for those identified with problems, so it is no wonder that the study showed no benefit of screening.

TBB: Do you think screening tools should be implemented in a primary care setting?

DJ: Absolutely. As a family doctor, there are so many things to keep your eye on, so it’s nice to have a tool that simplifies the process. You still have to apply your clinical judgment, but it is useful to have a validated screening test that lays out the levels of development at any given age. It has the potential to make a difference. We know that 10 per cent of children have a developmental delay – that’s quite a large number. We also know that about 30 per cent of children who have problems aren’t identified until they get to school, so children are seeing their doctor through this pre-school period and not being identified.

TBB: How do you start to implement it into family practice?

DJ: It takes a concerted effort to add one more new test to a doctor’s repertoire. In Ontario, there is a big push to use the Rourke and NDDS at the 18 month well-baby visit. There is an educational campaign taking place to promote their use. The government of Ontario bought the rights to the NDDS, so it is free for Ontario physicians to download and

doctors can also bill the health plan for the screening. This may overcome many of the barriers to using screening tools. No similar program exists in BC that I am aware of.

TBB: Why do you think they chose the NDDS over some of the other available tools?

DJ: Family physicians in Canada don’t seem to be aware of the ASQ and the PEDS. A group of experts in Ontario developed the NDDS – psychologists, pediatricians, family physicians, and leaders in the field of developmental delay. The NDDS is also brief, parent-administered and easy to interpret, but lacks validation. So I’m not sure why the NDDS was chosen over other well validated tests. We studied the NDDS in our cohort and we’re going to roll-out that data soon.

TBB: What would you say that is the most important thing you’ve learned from the research project or the process?

DJ: Parents were happy to participate and would spend three hours with our team. Parents want to know about their child’s development and get help if they are having

problems. I learned that it is the process of doing this screening with the families that is helpful. Dialoguing with parents gives them information that they can take home and helps them cope.

Even if the tests are used as a stepping stone to offer parents some advice, to support the family, or to follow-up, it can help all children develop better, delayed or not.

ML: There were a couple of severely challenged kids who were detected from our screening process who hadn’t been identified before, so that demonstrated that this process can be useful.

TBB: Is there one message that you want to get out to family physicians?

DJ: Doctors need to see the benefits of testing for developmental delay and keep an open mind. They should know that there are easy ways to screen children. They should also be confident that when we identify children early on, there is effective treatment that will benefit the children now, and more importantly, down the line.

Photo by Fotomorgana | dreamstime.com

the BEAR BONES

� the BEAR BONES fall 2011 �vol 11 | issue 2 UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

Dr. Ian Scott

I started at the University of British Columbia (UBC) as the Director of Undergraduate Family Practice Programmes in 2000. After getting my feet under me, I started to ask questions about what we were doing in undergraduate teaching. My first project examined why our community preceptors choose to teach (or not to). I received a small grant of $500 from the UBC Undergraduate Dean’s Office which paid for envelopes and stamps. I then learned how to write a questionnaire by doing literature searches and reading studies on surveys, preceptoring and survey design. I did not do this particularly well as later I discovered that my questions as I wrote them were very difficult to analyze. I would have benefitted from speaking to a methodologist beforehand – an early lesson that has helped me immeasurably since.

I had research training from previous course work but much of my learning was acquired through on-the-job reading and meeting with more experienced colleagues. I suspect many beginning researchers start this way: with modest skills and high ambition, we work to answer questions that arise during the course of our clinical work. Given that I work in

undergraduate medical education, my questions are primarily framed by this context. My family medicine training and practice help me keep a broad perspective on both the questions I ask and the ways I choose to answer them (surveys, focus groups, and Photovoice1).

Over the years, I conducted further, more complex research in medical education and gained skills through relatively modest research funding. Recently, I explored the factors that drive medical students to choose particular careers (especially family medicine), as well as the reasons students changed careers during medical school. My collaborators and I developed a model that – based on the characteristics of students starting medical school – predicts the likelihood of a student choosing a career in family medicine.

At its core, medical education research should improve learner performance on cognitive and clinical measures, improve learner satisfaction and ultimately improve patient outcomes. Groups, such as the Best Evidence for Medical Education (BEME) Collaboration have made it an organizational goal

Engaging in Medical Education Research

Photo courtesy of the UBC Faculty of Medicine

� the BEAR BONES fall 2011 �vol 11 | issue 2 UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

Dr. Ian Scott

I started at the University of British Columbia (UBC) as the Director of Undergraduate Family Practice Programmes in 2000. After getting my feet under me, I started to ask questions about what we were doing in undergraduate teaching. My first project examined why our community preceptors choose to teach (or not to). I received a small grant of $500 from the UBC Undergraduate Dean’s Office which paid for envelopes and stamps. I then learned how to write a questionnaire by doing literature searches and reading studies on surveys, preceptoring and survey design. I did not do this particularly well as later I discovered that my questions as I wrote them were very difficult to analyze. I would have benefitted from speaking to a methodologist beforehand – an early lesson that has helped me immeasurably since.

I had research training from previous course work but much of my learning was acquired through on-the-job reading and meeting with more experienced colleagues. I suspect many beginning researchers start this way: with modest skills and high ambition, we work to answer questions that arise during the course of our clinical work. Given that I work in

undergraduate medical education, my questions are primarily framed by this context. My family medicine training and practice help me keep a broad perspective on both the questions I ask and the ways I choose to answer them (surveys, focus groups, and Photovoice1).

Over the years, I conducted further, more complex research in medical education and gained skills through relatively modest research funding. Recently, I explored the factors that drive medical students to choose particular careers (especially family medicine), as well as the reasons students changed careers during medical school. My collaborators and I developed a model that – based on the characteristics of students starting medical school – predicts the likelihood of a student choosing a career in family medicine.

At its core, medical education research should improve learner performance on cognitive and clinical measures, improve learner satisfaction and ultimately improve patient outcomes. Groups, such as the Best Evidence for Medical Education (BEME) Collaboration have made it an organizational goal

Engaging in Medical Education Research

Photo courtesy of the UBC Faculty of Medicine

Funding sourCes

10 the BEAR BONES fall 2011 11vol 11 | issue 2 UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

to provide medical educators with the latest findings from scientifically-grounded educational research, allowing teachers and administrators to make informed decisions. BEME states strongly that in no other scientific field are personal experiences relied on to make policy choices, and in no other field is the research base so limited. If we want to improve health outcomes for our patients, by informing and fine-tuning our learners, medical education researchers need to grow the existing field of knowledge in a substantial way, that reflects the best practices of evidence-based medical research. Why do medical education research?

In theory, medical education based on strong evidence should produce physicians who provide high quality health care to citizens in the community and beyond. Unfortunately, understanding how to best train these providers by linking medical education to quality of care outcomes has received modest investment. Most studies focus on educational outcomes rather than clinical outcomes and tend to particularly focus on learner acquisition of knowledge and learner satisfaction.2 Chen et al have called for a greater focus on patient outcomes as a measure of medical education research but recognize that there are methodological challenges to this approach. Limitations include the complexity and number of variables and confounders as well as the significant lag in time between an educational intervention and its intended clinical outcome.3

Norman counters that there is no good reason to “continue with an attitude of despair and hand-wringing about the quality of educational research.” He states that “when we step back, we can point to many examples where educational researchers have developed or invented methodologies that clinical researchers have subsequently adopted.” He argues that the wide range of methodologies and findings of educational researchers, will make it very difficult to devise objective standards of evidence; yet, he does not suggest this is not a reason for trying.4 If we are to try, what are the current issues in medical education research that we could or should be looking at?

Current issues in medical education research

Glenn Regehr, Associate Director, Research with the UBC Centre for Health Education Scholarship (CHES), outlined the trends in medical education research, classifying recently conducted medical education research into four general areas:5

curriculum and teaching issuesskills and attitudes relevant to the concept of professionalismindividual characteristics of medical studentsevaluation of students and residents

Clearly these broad trends do not particularly address the concerns of patient health outcomes but one can consider an outcomes lens when examining these broad trends as well as new or novel directions in medical education research. Regehr has not drawn a map of where medical education should be going but rather has detailed a history of where it has evolved from. His concern from his description of these somewhat disparate themes is that it appears that individual medical education studies are not informing each other. Additionally, studies appear to impart little communal benefit due to the lack of coherent theories that might guide inquiry.

Thus perhaps the greatest issue to be addressed by medical education researchers is how research questions will be informed by the current body of knowledge and not be seen as “one offs” that don’t advance the field. By contributing to the larger understanding of medical education through theory exploration and collaboration with others, individual research projects will become more than exercises in curriculum evaluation and move into the realm of important, field-growing medical education research.

What are the pitfalls in medical education research?

Perhaps the biggest challenge in medical education research is an initial desire to answer a question that irritates or intrigues – this curiosity is good but by not attending to the literature

••

••

If we want to improve health outcomes for our patients, by

informing and fine-tuning our learners, medical education

researchers need to grow the existing field of knowledge in a

substantial way, that reflects the best practices of evidence-

based medical research.

before engaging the question, we do not know what the current understanding of our particular issue is or the broader context of knowledge that exists. There are likely hundreds of questions that can be asked about a curriculum but not all need answering. For some, there may already be answers in available literature; for others, the answer may lie in a focus group of learners or a short survey to discover what works and what does not (and falls within the realm of quality improvement). There may be a real need to address some questions, however, through formal research. With care and work, answers to these questions will serve your own needs as well as those of the larger medical education community by placing your inquiry into a research context. Is there a theoretical model that can be used to frame the question? Is there current literature on this topic that can be further explored? Have others used tools or surveys that can be applied in your context and will your proposed exploration be a contribution?

Exploring these framing questions in relation to your area of interest will increase the value of your research. Kevin Eva, member of four editorial boards and editor-in-chief for the journal Medical Education, reports that the most common reason that submissions do not proceed past the initial review stage is due to a lack of a conceptual framework for the manuscript’s research question.6 His article (page 18) discusses the various factors medical education researchers should consider when attempting to publish research.

One must be aware that evaluating a curricular change at your own institution and calling it research (particularly after you have made the change and evaluated it) is unlikely to be considered research by many publishing organizations. Take a mindful approach: explore an area of interest first through the literature, and then formulate a question framed by your exploration. This approach, while taking more time initially, will likely provide more tangible results and greater satisfaction in the long run.

How can I find other people to partner with or help me do medical education research?

If you are someone who tends work alone, it is to your advantage to learn the value of collaborating with others. UBC is fortunate to have the Centre for Health Education Scholarship (CHES) which allows researchers to find and foster collaborations, and is a valuable resource for learning through its fellowships. (See Joanna Bates’ article on page 14.) Other ways to find research partners is to read papers or search out other researchers at your institution (or at other institutions) who share your interests and passions.

How much money do I need to do medical education research?

Funding and quality are related. A review of 210 medical education research studies published during a one year period in 13 peer-reviewed journals showed that funding greater than

$20,000 was associated with higher quality research.7 Studies with greater amounts of funding allow multi-institutional collaborations to occur, and have stronger study designs and more methodological rigor than lesser-funded studies. Luckily, in the realm of research, $20,000 is a relatively small amount and is more attainable that the extensive funding required to conduct a randomized controlled drug trial.

Considerations when framing a medical education research project

Passion for a subject is the most important part of the research equation. Come up with a question you are passionate about that feels like it needs to be answered. Think about who you might collaborate with – it is not only more enjoyable to work with others but you learn more, you spread the work around and your output will likely be greater than if you work on your own.

Go to the literature to better understand your question and to contextualize your research. We often get so excited by a new curriculum development that we focus completely on evaluating “if it works” rather than considering whether there’s a contextual framework and/or a body of knowledge our research can add to. By consulting existing literature and tweaking your question a bit you can often answer the curriculum quality improvement question for your particular context while contributing to the larger body of literature.

To find funding for medical education research can require some creativity. The following organizations are more likely to fund medical education studies:

The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada rcpsc.medical.org/awards/index.php

The College of Family Physicians of Canada www.cfpc.ca/Research_Awards_Grants_Family_Physicians

The Medical Council of Canada www.mcc.ca/en/research/grants.shtml

The Spencer Foundationwww.spencer.org/

The National Board of Examiners www.nbme.org

Funding sourCes

10 the BEAR BONES fall 2011 11vol 11 | issue 2 UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

to provide medical educators with the latest findings from scientifically-grounded educational research, allowing teachers and administrators to make informed decisions. BEME states strongly that in no other scientific field are personal experiences relied on to make policy choices, and in no other field is the research base so limited. If we want to improve health outcomes for our patients, by informing and fine-tuning our learners, medical education researchers need to grow the existing field of knowledge in a substantial way, that reflects the best practices of evidence-based medical research. Why do medical education research?

In theory, medical education based on strong evidence should produce physicians who provide high quality health care to citizens in the community and beyond. Unfortunately, understanding how to best train these providers by linking medical education to quality of care outcomes has received modest investment. Most studies focus on educational outcomes rather than clinical outcomes and tend to particularly focus on learner acquisition of knowledge and learner satisfaction.2 Chen et al have called for a greater focus on patient outcomes as a measure of medical education research but recognize that there are methodological challenges to this approach. Limitations include the complexity and number of variables and confounders as well as the significant lag in time between an educational intervention and its intended clinical outcome.3

Norman counters that there is no good reason to “continue with an attitude of despair and hand-wringing about the quality of educational research.” He states that “when we step back, we can point to many examples where educational researchers have developed or invented methodologies that clinical researchers have subsequently adopted.” He argues that the wide range of methodologies and findings of educational researchers, will make it very difficult to devise objective standards of evidence; yet, he does not suggest this is not a reason for trying.4 If we are to try, what are the current issues in medical education research that we could or should be looking at?

Current issues in medical education research

Glenn Regehr, Associate Director, Research with the UBC Centre for Health Education Scholarship (CHES), outlined the trends in medical education research, classifying recently conducted medical education research into four general areas:5

curriculum and teaching issuesskills and attitudes relevant to the concept of professionalismindividual characteristics of medical studentsevaluation of students and residents

Clearly these broad trends do not particularly address the concerns of patient health outcomes but one can consider an outcomes lens when examining these broad trends as well as new or novel directions in medical education research. Regehr has not drawn a map of where medical education should be going but rather has detailed a history of where it has evolved from. His concern from his description of these somewhat disparate themes is that it appears that individual medical education studies are not informing each other. Additionally, studies appear to impart little communal benefit due to the lack of coherent theories that might guide inquiry.

Thus perhaps the greatest issue to be addressed by medical education researchers is how research questions will be informed by the current body of knowledge and not be seen as “one offs” that don’t advance the field. By contributing to the larger understanding of medical education through theory exploration and collaboration with others, individual research projects will become more than exercises in curriculum evaluation and move into the realm of important, field-growing medical education research.

What are the pitfalls in medical education research?

Perhaps the biggest challenge in medical education research is an initial desire to answer a question that irritates or intrigues – this curiosity is good but by not attending to the literature

••

••

If we want to improve health outcomes for our patients, by

informing and fine-tuning our learners, medical education

researchers need to grow the existing field of knowledge in a

substantial way, that reflects the best practices of evidence-

based medical research.

before engaging the question, we do not know what the current understanding of our particular issue is or the broader context of knowledge that exists. There are likely hundreds of questions that can be asked about a curriculum but not all need answering. For some, there may already be answers in available literature; for others, the answer may lie in a focus group of learners or a short survey to discover what works and what does not (and falls within the realm of quality improvement). There may be a real need to address some questions, however, through formal research. With care and work, answers to these questions will serve your own needs as well as those of the larger medical education community by placing your inquiry into a research context. Is there a theoretical model that can be used to frame the question? Is there current literature on this topic that can be further explored? Have others used tools or surveys that can be applied in your context and will your proposed exploration be a contribution?

Exploring these framing questions in relation to your area of interest will increase the value of your research. Kevin Eva, member of four editorial boards and editor-in-chief for the journal Medical Education, reports that the most common reason that submissions do not proceed past the initial review stage is due to a lack of a conceptual framework for the manuscript’s research question.6 His article (page 18) discusses the various factors medical education researchers should consider when attempting to publish research.

One must be aware that evaluating a curricular change at your own institution and calling it research (particularly after you have made the change and evaluated it) is unlikely to be considered research by many publishing organizations. Take a mindful approach: explore an area of interest first through the literature, and then formulate a question framed by your exploration. This approach, while taking more time initially, will likely provide more tangible results and greater satisfaction in the long run.

How can I find other people to partner with or help me do medical education research?

If you are someone who tends work alone, it is to your advantage to learn the value of collaborating with others. UBC is fortunate to have the Centre for Health Education Scholarship (CHES) which allows researchers to find and foster collaborations, and is a valuable resource for learning through its fellowships. (See Joanna Bates’ article on page 14.) Other ways to find research partners is to read papers or search out other researchers at your institution (or at other institutions) who share your interests and passions.

How much money do I need to do medical education research?

Funding and quality are related. A review of 210 medical education research studies published during a one year period in 13 peer-reviewed journals showed that funding greater than

$20,000 was associated with higher quality research.7 Studies with greater amounts of funding allow multi-institutional collaborations to occur, and have stronger study designs and more methodological rigor than lesser-funded studies. Luckily, in the realm of research, $20,000 is a relatively small amount and is more attainable that the extensive funding required to conduct a randomized controlled drug trial.

Considerations when framing a medical education research project

Passion for a subject is the most important part of the research equation. Come up with a question you are passionate about that feels like it needs to be answered. Think about who you might collaborate with – it is not only more enjoyable to work with others but you learn more, you spread the work around and your output will likely be greater than if you work on your own.

Go to the literature to better understand your question and to contextualize your research. We often get so excited by a new curriculum development that we focus completely on evaluating “if it works” rather than considering whether there’s a contextual framework and/or a body of knowledge our research can add to. By consulting existing literature and tweaking your question a bit you can often answer the curriculum quality improvement question for your particular context while contributing to the larger body of literature.

To find funding for medical education research can require some creativity. The following organizations are more likely to fund medical education studies:

The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada rcpsc.medical.org/awards/index.php

The College of Family Physicians of Canada www.cfpc.ca/Research_Awards_Grants_Family_Physicians

The Medical Council of Canada www.mcc.ca/en/research/grants.shtml

The Spencer Foundationwww.spencer.org/

The National Board of Examiners www.nbme.org

Journals that publish mediCal eduCation researCh

Medical EducationAcademic MedicineCanadian Family PhysicianFamily MedicineMedical TeacherTeaching and Learning in MedicineCanadian Medical Education JournalAdvances in Health Sciences EducationBMC Medical EducationJournal of Continuing Education in the Health professionsJournal of the International Association of Medical Science EducatorsEducation for HealthEducation for Primary CareEvaluation and the Health ProfessionsJournal of Medical EthicsMedical Education OnlinePedagogie MedicalePostgraduate Medical Journal OnlineBMJ (British Medical Journal)CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal)

••••••••••

•

•••••••••

12 the BEAR BONES fall 2011 13vol 11 | issue 2 UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

Think broadly about methodology. While the pursuit of patient outcome data is laudable, it is difficult to collect. We may need to be content with “process” data: knowledge, attitudes or skill assessments that will lead to improved patient outcomes. Think about process data that may be important to patient outcomes, or methods that may give proximate answers to those hard outcomes. Often in medical education we are still trying to figure out how things work in addition to measuring how much they work – consider qualitative methods to drill down into the meanings that learners give to interventions.

Remember that you will be primarily be working with learners. Seeking appropriate permissions is vital – will the program director, dean, etc. allow you to carry out your research on his/her students? Consider who you will need to “buy-in” to your project. If working with residents, consult with the residency director and residents early in the project to get feedback on your question and methodology. If working with medical students or midwives, pilot your question, tools and methods early. When learners see a study presented or endorsed by a colleague, they are more likely to participate in the project.

Where will this all take us? If we do medical education research well and we answer questions that arise out of our individual passions and need; if this research is informed by the literature and done in collaboration with others; if we work to help grow the field; if our research tests and develops theory, we will not only improve student education but we will also potentially improve patient care. At the core of our social contract as educators is this responsibility: to improve the care of patients that our students will care for – medical education research should help us do this better.

Although medical education research may be more challenging than traditional avenues of medical research, it has great potential as a tool to improve outcomes for both physicians, and patients, especially when being shaped and directed by “front-line” clinicians. I encourage you to follow through on investigating your questions – what you discover could be valuable for teachers, learners and patients alike.

References

Photovoice is a participatory action research strategy.

Visit photovoice.ca for more information.

Prystowsky JB, Bordage G. (2001). An outcomes research perspective

on medical education: The predominance of trainee assessment and

satisfaction. Med Educ 35: 331–336.

Chen FM, Bauchner H, Burstin H. (2004). A call for outcomes

research in medical education. Acad Med 79(10): 955-960.

Norman, G. R. (2000). Reflections on BEME. Medical Teacher

2(2): 141-144. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/

pdfviewer?sid=d1cb2743-aa0b-4274-a458-35e01fc7a083%40sessionm

gr4&vid=2&hid=18

Regehr G. (2004). Trends in medical education research. Acad Med

79(10): 939-947. http://meds.queensu.ca/ohse/assets/regehr_

trends_in_med_ed_research_2004.pdf

Personal communication

Reed DA, Cook DA, Beckman TJ, Levine RB, Kern DE, Wright SM.

(2007). Association between funding and quality of published Medical

Education Research. JAMA 298(9): 1002-1009. doi:10.1001/

jama.298.9.1002

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

At the core of our social contract as educators is this responsibility:

to improve the care of patients that our students will care for –

medical education research should help us do this better.

Photo by Fotomorgana | dreamstime.com

the BEAR BONES

Journals that publish mediCal eduCation researCh

Medical EducationAcademic MedicineCanadian Family PhysicianFamily MedicineMedical TeacherTeaching and Learning in MedicineCanadian Medical Education JournalAdvances in Health Sciences EducationBMC Medical EducationJournal of Continuing Education in the Health professionsJournal of the International Association of Medical Science EducatorsEducation for HealthEducation for Primary CareEvaluation and the Health ProfessionsJournal of Medical EthicsMedical Education OnlinePedagogie MedicalePostgraduate Medical Journal OnlineBMJ (British Medical Journal)CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal)

••••••••••

•

•••••••••

12 the BEAR BONES fall 2011 13vol 11 | issue 2 UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

Think broadly about methodology. While the pursuit of patient outcome data is laudable, it is difficult to collect. We may need to be content with “process” data: knowledge, attitudes or skill assessments that will lead to improved patient outcomes. Think about process data that may be important to patient outcomes, or methods that may give proximate answers to those hard outcomes. Often in medical education we are still trying to figure out how things work in addition to measuring how much they work – consider qualitative methods to drill down into the meanings that learners give to interventions.

Remember that you will be primarily be working with learners. Seeking appropriate permissions is vital – will the program director, dean, etc. allow you to carry out your research on his/her students? Consider who you will need to “buy-in” to your project. If working with residents, consult with the residency director and residents early in the project to get feedback on your question and methodology. If working with medical students or midwives, pilot your question, tools and methods early. When learners see a study presented or endorsed by a colleague, they are more likely to participate in the project.

Where will this all take us? If we do medical education research well and we answer questions that arise out of our individual passions and need; if this research is informed by the literature and done in collaboration with others; if we work to help grow the field; if our research tests and develops theory, we will not only improve student education but we will also potentially improve patient care. At the core of our social contract as educators is this responsibility: to improve the care of patients that our students will care for – medical education research should help us do this better.

Although medical education research may be more challenging than traditional avenues of medical research, it has great potential as a tool to improve outcomes for both physicians, and patients, especially when being shaped and directed by “front-line” clinicians. I encourage you to follow through on investigating your questions – what you discover could be valuable for teachers, learners and patients alike.

References

Photovoice is a participatory action research strategy.

Visit photovoice.ca for more information.

Prystowsky JB, Bordage G. (2001). An outcomes research perspective

on medical education: The predominance of trainee assessment and

satisfaction. Med Educ 35: 331–336.

Chen FM, Bauchner H, Burstin H. (2004). A call for outcomes

research in medical education. Acad Med 79(10): 955-960.

Norman, G. R. (2000). Reflections on BEME. Medical Teacher

2(2): 141-144. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/

pdfviewer?sid=d1cb2743-aa0b-4274-a458-35e01fc7a083%40sessionm

gr4&vid=2&hid=18

Regehr G. (2004). Trends in medical education research. Acad Med

79(10): 939-947. http://meds.queensu.ca/ohse/assets/regehr_

trends_in_med_ed_research_2004.pdf

Personal communication

Reed DA, Cook DA, Beckman TJ, Levine RB, Kern DE, Wright SM.

(2007). Association between funding and quality of published Medical

Education Research. JAMA 298(9): 1002-1009. doi:10.1001/

jama.298.9.1002

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

At the core of our social contract as educators is this responsibility:

to improve the care of patients that our students will care for –

medical education research should help us do this better.

Photo by Fotomorgana | dreamstime.com

the BEAR BONES

dR. MARIA HubINETTE

CliniCaleduCatorFellow

1� the BEAR BONES fall 2011 1�vol 11 | issue 2 UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

Are you a clinical preceptor for family practice residents? Or perhaps you are on a committee for the certification exams of the College of Family Physicians of Canada. Or teaching medical students about interviewing patients. Teaching is a hallmark activity of university faculty, and the UBC Department of Family Practice is no exception. Many of us think of teaching as a service activity, entirely separate from the more scholarly activity of research. Increasingly, universities are thinking of

education and teaching as a scholarly activity. How has this change come about?

In the 1990s, the academic community spoke about research as the scholarly activity of universities. Faculty members taught as part of the service of academic faculty, but teaching alone did not lead to tenure and promotion. In 1990, The Carnegie Foundation commissioned and published a seminal work by Ernest Boyer: Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate.1 Boyer acknowledges the scholarship of discovery, i.e., traditional research, but then goes on to describe and articulate other forms of scholarship: the scholarship of teaching; the scholarship of integration; and, the scholarship of application. Boyer’s work was fundamental in rethinking scholarship in universities, and led to universities examining their assumptions about the value of different forms of scholarly work. His work provided a framework from which to challenge the prevailing notion that “everyone teaches” and replace it with one that examined teaching as a distinct form of scholarly work.

As part of this movement, the Association of American Colleges (AAMC) convened an expert working group to define the components and evidence of educational scholarship. This report articulated common criteria for all forms of scholarship, whether traditional research or educational scholarship: namely, clear goals; adequate preparation; appropriate methods; significant results; effective presentation; and reflective critique.2

Dr. Joanna Bates

Like many universities, UBC examined alternate forms of scholarship and developed definitions and criteria. While there are indeed traditional researchers in education and in medical education, scholarly teaching and scholarship of education take place outside the traditional forms of research. Faculty take a scholarly approach to teaching when they systematically design, implement, assess, and redesign an educational activity, drawing from the literature and “best practices” in the field, documenting this base for the activity. If you gather ideas for your course or teaching from conferences or literature that you read, apply them in your context, and then evaluate and reflect on how these ideas work, then you are taking a scholarly approach to teaching. At UBC, a scholarly approach to teaching is seen as an important component for all faculty who teach, but is not recognized as academic contribution for the purposes of tenure and promotion.

On the other hand, faculty engage in educational scholarship by both drawing on the resources and best practices in the field and by contributing original resources to it. If you gather your ideas from others’ work, but then integrate a new idea, or a new concept to build an educational program that is innovative; and then evaluate what you have done and disseminate your work in conferences and through other means and see your ideas taken up by others and built upon, then you are engaged in educational scholarship. Documentation of scholarship begins

dr. maria hubinette has taught clinically for the UBC Department of Family Practice since 2009 and is currently a group facilitator for the Faculty of Medicine’s undergraduate courses: Communications Skills; Doctor, Patient and Society; and Problem-based Learning.

Dr. Hubinette’s enjoyment of her role as an educator led her to Centre for Health Education Scholarship (CHES) where she embarked on the Clinical Educator Fellowship (CEF). She applied for the fellowship because she wanted to “enhance [her] skills in the area of health education scholarship and research, and to become a more effective teacher and mentor of medical students.” She is currently working to achieve her Masters in Health Education and continues to develop her skills in course development. She is involved in the Faculty of Medicine’s Mentorship Program and participates in faculty committee work.

by demonstrating that an educational activity product (such as a curriculum) is publicly available to the larger community in a form that others can build on, that peers assess its value to the community applying accepted criteria and that others build on the contribution. At UBC, educational scholarship is recognized as academic contribution when there is evidence of both innovation in the field, and impact or uptake beyond UBC.

Educational scholarship is not just about teaching, but also about assessment, educational program structures, student support, and so on. Family medicine has made significant contributions to the field of educational scholarship. Whether about rural training, distributed medical education, educational outcomes of continuity of patient care, or understanding the barriers for IMGs entering Canadian practice, educational scholarship is alive and well in the discipline of family medicine!

Scholarship of Education

Photo by Sharon Mah

dR. MARIA HubINETTE

CliniCaleduCatorFellow

1� the BEAR BONES fall 2011 1�vol 11 | issue 2 UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

Are you a clinical preceptor for family practice residents? Or perhaps you are on a committee for the certification exams of the College of Family Physicians of Canada. Or teaching medical students about interviewing patients. Teaching is a hallmark activity of university faculty, and the UBC Department of Family Practice is no exception. Many of us think of teaching as a service activity, entirely separate from the more scholarly activity of research. Increasingly, universities are thinking of

education and teaching as a scholarly activity. How has this change come about?

In the 1990s, the academic community spoke about research as the scholarly activity of universities. Faculty members taught as part of the service of academic faculty, but teaching alone did not lead to tenure and promotion. In 1990, The Carnegie Foundation commissioned and published a seminal work by Ernest Boyer: Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate.1 Boyer acknowledges the scholarship of discovery, i.e., traditional research, but then goes on to describe and articulate other forms of scholarship: the scholarship of teaching; the scholarship of integration; and, the scholarship of application. Boyer’s work was fundamental in rethinking scholarship in universities, and led to universities examining their assumptions about the value of different forms of scholarly work. His work provided a framework from which to challenge the prevailing notion that “everyone teaches” and replace it with one that examined teaching as a distinct form of scholarly work.

As part of this movement, the Association of American Colleges (AAMC) convened an expert working group to define the components and evidence of educational scholarship. This report articulated common criteria for all forms of scholarship, whether traditional research or educational scholarship: namely, clear goals; adequate preparation; appropriate methods; significant results; effective presentation; and reflective critique.2

Dr. Joanna Bates

Like many universities, UBC examined alternate forms of scholarship and developed definitions and criteria. While there are indeed traditional researchers in education and in medical education, scholarly teaching and scholarship of education take place outside the traditional forms of research. Faculty take a scholarly approach to teaching when they systematically design, implement, assess, and redesign an educational activity, drawing from the literature and “best practices” in the field, documenting this base for the activity. If you gather ideas for your course or teaching from conferences or literature that you read, apply them in your context, and then evaluate and reflect on how these ideas work, then you are taking a scholarly approach to teaching. At UBC, a scholarly approach to teaching is seen as an important component for all faculty who teach, but is not recognized as academic contribution for the purposes of tenure and promotion.

On the other hand, faculty engage in educational scholarship by both drawing on the resources and best practices in the field and by contributing original resources to it. If you gather your ideas from others’ work, but then integrate a new idea, or a new concept to build an educational program that is innovative; and then evaluate what you have done and disseminate your work in conferences and through other means and see your ideas taken up by others and built upon, then you are engaged in educational scholarship. Documentation of scholarship begins

dr. maria hubinette has taught clinically for the UBC Department of Family Practice since 2009 and is currently a group facilitator for the Faculty of Medicine’s undergraduate courses: Communications Skills; Doctor, Patient and Society; and Problem-based Learning.

Dr. Hubinette’s enjoyment of her role as an educator led her to Centre for Health Education Scholarship (CHES) where she embarked on the Clinical Educator Fellowship (CEF). She applied for the fellowship because she wanted to “enhance [her] skills in the area of health education scholarship and research, and to become a more effective teacher and mentor of medical students.” She is currently working to achieve her Masters in Health Education and continues to develop her skills in course development. She is involved in the Faculty of Medicine’s Mentorship Program and participates in faculty committee work.

by demonstrating that an educational activity product (such as a curriculum) is publicly available to the larger community in a form that others can build on, that peers assess its value to the community applying accepted criteria and that others build on the contribution. At UBC, educational scholarship is recognized as academic contribution when there is evidence of both innovation in the field, and impact or uptake beyond UBC.

Educational scholarship is not just about teaching, but also about assessment, educational program structures, student support, and so on. Family medicine has made significant contributions to the field of educational scholarship. Whether about rural training, distributed medical education, educational outcomes of continuity of patient care, or understanding the barriers for IMGs entering Canadian practice, educational scholarship is alive and well in the discipline of family medicine!

Scholarship of Education

Photo by Sharon Mah

1� the BEAR BONES fall 2011 1�vol 11 | issue 2 UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

to help individuals develop the skill set previously described. Depending on the needs and desires of the particular individual, CHES’s support and mentoring may take several forms. CHES organizes seminars, academic rounds, and meetings of individuals with common interests, as well as more formal mentorship and training such as the Clinical Educator Fellowship Program (CEFP). The CEFP comprises of two years of immersion in health education scholarship at CHES. This includes: (1) completion of a Master’s level graduate degree in medical education; (2) completion of a major research project/thesis under the supervision and guidance of CHES faculty; and (3) commitment of educational engagement of 300 hours per year to the MD Undergraduate Program, resulting in participation in teaching and other educational activities in a variety of settings and formats. Irrespective of their home departments, fellows, who are usually young clinical faculty or senior residents, are housed at CHES, and become part of the community, forging collaborations and links across departments and disciplines. Maria Hubinette, a clinical faculty member in the Department of Family Practice is currently engaged in her first year of the CEFP (see sidebar).

Adding to the culture at CHES is a constant stream of visitors from around the world. Our academic rounds bring in presenters from across Canada who stay with us for several days, meeting and working with faculty members and trainees. Others visit as part of sabbaticals or en route to a meeting elsewhere. Last year we were privileged to have Tim Dornan, associate editor of Medical Education with us for a month as a visiting scholar, teaching us about discourse analysis and communities of practice. Upcoming visitors include Trevor Gibbs, an academic family physician and associate editor of the AMEE guides and Medical Teacher; Patricia O’Sullivan who is the director of the Teaching Scholars Program at UCSF and is working on portfolios for assessment; Torsten Risør, a family physician with a PhD in medical education from Tromso in arctic Norway, who is working on teaching uncertainty in family practice; and Judith Bowen professor of Medicine at University of Oregon, who is working on clinical reasoning and diagnostic closure.

How does this relate to you? If you are engaged in teaching of medical students, residents, or family physicians in practice, you may find yourself wondering about issues you observe. Why are some students more empathetic than others? How do residents from different cultures handle cross-cultural care with sensitivity? Why do some residents seem to sort out complex patients easily and others struggle? Take a moment to identify a question you ponder as you teach.

What happens with these questions arising from your own practice? Several medical schools have developed centres of medical education to support faculty identifying and studying educational problems and solutions. Twelve out of the 17 medical schools in Canada have such centres, and the remaining schools have informal networks of support. Interestingly, Canada appears to be well ahead of the USA and other areas of the world in our effective engagement with these types of questions, and our resulting contributions to the multidisciplinary field on medical education.

The UBC Faculty of Medicine has also implemented a centre for medical education. The faculty’s strategic plan for 2005-2010, HealthTrek 2010, outlined the development of such a centre for medical education as a strategy for meeting its goals in education scholarship. The Centre of Health Education Scholarship (CHES), was approved by the faculty executive in March 2008 following an extensive consultation process with faculty and department heads. The mission of CHES is to promote scholarship that supports, challenges, and improves health professions education. CHES has a mandate to shape the theories and activities of learning in the health professions by: creating new knowledge through research and informed innovation; building capacity through the mentorship of individuals; and fostering a culture of collaboration and scholarly thinking in health professions education (HPE).

Lofty thoughts, but what does CHES actually do? CHES is oriented around a philosophy of developing excellence and expanding the resource base of qualified individuals in the UBC HPE community. To this end, the goal is to provide mentorship

References

Boyer, EL (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the

Professoriate. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press

Simpson D, R-ME Fincher, JP Hafler, DM Irby, BC Richards, G

Rosenfeld and TR Viggiano (2007). Advancing educators and education

by defining the components and evidence associated with educational

scholarship. Medical Education 41: 1002-1009.

1.

2.

the BEAR BONES

While each of the core faculty have an active program of research, CHES as a faculty centre is currently focusing on the wide array of individual research interests of its members, linking members with similar interests, and allowing areas of focus to develop and emerge over time. These emerging foci currently include assessment, feedback, distributed medical education, social responsibility, simulation, and virtual patients. Given the strength of educational innovation in the Faculty of Medicine, CHES also collaborates with education programs and individuals leading these programs to increase capacity for scholarly innovation. An essential feature of this scholarship supported by CHES is dissemination in peer-reviewed abstracts and literature to the broader community.

How do you get started? All faculty and residents and staff are welcome to attend rounds and seminars, which are videoconferenced to multiple sites (and archived in the members-only area of the website. Go to the CHES website for further information: www.ches.med.ubc.ca. Your interest may be tweaked by the discussion, and you may find yourself with others with similar research interests. Or come to the very low stakes Medical Education Research Interest Group (MERG) that Kevin Eva and I facilitate with the help of Debra Hanberg – we meet several times a year early on Friday mornings. If you are exploring an area for inquiry, consider getting in touch with one of us, come in and discuss your ideas. We will try to help connect you to others who are interested in similar questions (see sidebar), and help you create a network of support for your work.

Medical education is an important field – by changing medical education we can change physicians, and therefore change the experience of patients. For me, this is the fundamental driver for my interest in medical education scholarship. As a family physician, making a difference to individual patients is always at the core of my motivation. I am always impressed by the keen observation, critical reflection, and creativity apparent in family practice faculty and residents. We have much to contribute to the development of medical education here and elsewhere.

At UBC, educational scholarship is

recognized as academic contribution

when there is evidence of both

innovation in the field, and impact or

uptake beyond UBC.

who’s who at Ches

CHES is comprised of three full-time faculty members (Joanna Bates, Glenn Regehr, and Kevin Eva), four part-time associate faculty members (Dan Pratt, Ravi Sidhu, Gary Poole and Angela Towle) and two part-time junior faculty members (Adam Peets, and Sandra Jarvis-Selinger). Sarah Dobson, CHES’s grant facilitator, keeps her eye on potential funding sources for medical education, and works with groups and individuals to develop either full programs of research or a proposal for a specific call.

CHES houses and supports a number of full-time PhD students, most without clinical backgrounds, who plan to pursue academic careers as full time HPE researchers. Three postdoctoral fellows started their two year appointments in September 2011:

meghan mcconnell obtained her PhD in Cognitive Psychology from McMaster University in 2009. She became a postdoctoral fellow at the Medical Council of Canada, where she learned about psychometric assessments in high stakes testing environments. She plans to study the influence of emotive states on self-assessment, diagnostic accuracy, and receptivity to feedback.

terese stenfors-hayes was an educational developer at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm and finished her PhD in Medical Education in spring 2011. She used qualitative research methods for her thesis and focused on the way medical teachers understand their roles and their professional development.

heather Frost received her doctoral degree in Cultural Geography from the UBC Department of Geography. She is interested in the influence of culture(s) and context(s) on processes of identity

Photo courtesy of the UBC Faculty of Medicine

1� the BEAR BONES fall 2011 1�vol 11 | issue 2 UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

to help individuals develop the skill set previously described. Depending on the needs and desires of the particular individual, CHES’s support and mentoring may take several forms. CHES organizes seminars, academic rounds, and meetings of individuals with common interests, as well as more formal mentorship and training such as the Clinical Educator Fellowship Program (CEFP). The CEFP comprises of two years of immersion in health education scholarship at CHES. This includes: (1) completion of a Master’s level graduate degree in medical education; (2) completion of a major research project/thesis under the supervision and guidance of CHES faculty; and (3) commitment of educational engagement of 300 hours per year to the MD Undergraduate Program, resulting in participation in teaching and other educational activities in a variety of settings and formats. Irrespective of their home departments, fellows, who are usually young clinical faculty or senior residents, are housed at CHES, and become part of the community, forging collaborations and links across departments and disciplines. Maria Hubinette, a clinical faculty member in the Department of Family Practice is currently engaged in her first year of the CEFP (see sidebar).

Adding to the culture at CHES is a constant stream of visitors from around the world. Our academic rounds bring in presenters from across Canada who stay with us for several days, meeting and working with faculty members and trainees. Others visit as part of sabbaticals or en route to a meeting elsewhere. Last year we were privileged to have Tim Dornan, associate editor of Medical Education with us for a month as a visiting scholar, teaching us about discourse analysis and communities of practice. Upcoming visitors include Trevor Gibbs, an academic family physician and associate editor of the AMEE guides and Medical Teacher; Patricia O’Sullivan who is the director of the Teaching Scholars Program at UCSF and is working on portfolios for assessment; Torsten Risør, a family physician with a PhD in medical education from Tromso in arctic Norway, who is working on teaching uncertainty in family practice; and Judith Bowen professor of Medicine at University of Oregon, who is working on clinical reasoning and diagnostic closure.

How does this relate to you? If you are engaged in teaching of medical students, residents, or family physicians in practice, you may find yourself wondering about issues you observe. Why are some students more empathetic than others? How do residents from different cultures handle cross-cultural care with sensitivity? Why do some residents seem to sort out complex patients easily and others struggle? Take a moment to identify a question you ponder as you teach.

What happens with these questions arising from your own practice? Several medical schools have developed centres of medical education to support faculty identifying and studying educational problems and solutions. Twelve out of the 17 medical schools in Canada have such centres, and the remaining schools have informal networks of support. Interestingly, Canada appears to be well ahead of the USA and other areas of the world in our effective engagement with these types of questions, and our resulting contributions to the multidisciplinary field on medical education.

The UBC Faculty of Medicine has also implemented a centre for medical education. The faculty’s strategic plan for 2005-2010, HealthTrek 2010, outlined the development of such a centre for medical education as a strategy for meeting its goals in education scholarship. The Centre of Health Education Scholarship (CHES), was approved by the faculty executive in March 2008 following an extensive consultation process with faculty and department heads. The mission of CHES is to promote scholarship that supports, challenges, and improves health professions education. CHES has a mandate to shape the theories and activities of learning in the health professions by: creating new knowledge through research and informed innovation; building capacity through the mentorship of individuals; and fostering a culture of collaboration and scholarly thinking in health professions education (HPE).

Lofty thoughts, but what does CHES actually do? CHES is oriented around a philosophy of developing excellence and expanding the resource base of qualified individuals in the UBC HPE community. To this end, the goal is to provide mentorship

References

Boyer, EL (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the

Professoriate. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press

Simpson D, R-ME Fincher, JP Hafler, DM Irby, BC Richards, G

Rosenfeld and TR Viggiano (2007). Advancing educators and education

by defining the components and evidence associated with educational

scholarship. Medical Education 41: 1002-1009.

1.

2.

the BEAR BONES

While each of the core faculty have an active program of research, CHES as a faculty centre is currently focusing on the wide array of individual research interests of its members, linking members with similar interests, and allowing areas of focus to develop and emerge over time. These emerging foci currently include assessment, feedback, distributed medical education, social responsibility, simulation, and virtual patients. Given the strength of educational innovation in the Faculty of Medicine, CHES also collaborates with education programs and individuals leading these programs to increase capacity for scholarly innovation. An essential feature of this scholarship supported by CHES is dissemination in peer-reviewed abstracts and literature to the broader community.

How do you get started? All faculty and residents and staff are welcome to attend rounds and seminars, which are videoconferenced to multiple sites (and archived in the members-only area of the website. Go to the CHES website for further information: www.ches.med.ubc.ca. Your interest may be tweaked by the discussion, and you may find yourself with others with similar research interests. Or come to the very low stakes Medical Education Research Interest Group (MERG) that Kevin Eva and I facilitate with the help of Debra Hanberg – we meet several times a year early on Friday mornings. If you are exploring an area for inquiry, consider getting in touch with one of us, come in and discuss your ideas. We will try to help connect you to others who are interested in similar questions (see sidebar), and help you create a network of support for your work.

Medical education is an important field – by changing medical education we can change physicians, and therefore change the experience of patients. For me, this is the fundamental driver for my interest in medical education scholarship. As a family physician, making a difference to individual patients is always at the core of my motivation. I am always impressed by the keen observation, critical reflection, and creativity apparent in family practice faculty and residents. We have much to contribute to the development of medical education here and elsewhere.

At UBC, educational scholarship is

recognized as academic contribution

when there is evidence of both

innovation in the field, and impact or

uptake beyond UBC.

who’s who at Ches

CHES is comprised of three full-time faculty members (Joanna Bates, Glenn Regehr, and Kevin Eva), four part-time associate faculty members (Dan Pratt, Ravi Sidhu, Gary Poole and Angela Towle) and two part-time junior faculty members (Adam Peets, and Sandra Jarvis-Selinger). Sarah Dobson, CHES’s grant facilitator, keeps her eye on potential funding sources for medical education, and works with groups and individuals to develop either full programs of research or a proposal for a specific call.

CHES houses and supports a number of full-time PhD students, most without clinical backgrounds, who plan to pursue academic careers as full time HPE researchers. Three postdoctoral fellows started their two year appointments in September 2011:

meghan mcconnell obtained her PhD in Cognitive Psychology from McMaster University in 2009. She became a postdoctoral fellow at the Medical Council of Canada, where she learned about psychometric assessments in high stakes testing environments. She plans to study the influence of emotive states on self-assessment, diagnostic accuracy, and receptivity to feedback.

terese stenfors-hayes was an educational developer at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm and finished her PhD in Medical Education in spring 2011. She used qualitative research methods for her thesis and focused on the way medical teachers understand their roles and their professional development.

heather Frost received her doctoral degree in Cultural Geography from the UBC Department of Geography. She is interested in the influence of culture(s) and context(s) on processes of identity

Photo courtesy of the UBC Faculty of Medicine

1� the BEAR BONES fall 2011 1�vol 11 | issue 2 UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

The Bear Bones: Could you start by describing what medical education research is?

Kevin Eva: Medical education research draws upon every ‘ology’ you can think of – anthropology, psychology, kinesiology, sociology – to better understand and further the practice of issues relevant to health professionals (e.g., the selection, training and assessment processes for students). There’s a huge diversity of focus, interest and background within medical education.

TBB: What are some of the contributions in Canada right now?

KE: Canada is a world leader in this field. Per capita, Canadians have published in Medical Education at a greater rate than any other country. The “Future of Medical Education in Canada,” is the latest national initiative that will lay out the changes, big issues, and paths for medical education in the coming years.

TBB: What is the focus of your research?

KE: Much of my research is focused around decision making. I look at admissions and assessment issues. What is going through the mind of graders as they form judgment on a person’s performance? I also study the judgment of students and practitioners with respect to whether they are keeping up with all the skills expected of them.

Recently, I’ve been studying receptivity to feedback – there’s evidence that we need external feedback to guide us in improving our performance. I want to learn what makes people discount feedback, versus what makes them open to it.

TBB: What are some of the findings so far?

KE: A classic finding is that faculty perceive themselves delivering feedback more than students perceive themselves receiving it – there’s a disconnect in what people are experiencing. When we look into what people mean when they indicate a desire for

feedback, they appear to be looking for confirmation that what they’re doing is right. Studies suggest that it’s important that the recipient of feedback maintains an optimistic outlook on his/her performance, that the path to better performance is not improved self-assessment. It’s easier to discount the value or quality of negative feedback than it is to actually use it, so determining how to establish a climate of trust where recipients understand feedback is not a personal criticism seems crucial. A lot of people discredit important, accurate, good feedback unless it’s coming from someone whom the recipient believes has insight into his/her performance and that the feedback is delivered from a position of wanting to help the individual improve. This is one example of a variety of issues that need to be resolved.

TBB: I noticed that you have affiliations with international universities.

KE: I have two formal affiliations that allow me to work around the world. The most remarkable realization I’ve had is that we’re all dealing with parallel issues regardless of the different health systems and cultures. My affiliations have reinforced for me that education is a complex environment and we can’t simply grab a solution off-the-shelf and solve a given problem – it’s necessary to adapt solutions for our local settings. As a result, I’m trying to better understand the principles that are worth attending to rather than trying to say ‘this is the way thou shalt do it’.

TBB: What is your role specifically at the Centre for Health Education Scholarship (CHES)?

KE: To help UBC continue to grow its reputation as a first class institution with respect to educational scholarship. I maintain my own research program and help other faculty/trainees develop their own educational research skills and their thinking about scholarly issues in health professional education. CHES helps connect individuals with the resources they’ll need (people, literature, etc.) to further their educational research and scholarship interests.

TBB: Could you touch on your role as editor for the international journal medical education?

KE: Journals have a few roles, one of which is to provide a record of the conversations taking place in the community. My main priority is to work with authors, reviewers, and editors to produce a product that has importance and relevance to our readers.

TBB: Who is the primary readership for medical education?

KE: Our audience is multi-faceted. We walk the middle ground in medical education research, striving to put forth papers that meaningfully advance understanding at a theoretical or at least a general principle level, while also prioritizing the presentation of empirical data that are relevant to the practical issues faced by front-line educators who may be interested in improving things like assessment processes or managing the hidden curriculum.

TBB: Are policy makers finding the journal?

KE: I would hope that policy makers within the medical schools (administrators, deans and chairs) are reading it. We don’t have particular stats on the position held by our readers though.

TBB: What factors make you decide to publish or not publish an article?

KE: The work has to be original and important. It must be clearly written, have methodological rigor and clear ethics approval.

An easier way to answer this question is to examine why some papers are rejected. If somebody has submitted an article based on an educational innovation they’ve created in a course, workshop or program, and it’s basically a quality assurance exercise that doesn’t have something more fundamental to offer in terms of ‘why did it work?’, we will be less likely to publish. It’s difficult to claim relevance for an international readership if the data don’t allow general principles to be established rather than simply demonstrating that an intervention was effective – a specific context in which educational activities are mounted matters.

The most important message I can give to potential authors? Demonstrate that there is a conceptual phenomenon that you’re trying to better understand through your data collection; show how your data can advance ongoing conversations in the field; and above all, secure peer review at all stages of your project before submission. TBB: You’ve mentioned the importance of having a conceptual framework within an article. Why is it important?

KE: A conceptual framework sets the tone for a paper, demonstrating why the work is relevant to audiences outside of the author’s institution. It provides the “over arching” view to the work, and guides people to focus on the bigger picture. What

are the phenomena? Are there theories out there that help you describe that phenomenon? Can you bring different perspectives to bear on the problem? Your data will be local data, but they should speak to a bigger picture.

TBB: Are there a lot of prominent conceptual frameworks within medical education research?

KE: There are an infinite number of frameworks. Concepts like communities of practice, debate regarding whether human behaviour is trait-based versus skill-based, the impact of power relationship on patient-physician and preceptor-student interactions – all of these are good examples of conceptual frameworks in medical education research. In his 2009 paper, “Conceptual frameworks to illuminate and magnify,” Georges Bordage uses a lighthouse metaphor to describe the notion that no one conceptual framework will give you a full perspective on a problem – like the path illuminated by a lighthouse’s beam, you only get a piece at a time. So, collaborating with people, having diverse discussions about the issue you’re interested in, helps you see it differently. Devising different studies that help you triangulate on a specific issue is the process that advances the field forward, more so than simply saying “we got a significant p value” or “we can show that students really liked our course.”

You can produce a great work, a highly rigorous study, but if you can’t present it in some broader framework then nobody’s going to remember it or be able to take advantage of it.

TBB: Any other advice to people who are submitting to medical education?

KE: Read the journal and get a sense of the style of papers that we publish, the level of detail that is expected, and the methodology. Authors can write or call if they want advice on whether or not their work fits our criteria. I’m happy to provide consultation and if Medical Education isn’t a good fit, I may be able to identify other journals that would be a better match.

TBB: What areas of medical education research excite you at the moment?

KE: There is a lot that is exciting. The studies on receptivity to feedback are a new area that has quickly interested many people. We haven’t really discovered yet what contextual factors lead people to use or seek information that can benefit them in terms of performance improvement. I’m very excited to have the opportunity to work with individuals from multiple professions to determine how some of the issues that have been identified in the literature play out in practice as many groups are engaged in evolving their quality improvement/continuing professional development activities.

Dr. Kevin Evasenior scientist (ches), associate ProFessor, director oF educational research and scholarshiP (dePt. oF medicine), editor-in-chieF (Medical education)

the BEAR BONES

1� the BEAR BONES fall 2011 1�vol 11 | issue 2 UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

The Bear Bones: Could you start by describing what medical education research is?

Kevin Eva: Medical education research draws upon every ‘ology’ you can think of – anthropology, psychology, kinesiology, sociology – to better understand and further the practice of issues relevant to health professionals (e.g., the selection, training and assessment processes for students). There’s a huge diversity of focus, interest and background within medical education.

TBB: What are some of the contributions in Canada right now?

KE: Canada is a world leader in this field. Per capita, Canadians have published in Medical Education at a greater rate than any other country. The “Future of Medical Education in Canada,” is the latest national initiative that will lay out the changes, big issues, and paths for medical education in the coming years.

TBB: What is the focus of your research?

KE: Much of my research is focused around decision making. I look at admissions and assessment issues. What is going through the mind of graders as they form judgment on a person’s performance? I also study the judgment of students and practitioners with respect to whether they are keeping up with all the skills expected of them.

Recently, I’ve been studying receptivity to feedback – there’s evidence that we need external feedback to guide us in improving our performance. I want to learn what makes people discount feedback, versus what makes them open to it.

TBB: What are some of the findings so far?

KE: A classic finding is that faculty perceive themselves delivering feedback more than students perceive themselves receiving it – there’s a disconnect in what people are experiencing. When we look into what people mean when they indicate a desire for

feedback, they appear to be looking for confirmation that what they’re doing is right. Studies suggest that it’s important that the recipient of feedback maintains an optimistic outlook on his/her performance, that the path to better performance is not improved self-assessment. It’s easier to discount the value or quality of negative feedback than it is to actually use it, so determining how to establish a climate of trust where recipients understand feedback is not a personal criticism seems crucial. A lot of people discredit important, accurate, good feedback unless it’s coming from someone whom the recipient believes has insight into his/her performance and that the feedback is delivered from a position of wanting to help the individual improve. This is one example of a variety of issues that need to be resolved.

TBB: I noticed that you have affiliations with international universities.

KE: I have two formal affiliations that allow me to work around the world. The most remarkable realization I’ve had is that we’re all dealing with parallel issues regardless of the different health systems and cultures. My affiliations have reinforced for me that education is a complex environment and we can’t simply grab a solution off-the-shelf and solve a given problem – it’s necessary to adapt solutions for our local settings. As a result, I’m trying to better understand the principles that are worth attending to rather than trying to say ‘this is the way thou shalt do it’.

TBB: What is your role specifically at the Centre for Health Education Scholarship (CHES)?

KE: To help UBC continue to grow its reputation as a first class institution with respect to educational scholarship. I maintain my own research program and help other faculty/trainees develop their own educational research skills and their thinking about scholarly issues in health professional education. CHES helps connect individuals with the resources they’ll need (people, literature, etc.) to further their educational research and scholarship interests.

TBB: Could you touch on your role as editor for the international journal medical education?

KE: Journals have a few roles, one of which is to provide a record of the conversations taking place in the community. My main priority is to work with authors, reviewers, and editors to produce a product that has importance and relevance to our readers.

TBB: Who is the primary readership for medical education?

KE: Our audience is multi-faceted. We walk the middle ground in medical education research, striving to put forth papers that meaningfully advance understanding at a theoretical or at least a general principle level, while also prioritizing the presentation of empirical data that are relevant to the practical issues faced by front-line educators who may be interested in improving things like assessment processes or managing the hidden curriculum.

TBB: Are policy makers finding the journal?

KE: I would hope that policy makers within the medical schools (administrators, deans and chairs) are reading it. We don’t have particular stats on the position held by our readers though.

TBB: What factors make you decide to publish or not publish an article?

KE: The work has to be original and important. It must be clearly written, have methodological rigor and clear ethics approval.

An easier way to answer this question is to examine why some papers are rejected. If somebody has submitted an article based on an educational innovation they’ve created in a course, workshop or program, and it’s basically a quality assurance exercise that doesn’t have something more fundamental to offer in terms of ‘why did it work?’, we will be less likely to publish. It’s difficult to claim relevance for an international readership if the data don’t allow general principles to be established rather than simply demonstrating that an intervention was effective – a specific context in which educational activities are mounted matters.

The most important message I can give to potential authors? Demonstrate that there is a conceptual phenomenon that you’re trying to better understand through your data collection; show how your data can advance ongoing conversations in the field; and above all, secure peer review at all stages of your project before submission. TBB: You’ve mentioned the importance of having a conceptual framework within an article. Why is it important?

KE: A conceptual framework sets the tone for a paper, demonstrating why the work is relevant to audiences outside of the author’s institution. It provides the “over arching” view to the work, and guides people to focus on the bigger picture. What

are the phenomena? Are there theories out there that help you describe that phenomenon? Can you bring different perspectives to bear on the problem? Your data will be local data, but they should speak to a bigger picture.

TBB: Are there a lot of prominent conceptual frameworks within medical education research?

KE: There are an infinite number of frameworks. Concepts like communities of practice, debate regarding whether human behaviour is trait-based versus skill-based, the impact of power relationship on patient-physician and preceptor-student interactions – all of these are good examples of conceptual frameworks in medical education research. In his 2009 paper, “Conceptual frameworks to illuminate and magnify,” Georges Bordage uses a lighthouse metaphor to describe the notion that no one conceptual framework will give you a full perspective on a problem – like the path illuminated by a lighthouse’s beam, you only get a piece at a time. So, collaborating with people, having diverse discussions about the issue you’re interested in, helps you see it differently. Devising different studies that help you triangulate on a specific issue is the process that advances the field forward, more so than simply saying “we got a significant p value” or “we can show that students really liked our course.”

You can produce a great work, a highly rigorous study, but if you can’t present it in some broader framework then nobody’s going to remember it or be able to take advantage of it.

TBB: Any other advice to people who are submitting to medical education?

KE: Read the journal and get a sense of the style of papers that we publish, the level of detail that is expected, and the methodology. Authors can write or call if they want advice on whether or not their work fits our criteria. I’m happy to provide consultation and if Medical Education isn’t a good fit, I may be able to identify other journals that would be a better match.

TBB: What areas of medical education research excite you at the moment?

KE: There is a lot that is exciting. The studies on receptivity to feedback are a new area that has quickly interested many people. We haven’t really discovered yet what contextual factors lead people to use or seek information that can benefit them in terms of performance improvement. I’m very excited to have the opportunity to work with individuals from multiple professions to determine how some of the issues that have been identified in the literature play out in practice as many groups are engaged in evolving their quality improvement/continuing professional development activities.

Dr. Kevin Evasenior scientist (ches), associate ProFessor, director oF educational research and scholarshiP (dePt. oF medicine), editor-in-chieF (Medical education)

the BEAR BONES

gr

an

ts

aw

ar

ds

20 the BEAR BONES fall 2011 21vol 11 | issue 2 UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

Granting Agency Title Amount YearPrincipal Investigator(s)

Co-Investigators

BC College of Family Physicians of Canada

Improving outcomes for alternate level of care patients: A practical approach to post-acute care $5,000

2011-2012 Manville, M. Bainbridge, L.

Bioelectronics Corporation

Continuous low energy pulsed radio frequency electromagnetic field therapy for the treatment of plantar fasciitis $35,000

2011- 2012 Taunton, J. Ryan, M.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Building on six years of rural maternity care research: An integrated, multimedia approach to KT $87,500

2011-2012

Grzybowski, S.Kornelsen, J.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Best ethical practices in managing uncertainty in medical diagnosis: An investigation of ethical principles applied to decision-making $98,784

2011-2013 Kornelsen, J.

Atkins, C. Brownell, K. Woollard, R.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Evaluating the impact of a training and communication network program in nephrology to facilitate the detection and management of drug-related problems by community pharmacists: A multicentre cluster randomized controlled trial $431,705

2011-2013 Lalonde, L.

Corneille, L. Dolovich, L. Kaczorowski, J.Lamarre, D. Langlois, N. Leblanc, M.et al.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Reducing risk with e-based support for adherence to lifestyle change in hypertension: REACH $622,741

2011-2014 Nolan, R. P.

Chessex, C. Feldman, R. D.Gwadry- Sridhar, F. H. Hachinski, V.Ivanov, J. Kaczorowski, J.et al.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Knowledge to action: Improving social and environmental determinants of health through integrated water governance $178,218

2011-2012 Parkes, M. Woollard, R.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research: Institute of Population and Public Health, Visiting Scholar Award

Community-based interventions for chronic disease management and prevention $2,500 2011 Kaczorowski, J.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research: Meeting, Planning, and Dissemination Grant (PHSI)

Contraception and abortion in BC: Experience guiding research guiding care $14,000

2011-2012 Norman, W. V.

Christilaw, J. Shaw, D. Geber, J. Kaczorowski, J. Shoveller, J. Soon, J. et al.

Granting Agency Title Amount YearPrincipal Investigator(s)

Co-Investigators

Canadian Institutes of Health Research: TUTOR Fellowship

Fellowship in transdisciplinary understanding in primary health care $24,000

2011-2012 Norman, W. V.

Child and Family Research Institute Investigatorship, Scientist Level II $536,750

2010 - 2015 Janssen, P. A.

Nike Global Research Foundation

Investigating the effects of footwear minimalism on injury risk in runners $35,000

2011-2012 Taunton, J.

Ryan, M. Harris, M.

UBC Teaching and Learning Enhancement Fund

Creating a culture of intellect around the social determinants of health $4,820

2011-2012 Bainbridge, L.

Dharamsi, S.Frankish, J.Wood, V.

UBC Teaching and Learning Enhancement Fund

Learning outcomes assessment: Improving teaching and learning in international service learning $40,870

2011-2012 Baldwin, T.

Dharamsi, S.Beaumont, K.Grossma, S.Currie, D.McLean, J.

UBC Teaching and Learning Enhancement Fund

VIP-CARES: Virtual interprofessional patients as contraception and abortion resources for education of students $57,017 2011 Norman, W. V.

Faculty: Vedam, S.Soon, J.Currie, L. Malhotra, U.

Students: Ng, Kwok, Bacon, Foster, Leung, Cortina

Worksafe BC

Clinical trial of a multi-element exercise program for plantar fasciitis in workers required to stand for prolonged periods of time $49,800

2011-2012 Taunton, J. Ryan, M.

Awardee Name of Award Foundation Year

Ezra KwokOutstanding Canadian Medical Bioengineer

Canadian Medical and Biological Engineering Society 2011

Maureen Mayhew Geeta Gupta Equity and Diversity AwardThe College of Family Physicians of Canada 2011

Bradley MonteleoneJanus Research Grant for Senior Researchers

The College of Family Physicians of Canada 2011

January 1 to June 30, 2011

January 1 – June 30, 2011

gr

an

ts

aw

ar

ds

20 the BEAR BONES fall 2011 21vol 11 | issue 2 UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

Granting Agency Title Amount YearPrincipal Investigator(s)

Co-Investigators

BC College of Family Physicians of Canada

Improving outcomes for alternate level of care patients: A practical approach to post-acute care $5,000

2011-2012 Manville, M. Bainbridge, L.

Bioelectronics Corporation

Continuous low energy pulsed radio frequency electromagnetic field therapy for the treatment of plantar fasciitis $35,000

2011- 2012 Taunton, J. Ryan, M.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Building on six years of rural maternity care research: An integrated, multimedia approach to KT $87,500

2011-2012

Grzybowski, S.Kornelsen, J.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Best ethical practices in managing uncertainty in medical diagnosis: An investigation of ethical principles applied to decision-making $98,784

2011-2013 Kornelsen, J.

Atkins, C. Brownell, K. Woollard, R.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Evaluating the impact of a training and communication network program in nephrology to facilitate the detection and management of drug-related problems by community pharmacists: A multicentre cluster randomized controlled trial $431,705

2011-2013 Lalonde, L.

Corneille, L. Dolovich, L. Kaczorowski, J.Lamarre, D. Langlois, N. Leblanc, M.et al.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Reducing risk with e-based support for adherence to lifestyle change in hypertension: REACH $622,741

2011-2014 Nolan, R. P.

Chessex, C. Feldman, R. D.Gwadry- Sridhar, F. H. Hachinski, V.Ivanov, J. Kaczorowski, J.et al.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Knowledge to action: Improving social and environmental determinants of health through integrated water governance $178,218

2011-2012 Parkes, M. Woollard, R.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research: Institute of Population and Public Health, Visiting Scholar Award

Community-based interventions for chronic disease management and prevention $2,500 2011 Kaczorowski, J.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research: Meeting, Planning, and Dissemination Grant (PHSI)

Contraception and abortion in BC: Experience guiding research guiding care $14,000

2011-2012 Norman, W. V.

Christilaw, J. Shaw, D. Geber, J. Kaczorowski, J. Shoveller, J. Soon, J. et al.

Granting Agency Title Amount YearPrincipal Investigator(s)

Co-Investigators

Canadian Institutes of Health Research: TUTOR Fellowship

Fellowship in transdisciplinary understanding in primary health care $24,000

2011-2012 Norman, W. V.

Child and Family Research Institute Investigatorship, Scientist Level II $536,750

2010 - 2015 Janssen, P. A.

Nike Global Research Foundation

Investigating the effects of footwear minimalism on injury risk in runners $35,000

2011-2012 Taunton, J.

Ryan, M. Harris, M.

UBC Teaching and Learning Enhancement Fund

Creating a culture of intellect around the social determinants of health $4,820

2011-2012 Bainbridge, L.

Dharamsi, S.Frankish, J.Wood, V.

UBC Teaching and Learning Enhancement Fund

Learning outcomes assessment: Improving teaching and learning in international service learning $40,870

2011-2012 Baldwin, T.

Dharamsi, S.Beaumont, K.Grossma, S.Currie, D.McLean, J.

UBC Teaching and Learning Enhancement Fund

VIP-CARES: Virtual interprofessional patients as contraception and abortion resources for education of students $57,017 2011 Norman, W. V.

Faculty: Vedam, S.Soon, J.Currie, L. Malhotra, U.

Students: Ng, Kwok, Bacon, Foster, Leung, Cortina

Worksafe BC

Clinical trial of a multi-element exercise program for plantar fasciitis in workers required to stand for prolonged periods of time $49,800

2011-2012 Taunton, J. Ryan, M.

Awardee Name of Award Foundation Year

Ezra KwokOutstanding Canadian Medical Bioengineer

Canadian Medical and Biological Engineering Society 2011

Maureen Mayhew Geeta Gupta Equity and Diversity AwardThe College of Family Physicians of Canada 2011

Bradley MonteleoneJanus Research Grant for Senior Researchers

The College of Family Physicians of Canada 2011

January 1 to June 30, 2011

January 1 – June 30, 2011

pu

bliC

at

ion

s

22 the BEAR BONES fall 2011 23vol 11 | issue 2 UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

January 1 – June 30, 2011

Book Chapters

> Charles, G., s. dharamsi and C. Alexander (2011). “Interprofessional field education: Reciprocal learning for collaborative practice.” Shifting Sites of Practice: Field Experience in Canada. J. Doulet, N. Clark and H. Allen (eds). Toronto: Pearson Press: 253-263.

> Klein, m. c. (2011). “Promoting normal birth: Research, reflections and guidelines.” Epidural Analgesia for Pain Management: The Positive and the Negative. S. Donna (ed). London: Fresh Heart Publishing: 20-30.

> shroff, F. (2011). “We are all one: Holistic thought-forms within indigenous societies.” International Reader on Indigenous Philosophies and Critical Education. G. Dei (ed). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

> Vedam, s. (2011). “A fundamental right of passage.” Into These Hands, Wisdom From Midwives. G. Simkins (ed). Traverse City: Spirituality and Health Books.

> Woollard, r. (2011). “A history of the Committee on the Accreditation of Continuing Medical Education Canada.” Continuing Medical Education: Looking Back, Planning Ahead. D. Wentz (ed). Hanover, New Hampshire: Dartmouth College Press: 218-226.

Refereed Publications

> Boelen, C. and r. Woollard (2011). “Consenso global sobre la responsabilidad social de las facultades de medicina.” Educ Med 14(1): 7-14.

> Brcic, V., C. Eberdt and J. Kaczorowski (2011). “Development of a tool to identify poverty in a family practice setting: A pilot study.” International Journal of Family Medicine ID 812182, doi:10.1155/2011/812182.

> Brown, R. and J. taunton (2011). “Using pocket-sized ultrasound tools in patient care.” BCMJ 53(4): 166-168.

> Cessford, T. A. and W. V. norman (2011). “Making a case for abortion curriculum reform: A knowledge-assessment survey of undergraduate medical students.” J Obstet Gynaecol Can 33(1): 38-45.

> dawes, m. (2011). “Putting evidence into practice.” BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 342: d2072.

> dharamsi, s. (2011). “Moving beyond the limits of cultural competency training.” Med Educ 45(8): 764-766.

> dharamsi, s. and G. Charles (2011). “Ethnography: From traditional to criticalist conceptions of a qualitative research method for studying culture in family medicine.” Can Fam Physician 57(3): 378-379.

> dharamsi, s., J. Osei-Twum and M. Whiteman (2011). “Socially responsible approaches to international/global health electives.” Med Educ 45(5): 530-531.

> gabriel, P. s., C. Morgan-Jonker, C. M. W. Phung, R. S. Hogg,

R. Barrios and J. Kaczorowski (2011). “Refugees and health care – the need for data: Understanding the health of government-assisted refugees in Canada through a prospective longitudinal cohort.” Can J Public Health 102(4): 269-272.

> garrison, s. r., C. L. Birmingham, B. E. Koehler, R. A. McCollom

and K. m. Khan (2011). “The effect of magnesium infusion on rest cramps: Randomized controlled trial.” Journal of Gerontology A Biol Sci Med Sci 66(6): 661-666.

> Gee, M. E., N. R. Campbell, C. M. Bancej, C. Robitaille, A. Bienek,

M. R. Joffres, R. L. Walker, J. Kaczorowski and S. Dai (2011, Feb

3). “Perception of uncontrolled blood pressure and behaviours to improve blood pressure: Findings from the 2009 Survey on Living with Chronic Disease in Canada. J Hum Hypertens [Epub ahead of print]

> Gilbert, M., X. Li, M. Petric, M. Krajden, J. L. Isaac-Renton,

g. s. ogilvie and M. L. Rekart (2011). “Using centralized laboratory data to monitor trends in herpes simplex virus type 1 and 2 infection in British Columbia and the changing etiology of genital herpes.” Can J Public Health 102(3):225-229.

> grzybowski, s., K. stoll and J. Kornelsen (2011). “Distance matters: A population-based study examining access to maternity services for rural women.” BMC Health Services Research 11: 147 epub.

> Jarvis-Selinger, S., J. Bates, Y. Araki and S. Lear (2011). “Internet-based support for cardiovascular disease management.” International Journal of Telemedicine and Applications http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijta/2011/342582/.

> Kaczorowski, J., L. W. Chambers, L. Dolovich, J. M. Paterson,

T. Karwalajtys, T. Gierman et al. (2011). “Improving cardiovascular health at the population level: A 39 community cluster-randomized trial of the Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP).” BMJ 342: d442 doi:10.1136/bmj.d442.

> Kaczorowski, J., O. Goldberg and M. Verna (2011). “Pay-for-performance incentives for preventive care: Views of family physicians before and after participation in a reminder and recall project (P-PROMPT).” Can Fam Physician 57: 690-696.

> Kaida, A., F. Laher, S. A. Strathdee, P. a. Janssen, D. Money,

R. S. Hogg and G. Gray (2011). “Childbearing intentions of HIV-positive women of reproductive age in Soweto, South Africa: The influence of expanding access to HAART in an HIV hyper-endemic setting.” American Journal of Public Health 101: 350-358.

> Kaida, A., F. Laher, S. Strathdee, D. Money, P. a. Janssen, R.

Hogg and G. Gray (2010). “Contraceptive use and method mix patterns among HIV-positive and HIV-negative women in Soweto, South Africa: The influence of expanding access to HIV care and treatment services in an HIV hyperendemic setting.” PLoS ONE 5: e13868.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013868.

> Klein, m. c., N. Baradaran, J. Kaczorowski, S. Hearps,

J. Tomkinson and R. Brandt (2011, April ). “Family physicians who provide intrapartum care and those who do not: Very different ways of viewing childbirth.” Can Fam Physician 57: e139-e147.

> Klein, m. c., J. Kaczorowski, S. Hearps, J. Tomkinson, N.

Baradaran, W. Hall, P. McNiven, R. Brant, J. Grant, S. Dore and W.

D. Fraser (2011). “What are the attitudes of Canadian women approaching their first birth towards birth technology and their roles in birth?” J Obstet Gynaecol Can 33(6): 568-608.

> Klein, m. c., R. Liston, W. D. Fraser, N. Baradaran, S. Hearps,

J. Tomkinson, J. Kazorowski and R. Brant (2011). “The attitudes of the new generation of Canadian obstetricians: How do they differ from their predecessors?” Birth 38(2): 129-139.

> Kornelsen, J., A. Kotaska, P. Waterfall, L. Willie and D. Wilson

(2011). “Alienation and resilience: The dynamics of birth outside their community for rural First Nations’ women.” Journal of Aboriginal Health 7(1): 55-64.

> Kornelsen, J., K. stoll and s. grzybowski (2011). “Stress and anxiety associated with lack of access to maternity services for rural parturient women.” Australian Journal of Rural Health 19(1): 9-14.

> Krajden, M., D. Cook, A. Yu, R. Chow, W. Mei, S. McNeil, D. M.

Money, M. Dionne, K. P. Karunakaran, J. M. Palefsky, S. Dobson,

g. s. ogilvie and M. Petric (2011). “HPV 16 and 18 antibody responses in a 2- vs. 3-dose HPV vaccine trial as measured by pseudovirus neutralization and competitive luminex assays.” Clinical and Vaccine Immunology 18(3): 418-23.

> Levitt, C., L. Hanvey, J. Kaczorowski, B. Chalmers, M. Heaman

and S. Bartholomew (2011). “Breastfeeding policies and practices in Canadian hospitals: Comparing 1993 with 2007.” Birth: doi:10.1111/j.1523-536X.2011.00479.x.

> limbos, m. m. and d. P. Joyce (2011). “Comparison of the ASQ and PEDS in screening for developmental delay in children presenting for primary care.” J Dev Behav Pediatr 32(7).

> Lisonkova, S., S. Sheps, P. a. Janssen, S. Lee and L. Dahlgren

(2010). “Effect of older maternal age on birth outcomes in twin pregnancies: A population-based study.” J Perinatol: doi10.1038/jp2010.114.

> Lisonkova, S., S. Sheps, P. a. Janssen, S. Lee, L. Dahlgren and

Y. MacNab (2010). “Birth outcomes among older mothers in rural versus urban areas: A residence-based approach.” J Rural Health: doi: 10.1111/j.1748-0361.2010.00332.x.

> McElhaney, J. E., m. l. donnelly and D. Thompson (2011). “Prevention in acute care for seniors.” Council on Health Promotion. BC Medical Journal 53: 86-87.

> mcgregor, m. J. (2011). “Finding a model that supports quality.” Healthc Q 10(2): 30-35.

> mcKenzie, d. c. and K. D. Fitch (2011). “The asthmatic athlete: Inhaled beta-2 agonists, sport performance and doping.” Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine 21: 46-50.

> Michal, C. A., P. a. Janssen, s. Vedam, E. K. Hutton and A. De

Jonge (2011). “Planned home vs hospital birth: A meta-analysis gone wrong.” Medscape April 1. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/739987.

> Miewald, C., m. c. Klein, C. Ulrich, D. Butcher, S. Eftekhary, J.

Rosinski and A. Procyk (2011). “You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone: The role of maternity care in community sustainability.” Can J Rural Medicine 16(1): 7-12.

> Mitchell, S., g. s. ogilvie, M. Steinberg, M. Sekikubo, C.

Biryabarema and D. M. Money (2011). “Assessing women’s willingness to collect their own cervical samples for HPV testing as part of the ASPIRE cervical cancer screening project in Uganda.” International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2011.01.028. [Epub ahead of print]

> mu, l., F. shroff and s. dharamsi (2011). “Inspiring health advocacy in family medicine: A qualitative study.” Education for Health 534. (online)

> Myers, M. G., M. Godwin, m. dawes, A. Kiss, S. W. Tobe,

F. C. Grant and J. Kaczorowski (2011). “Conventional versus automated measurement of blood pressure in primary care patients with systolic hypertension: Randomised parallel design controlled trial.” BMJ 342: d286 doi:10.1136/bmj.d286.

> norman, W. V., J. Berguner and L. Eccles (2011). “Accuracy of gestational age estimated by menstrual dating in women seeking abortion beyond nine weeks.” J Obstet Gynaecol Can 33(3): 252-257.

> norman, W. V., J. Kaczorowski, J. A. Soon, R. Brant, S.

Bryan, K. trouton and L. Dicus (2011). “Immediate vs. delayed insertion of intrauterine contraception after second trimester abortion: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.” Trials 12: 149, doi:10.1186/1745-6215-12-149.

pu

bliC

at

ion

s

22 the BEAR BONES fall 2011 23vol 11 | issue 2 UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

January 1 – June 30, 2011

Book Chapters

> Charles, G., s. dharamsi and C. Alexander (2011). “Interprofessional field education: Reciprocal learning for collaborative practice.” Shifting Sites of Practice: Field Experience in Canada. J. Doulet, N. Clark and H. Allen (eds). Toronto: Pearson Press: 253-263.

> Klein, m. c. (2011). “Promoting normal birth: Research, reflections and guidelines.” Epidural Analgesia for Pain Management: The Positive and the Negative. S. Donna (ed). London: Fresh Heart Publishing: 20-30.

> shroff, F. (2011). “We are all one: Holistic thought-forms within indigenous societies.” International Reader on Indigenous Philosophies and Critical Education. G. Dei (ed). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

> Vedam, s. (2011). “A fundamental right of passage.” Into These Hands, Wisdom From Midwives. G. Simkins (ed). Traverse City: Spirituality and Health Books.

> Woollard, r. (2011). “A history of the Committee on the Accreditation of Continuing Medical Education Canada.” Continuing Medical Education: Looking Back, Planning Ahead. D. Wentz (ed). Hanover, New Hampshire: Dartmouth College Press: 218-226.

Refereed Publications

> Boelen, C. and r. Woollard (2011). “Consenso global sobre la responsabilidad social de las facultades de medicina.” Educ Med 14(1): 7-14.

> Brcic, V., C. Eberdt and J. Kaczorowski (2011). “Development of a tool to identify poverty in a family practice setting: A pilot study.” International Journal of Family Medicine ID 812182, doi:10.1155/2011/812182.

> Brown, R. and J. taunton (2011). “Using pocket-sized ultrasound tools in patient care.” BCMJ 53(4): 166-168.

> Cessford, T. A. and W. V. norman (2011). “Making a case for abortion curriculum reform: A knowledge-assessment survey of undergraduate medical students.” J Obstet Gynaecol Can 33(1): 38-45.

> dawes, m. (2011). “Putting evidence into practice.” BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 342: d2072.

> dharamsi, s. (2011). “Moving beyond the limits of cultural competency training.” Med Educ 45(8): 764-766.

> dharamsi, s. and G. Charles (2011). “Ethnography: From traditional to criticalist conceptions of a qualitative research method for studying culture in family medicine.” Can Fam Physician 57(3): 378-379.

> dharamsi, s., J. Osei-Twum and M. Whiteman (2011). “Socially responsible approaches to international/global health electives.” Med Educ 45(5): 530-531.

> gabriel, P. s., C. Morgan-Jonker, C. M. W. Phung, R. S. Hogg,

R. Barrios and J. Kaczorowski (2011). “Refugees and health care – the need for data: Understanding the health of government-assisted refugees in Canada through a prospective longitudinal cohort.” Can J Public Health 102(4): 269-272.

> garrison, s. r., C. L. Birmingham, B. E. Koehler, R. A. McCollom

and K. m. Khan (2011). “The effect of magnesium infusion on rest cramps: Randomized controlled trial.” Journal of Gerontology A Biol Sci Med Sci 66(6): 661-666.

> Gee, M. E., N. R. Campbell, C. M. Bancej, C. Robitaille, A. Bienek,

M. R. Joffres, R. L. Walker, J. Kaczorowski and S. Dai (2011, Feb

3). “Perception of uncontrolled blood pressure and behaviours to improve blood pressure: Findings from the 2009 Survey on Living with Chronic Disease in Canada. J Hum Hypertens [Epub ahead of print]

> Gilbert, M., X. Li, M. Petric, M. Krajden, J. L. Isaac-Renton,

g. s. ogilvie and M. L. Rekart (2011). “Using centralized laboratory data to monitor trends in herpes simplex virus type 1 and 2 infection in British Columbia and the changing etiology of genital herpes.” Can J Public Health 102(3):225-229.

> grzybowski, s., K. stoll and J. Kornelsen (2011). “Distance matters: A population-based study examining access to maternity services for rural women.” BMC Health Services Research 11: 147 epub.

> Jarvis-Selinger, S., J. Bates, Y. Araki and S. Lear (2011). “Internet-based support for cardiovascular disease management.” International Journal of Telemedicine and Applications http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijta/2011/342582/.

> Kaczorowski, J., L. W. Chambers, L. Dolovich, J. M. Paterson,

T. Karwalajtys, T. Gierman et al. (2011). “Improving cardiovascular health at the population level: A 39 community cluster-randomized trial of the Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP).” BMJ 342: d442 doi:10.1136/bmj.d442.

> Kaczorowski, J., O. Goldberg and M. Verna (2011). “Pay-for-performance incentives for preventive care: Views of family physicians before and after participation in a reminder and recall project (P-PROMPT).” Can Fam Physician 57: 690-696.

> Kaida, A., F. Laher, S. A. Strathdee, P. a. Janssen, D. Money,

R. S. Hogg and G. Gray (2011). “Childbearing intentions of HIV-positive women of reproductive age in Soweto, South Africa: The influence of expanding access to HAART in an HIV hyper-endemic setting.” American Journal of Public Health 101: 350-358.

> Kaida, A., F. Laher, S. Strathdee, D. Money, P. a. Janssen, R.

Hogg and G. Gray (2010). “Contraceptive use and method mix patterns among HIV-positive and HIV-negative women in Soweto, South Africa: The influence of expanding access to HIV care and treatment services in an HIV hyperendemic setting.” PLoS ONE 5: e13868.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013868.

> Klein, m. c., N. Baradaran, J. Kaczorowski, S. Hearps,

J. Tomkinson and R. Brandt (2011, April ). “Family physicians who provide intrapartum care and those who do not: Very different ways of viewing childbirth.” Can Fam Physician 57: e139-e147.

> Klein, m. c., J. Kaczorowski, S. Hearps, J. Tomkinson, N.

Baradaran, W. Hall, P. McNiven, R. Brant, J. Grant, S. Dore and W.

D. Fraser (2011). “What are the attitudes of Canadian women approaching their first birth towards birth technology and their roles in birth?” J Obstet Gynaecol Can 33(6): 568-608.

> Klein, m. c., R. Liston, W. D. Fraser, N. Baradaran, S. Hearps,

J. Tomkinson, J. Kazorowski and R. Brant (2011). “The attitudes of the new generation of Canadian obstetricians: How do they differ from their predecessors?” Birth 38(2): 129-139.

> Kornelsen, J., A. Kotaska, P. Waterfall, L. Willie and D. Wilson

(2011). “Alienation and resilience: The dynamics of birth outside their community for rural First Nations’ women.” Journal of Aboriginal Health 7(1): 55-64.

> Kornelsen, J., K. stoll and s. grzybowski (2011). “Stress and anxiety associated with lack of access to maternity services for rural parturient women.” Australian Journal of Rural Health 19(1): 9-14.

> Krajden, M., D. Cook, A. Yu, R. Chow, W. Mei, S. McNeil, D. M.

Money, M. Dionne, K. P. Karunakaran, J. M. Palefsky, S. Dobson,

g. s. ogilvie and M. Petric (2011). “HPV 16 and 18 antibody responses in a 2- vs. 3-dose HPV vaccine trial as measured by pseudovirus neutralization and competitive luminex assays.” Clinical and Vaccine Immunology 18(3): 418-23.

> Levitt, C., L. Hanvey, J. Kaczorowski, B. Chalmers, M. Heaman

and S. Bartholomew (2011). “Breastfeeding policies and practices in Canadian hospitals: Comparing 1993 with 2007.” Birth: doi:10.1111/j.1523-536X.2011.00479.x.

> limbos, m. m. and d. P. Joyce (2011). “Comparison of the ASQ and PEDS in screening for developmental delay in children presenting for primary care.” J Dev Behav Pediatr 32(7).

> Lisonkova, S., S. Sheps, P. a. Janssen, S. Lee and L. Dahlgren

(2010). “Effect of older maternal age on birth outcomes in twin pregnancies: A population-based study.” J Perinatol: doi10.1038/jp2010.114.

> Lisonkova, S., S. Sheps, P. a. Janssen, S. Lee, L. Dahlgren and

Y. MacNab (2010). “Birth outcomes among older mothers in rural versus urban areas: A residence-based approach.” J Rural Health: doi: 10.1111/j.1748-0361.2010.00332.x.

> McElhaney, J. E., m. l. donnelly and D. Thompson (2011). “Prevention in acute care for seniors.” Council on Health Promotion. BC Medical Journal 53: 86-87.

> mcgregor, m. J. (2011). “Finding a model that supports quality.” Healthc Q 10(2): 30-35.

> mcKenzie, d. c. and K. D. Fitch (2011). “The asthmatic athlete: Inhaled beta-2 agonists, sport performance and doping.” Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine 21: 46-50.

> Michal, C. A., P. a. Janssen, s. Vedam, E. K. Hutton and A. De

Jonge (2011). “Planned home vs hospital birth: A meta-analysis gone wrong.” Medscape April 1. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/739987.

> Miewald, C., m. c. Klein, C. Ulrich, D. Butcher, S. Eftekhary, J.

Rosinski and A. Procyk (2011). “You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone: The role of maternity care in community sustainability.” Can J Rural Medicine 16(1): 7-12.

> Mitchell, S., g. s. ogilvie, M. Steinberg, M. Sekikubo, C.

Biryabarema and D. M. Money (2011). “Assessing women’s willingness to collect their own cervical samples for HPV testing as part of the ASPIRE cervical cancer screening project in Uganda.” International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2011.01.028. [Epub ahead of print]

> mu, l., F. shroff and s. dharamsi (2011). “Inspiring health advocacy in family medicine: A qualitative study.” Education for Health 534. (online)

> Myers, M. G., M. Godwin, m. dawes, A. Kiss, S. W. Tobe,

F. C. Grant and J. Kaczorowski (2011). “Conventional versus automated measurement of blood pressure in primary care patients with systolic hypertension: Randomised parallel design controlled trial.” BMJ 342: d286 doi:10.1136/bmj.d286.

> norman, W. V., J. Berguner and L. Eccles (2011). “Accuracy of gestational age estimated by menstrual dating in women seeking abortion beyond nine weeks.” J Obstet Gynaecol Can 33(3): 252-257.

> norman, W. V., J. Kaczorowski, J. A. Soon, R. Brant, S.

Bryan, K. trouton and L. Dicus (2011). “Immediate vs. delayed insertion of intrauterine contraception after second trimester abortion: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.” Trials 12: 149, doi:10.1186/1745-6215-12-149.

pu

bliC

at

ion

s

2� the BEAR BONES fall 2011 2�vol 11 | issue 2 UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

> Oteng, B., M. Fawziah, L. D. Lynd, g. s. ogilvie, D. Patrick

and C. Marra (2011). “Evaluating societal preferences for human papillomavirus and cervical smear test screening programme.” Sex Transm Infect 87(1):52-57.

> Redwood-Campbell, L., N. Fowler, S. Laryea, M. Howard and

J. Kaczorowski (2011). “Before you teach me, I cannot know: Immigrant women’s barriers and enablers to cervical cancer screening among different ethnolinguistic groups in Canada.” Can J Public Health 102(3): 230-234.

> Rishiraj, N., J. taunton, R. Lloyd-Smith, B. Niven, W. Regan and

r. Woollard (2011). “Agility, power, and speed performance measures of non-injured athletes while using a functional knee brace: Pilot study.” Minerva Ortopedica e Traumatologica 62(1): 9-17.

> Rishiraj, N., J. taunton, R. Lloyd-Smith, W. Regan, B. Niven

and r. Woollard (2011). “Effect of functional knee brace use on acceleration, agility, leg power and speed performance in healthy athletes.” Br J Sports Med: bjsports79244, doi:10.1136/bjsm.2010.079244.

> Rishiraj, N., J. taunton, R. Lloyd-Smith, W. Regan and n. Prasad

(2011). “Are we any closer to preventing anterior cruciate ligament injuries?” US Musculoskeletal Review 6.1: 61-64.

> Ryan, M., G. Valiant, K. McDonald and J. taunton (2011).

“The effect of three different levels of footwear stability on pain outcomes in women runners: A randomized control trial.” Br J Sports Med 45: 715-721.

> Ryan, M., a. Wong, D. Rabago, K. lee and J. taunton

(2011). “Ultrasound guided injections of hyperosmolar dextrose for overuse patellar tendinopathy: Pilot study.” Br J Sports Med: bjsports 81455, doi:10.1136/bjsm.2010.081455.

> Snadden, D., J. Bates, P. Burns, O. Casiro, R. Hays and D. Hunt

(2011). “Developing a medical school: Expansion of medical student capacity in new locations.” AMEE Guide No. 55 Medical Teacher 33(7): 518-529.

> Snyder, J., s. dharamsi and V. A. Crooks (2011). “Fly-by medical care: What can we learn about the social responsibility of voluntourists and medical tourists?” Global Health 7(1): 6.

> Sullivan, W. F., J. M. Berg, E. Bradley, T. Cheetham, R. Denton, J.

Heng, B. Hennen, d. P. Joyce, M. Kelly et al. (2011). “Primary care of adults with developmental disabilities. Canadian Consensus Guidelines.” Can Fam Phys 57: 541-553.

> Walker, R. L., M. E. Gee, C. Bancej, R. P. Nolan, J. Kaczorowski,

M. Joffres, A. Bienek, F. Gwadry-Sridhar and N. R. Campbell (2011,

Jun 17). “Health behaviour advice from a health professional to Canadian adults with hypertension: Results from a national survey.” Can J Cardiol [Epub ahead of print]

> Webster, G., K. Tesche and P. a. Janssen (2011). “Recruitment of healthy first-trimester pregnant women: Lessons from the Chemicals, Health and Pregnancy Study (CHirP).” Maternal Child Health Journal: doi 10.1007/s10995-010-0739-8.

> Wiebe, e. r. (2011). “Cohort study: Adolescent girls undergoing medical abortion have lower risk of haemorrhage, incomplete evacuation or surgical evacuation than women above 18 years old.” Evid Based Med: ebmed100064 Published Online First: 4 July 2011.

> Wiebe, e. r., B. Byzcko and M. Johnson (2011). “Benefits of manual vacuum aspiration for abortion.” Int J Gynecol Obstet 114: 155-156.

> Wiebe, e. r., r. najafi, N. Sohail and A. Kamani (2011).

“Muslim women having abortions in Canada: Attitudes, beliefs and experiences.” Can Fam Physician 57: e134-e138.

Other Publications

> Bates, J., H. Frost, B. Schrewe, J. Jamieson and R. Ellaway

(2011). “Distributed postgraduate medical education in Canada.” Commissioned by Health Canada for the Future of Medical Education in Canada project.

> Campbell, N., E. Young, M. Adams, O. Baclic, D. Drouin, J.

Farrell, J. Kaczorowski et al. (Members of the Healthy Blood

Pressure Framework Steering and Drafting Committee) (2011,

Mar). “Healthy blood pressure in Canada: A discussion paper on the way forward.”

> Canadian Stroke Network (Kaczorowksi, J. member of the

national steering committee) (2011, Jun 16). “The quality of stroke care in Canada.”

> Fairbrother, N., M. Antony, P. a. Janssen, M. Lau and A. Young

(2011, February). “Screening for anxiety and depression among new mothers: Implications for care in BC.” Abstract C-2. 11th Annual Western Perinatal Conference. Banff, AB. (Proceedings)

> Hanley, G., P. a. Janssen and D. Greyson (2011, February). “Regional variation in the caesarean delivery and assisted vaginal delivery rates.” Abstract C-O-11. 11th Annual Western Perinatal Conference. Banff, AB. (Proceedings)

> Janssen, P. a. and C. Bickford (2011, February). “Maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with trial of labour versus elective repeat ceasarean section in BC.” Abstract C-5. 11th Annual Western Perinatal Conference. Banff, AB. (Proceedings)

> Janssen, P. a. and J. Stienen (2011, June). “Cesarean birth among the low risk, no risk: The new ‘normal’.” International Confederation of Midwives 29th Triennial Congress. Durban, South Africa. (Proceedings)

> Janssen, P. a., M. Urquia, M. Heaman, P. O’Campo and K.

Thiessen (2011, February). “Postpartum depression after pregnancy: Who is at risk?” Nursing Network against Violence Against Women International. Auckland, New Zealand. (Proceedings)

> Kaczorowski, J., L. W. Chambers, L. Dolovich and J. M.

Paterson (2011). “Improving cardiovascular health at population level: 39 community cluster randomised trial of Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP).” BMJ Learning (CME module): http://learning.bmj.com/learning/search-result.html?moduleId=10019918.

> Ma, J., N. Akhtar-Danesh, L. Dolovich and L. Thabane; CHAT

investigators (L. W. Chambers, J. Kaczorowski, M. Black, C.

Levitt, L. Dolovich et al. (2011). “Imputation strategies for missing binary outcomes in cluster randomized trials.” BMC Med Res Methodol 16(11): 18.

> mcgregor, m. J. and L. A. Ronald (2011). “Residential long-term care for Canadian seniors: Nonprofit, for-profit or does it matter?” Institute for Research on Public Policy. IRPP Study, No. 14, January, 2011.

> McIntosh, K., P. a. Janssen and A. Klein (2011, February). “Breastfeeding in women with epilepsy.” Abstract C-8. 11th Annual Western Perinatal Conference. Banff, AB. (Proceedings)

> Mitchell, S., g. s. ogilvie, M. Sekikubo, C. Biryabarema, M.

Steinberg, J. Law and J. Christilaw (2011). “Women’s attitudes towards Human Papillomavirus (HPV) in sub-saharan Africa: Planning for the future of cervical cancer prevention.” J Obstet Gynaecol Can June 2011; S19 Supplement 1. (Proceedings)

> norman, W. V., J. Kaczorowski and J. Shoveller (2011). “Contraception and abortion in BC: Experience guiding research guiding care.” Inter-sectoral, interdisciplinary health systems improvement planning meeting. Richmond, BC. April 2011. (Proceedings)

> shroff, F. (2011). “Holism in international, interdisciplinary perspective.” Social Theory and Health June 8, 2011: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/sth/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/ sth20116a.pdf.

> Sword, W., M. Heaman, S. Brooks, P. a. Janssen, S. Tough and

D. Young (2011, June). “What is quality prenatal care? Perceptions of women and health care providers” Society of Pediatric Epidemiological Research. Montreal, QC. (Proceedings)

> Sword, W., M. Heaman, S. Brooks, P. a. Janssen, S. Tough, D.

Young and QCPC Research Team (2010, May). “What is quality prenatal care? Perceptions of women and health care providers.” Canadian Association of Health Services and Policy Research. Toronto, ON. (Proceedings)

> Vedam, s., P. a. Janssen and d. thordarson (2011, June). “Strengthening midwives and midwifery practice.” International Confederation of Midwives 29th Triennial Congress. Durban, South Africa. (Proceedings)

> Vedam, s., l. schummers and c. Fulton (2011). “Home birth: An annotated guide to the literature.” Vancouver, BC: Division of Midwifery, University of British Columbia. Published on websites, curriculum and clinician resources, and e-lists, American College of Nurse-Midwives, Midwives Alliance of North America, Australian Midwives Association, Midwifery Research and Education Unit, Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology & Reproductive Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Germany. Annually updated: 2005- present.

Abstracts

> Baradaran, N., m. c. Klein, J. Kaczorowski, J. Tomkinson,

S. Hearps and R. Brant (2011). “Family physicians who provide intrapartum care and those that do not: Very different ways of viewing childbirth.” Family Medicine 43: Supplement 1.

> collins, m., R. Holehouse and J. Kaczorowski (2011). “Chlamydia screening in an international resort community: A pilot outreach program to expand access.” Journal of Adolescent Health 48(2): Supplement 1, S63.

> Dolovich, L., S. Laryea, J. Kaczorowski, L. Chambers, R. Angeles

et al. (2011). “Participation and cardiovascular risk of residents 65 years and older attending the Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP) across Ontario during 2008-2010.” Family Medicine 43: Supplement 1.

> Harris, M., M. Ryan and J. taunton (2011). “Footwear usage and injury patterns in fitness class participants: A prospective pilot study.” Clin J Sport Med 21(4): 383.

> Kaczorowski, J., L. Chambers, L. Dolovich, C. Levitt, W. Hogg,

L. Thabane, K. Tu et al. (2011). “Improving cardiovascular health at the population level: A 39 community cluster-randomised trial of the Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP). Family Medicine 43: Supplement 1.

> Klein m. c., R. Liston, W. Fraser, N. Baradaran, S. Hearps,

J. Tomkinson, J. Kaczorowski and R. Brant (2011). The attitudes of the new generation of Canadian obstetricians: How do they differ from their predecessors and does it matter? Family Medicine 43: Supplement 1.

> macKay, F., S. Parent, J. MacKay, J. Gailius, e. anderson,

m. c. Klein and J. Kaczorowski (2011). “The modified Medical Office Assistant role: Can it improve outcomes in rural diabetes care?” Family Medicine 43: Supplement 1.

January 1 – June 30, 2011 (cont.)

pu

bliC

at

ion

s

2� the BEAR BONES fall 2011 2�vol 11 | issue 2 UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

> Oteng, B., M. Fawziah, L. D. Lynd, g. s. ogilvie, D. Patrick

and C. Marra (2011). “Evaluating societal preferences for human papillomavirus and cervical smear test screening programme.” Sex Transm Infect 87(1):52-57.

> Redwood-Campbell, L., N. Fowler, S. Laryea, M. Howard and

J. Kaczorowski (2011). “Before you teach me, I cannot know: Immigrant women’s barriers and enablers to cervical cancer screening among different ethnolinguistic groups in Canada.” Can J Public Health 102(3): 230-234.

> Rishiraj, N., J. taunton, R. Lloyd-Smith, B. Niven, W. Regan and

r. Woollard (2011). “Agility, power, and speed performance measures of non-injured athletes while using a functional knee brace: Pilot study.” Minerva Ortopedica e Traumatologica 62(1): 9-17.

> Rishiraj, N., J. taunton, R. Lloyd-Smith, W. Regan, B. Niven

and r. Woollard (2011). “Effect of functional knee brace use on acceleration, agility, leg power and speed performance in healthy athletes.” Br J Sports Med: bjsports79244, doi:10.1136/bjsm.2010.079244.

> Rishiraj, N., J. taunton, R. Lloyd-Smith, W. Regan and n. Prasad

(2011). “Are we any closer to preventing anterior cruciate ligament injuries?” US Musculoskeletal Review 6.1: 61-64.

> Ryan, M., G. Valiant, K. McDonald and J. taunton (2011).

“The effect of three different levels of footwear stability on pain outcomes in women runners: A randomized control trial.” Br J Sports Med 45: 715-721.

> Ryan, M., a. Wong, D. Rabago, K. lee and J. taunton

(2011). “Ultrasound guided injections of hyperosmolar dextrose for overuse patellar tendinopathy: Pilot study.” Br J Sports Med: bjsports 81455, doi:10.1136/bjsm.2010.081455.

> Snadden, D., J. Bates, P. Burns, O. Casiro, R. Hays and D. Hunt

(2011). “Developing a medical school: Expansion of medical student capacity in new locations.” AMEE Guide No. 55 Medical Teacher 33(7): 518-529.

> Snyder, J., s. dharamsi and V. A. Crooks (2011). “Fly-by medical care: What can we learn about the social responsibility of voluntourists and medical tourists?” Global Health 7(1): 6.

> Sullivan, W. F., J. M. Berg, E. Bradley, T. Cheetham, R. Denton, J.

Heng, B. Hennen, d. P. Joyce, M. Kelly et al. (2011). “Primary care of adults with developmental disabilities. Canadian Consensus Guidelines.” Can Fam Phys 57: 541-553.

> Walker, R. L., M. E. Gee, C. Bancej, R. P. Nolan, J. Kaczorowski,

M. Joffres, A. Bienek, F. Gwadry-Sridhar and N. R. Campbell (2011,

Jun 17). “Health behaviour advice from a health professional to Canadian adults with hypertension: Results from a national survey.” Can J Cardiol [Epub ahead of print]

> Webster, G., K. Tesche and P. a. Janssen (2011). “Recruitment of healthy first-trimester pregnant women: Lessons from the Chemicals, Health and Pregnancy Study (CHirP).” Maternal Child Health Journal: doi 10.1007/s10995-010-0739-8.

> Wiebe, e. r. (2011). “Cohort study: Adolescent girls undergoing medical abortion have lower risk of haemorrhage, incomplete evacuation or surgical evacuation than women above 18 years old.” Evid Based Med: ebmed100064 Published Online First: 4 July 2011.

> Wiebe, e. r., B. Byzcko and M. Johnson (2011). “Benefits of manual vacuum aspiration for abortion.” Int J Gynecol Obstet 114: 155-156.

> Wiebe, e. r., r. najafi, N. Sohail and A. Kamani (2011).

“Muslim women having abortions in Canada: Attitudes, beliefs and experiences.” Can Fam Physician 57: e134-e138.

Other Publications

> Bates, J., H. Frost, B. Schrewe, J. Jamieson and R. Ellaway

(2011). “Distributed postgraduate medical education in Canada.” Commissioned by Health Canada for the Future of Medical Education in Canada project.

> Campbell, N., E. Young, M. Adams, O. Baclic, D. Drouin, J.

Farrell, J. Kaczorowski et al. (Members of the Healthy Blood

Pressure Framework Steering and Drafting Committee) (2011,

Mar). “Healthy blood pressure in Canada: A discussion paper on the way forward.”

> Canadian Stroke Network (Kaczorowksi, J. member of the

national steering committee) (2011, Jun 16). “The quality of stroke care in Canada.”

> Fairbrother, N., M. Antony, P. a. Janssen, M. Lau and A. Young

(2011, February). “Screening for anxiety and depression among new mothers: Implications for care in BC.” Abstract C-2. 11th Annual Western Perinatal Conference. Banff, AB. (Proceedings)

> Hanley, G., P. a. Janssen and D. Greyson (2011, February). “Regional variation in the caesarean delivery and assisted vaginal delivery rates.” Abstract C-O-11. 11th Annual Western Perinatal Conference. Banff, AB. (Proceedings)

> Janssen, P. a. and C. Bickford (2011, February). “Maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with trial of labour versus elective repeat ceasarean section in BC.” Abstract C-5. 11th Annual Western Perinatal Conference. Banff, AB. (Proceedings)

> Janssen, P. a. and J. Stienen (2011, June). “Cesarean birth among the low risk, no risk: The new ‘normal’.” International Confederation of Midwives 29th Triennial Congress. Durban, South Africa. (Proceedings)

> Janssen, P. a., M. Urquia, M. Heaman, P. O’Campo and K.

Thiessen (2011, February). “Postpartum depression after pregnancy: Who is at risk?” Nursing Network against Violence Against Women International. Auckland, New Zealand. (Proceedings)

> Kaczorowski, J., L. W. Chambers, L. Dolovich and J. M.

Paterson (2011). “Improving cardiovascular health at population level: 39 community cluster randomised trial of Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP).” BMJ Learning (CME module): http://learning.bmj.com/learning/search-result.html?moduleId=10019918.

> Ma, J., N. Akhtar-Danesh, L. Dolovich and L. Thabane; CHAT

investigators (L. W. Chambers, J. Kaczorowski, M. Black, C.

Levitt, L. Dolovich et al. (2011). “Imputation strategies for missing binary outcomes in cluster randomized trials.” BMC Med Res Methodol 16(11): 18.

> mcgregor, m. J. and L. A. Ronald (2011). “Residential long-term care for Canadian seniors: Nonprofit, for-profit or does it matter?” Institute for Research on Public Policy. IRPP Study, No. 14, January, 2011.

> McIntosh, K., P. a. Janssen and A. Klein (2011, February). “Breastfeeding in women with epilepsy.” Abstract C-8. 11th Annual Western Perinatal Conference. Banff, AB. (Proceedings)

> Mitchell, S., g. s. ogilvie, M. Sekikubo, C. Biryabarema, M.

Steinberg, J. Law and J. Christilaw (2011). “Women’s attitudes towards Human Papillomavirus (HPV) in sub-saharan Africa: Planning for the future of cervical cancer prevention.” J Obstet Gynaecol Can June 2011; S19 Supplement 1. (Proceedings)

> norman, W. V., J. Kaczorowski and J. Shoveller (2011). “Contraception and abortion in BC: Experience guiding research guiding care.” Inter-sectoral, interdisciplinary health systems improvement planning meeting. Richmond, BC. April 2011. (Proceedings)

> shroff, F. (2011). “Holism in international, interdisciplinary perspective.” Social Theory and Health June 8, 2011: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/sth/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/ sth20116a.pdf.

> Sword, W., M. Heaman, S. Brooks, P. a. Janssen, S. Tough and

D. Young (2011, June). “What is quality prenatal care? Perceptions of women and health care providers” Society of Pediatric Epidemiological Research. Montreal, QC. (Proceedings)

> Sword, W., M. Heaman, S. Brooks, P. a. Janssen, S. Tough, D.

Young and QCPC Research Team (2010, May). “What is quality prenatal care? Perceptions of women and health care providers.” Canadian Association of Health Services and Policy Research. Toronto, ON. (Proceedings)

> Vedam, s., P. a. Janssen and d. thordarson (2011, June). “Strengthening midwives and midwifery practice.” International Confederation of Midwives 29th Triennial Congress. Durban, South Africa. (Proceedings)

> Vedam, s., l. schummers and c. Fulton (2011). “Home birth: An annotated guide to the literature.” Vancouver, BC: Division of Midwifery, University of British Columbia. Published on websites, curriculum and clinician resources, and e-lists, American College of Nurse-Midwives, Midwives Alliance of North America, Australian Midwives Association, Midwifery Research and Education Unit, Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology & Reproductive Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Germany. Annually updated: 2005- present.

Abstracts

> Baradaran, N., m. c. Klein, J. Kaczorowski, J. Tomkinson,

S. Hearps and R. Brant (2011). “Family physicians who provide intrapartum care and those that do not: Very different ways of viewing childbirth.” Family Medicine 43: Supplement 1.

> collins, m., R. Holehouse and J. Kaczorowski (2011). “Chlamydia screening in an international resort community: A pilot outreach program to expand access.” Journal of Adolescent Health 48(2): Supplement 1, S63.

> Dolovich, L., S. Laryea, J. Kaczorowski, L. Chambers, R. Angeles

et al. (2011). “Participation and cardiovascular risk of residents 65 years and older attending the Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP) across Ontario during 2008-2010.” Family Medicine 43: Supplement 1.

> Harris, M., M. Ryan and J. taunton (2011). “Footwear usage and injury patterns in fitness class participants: A prospective pilot study.” Clin J Sport Med 21(4): 383.

> Kaczorowski, J., L. Chambers, L. Dolovich, C. Levitt, W. Hogg,

L. Thabane, K. Tu et al. (2011). “Improving cardiovascular health at the population level: A 39 community cluster-randomised trial of the Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP). Family Medicine 43: Supplement 1.

> Klein m. c., R. Liston, W. Fraser, N. Baradaran, S. Hearps,

J. Tomkinson, J. Kaczorowski and R. Brant (2011). The attitudes of the new generation of Canadian obstetricians: How do they differ from their predecessors and does it matter? Family Medicine 43: Supplement 1.

> macKay, F., S. Parent, J. MacKay, J. Gailius, e. anderson,

m. c. Klein and J. Kaczorowski (2011). “The modified Medical Office Assistant role: Can it improve outcomes in rural diabetes care?” Family Medicine 43: Supplement 1.

January 1 – June 30, 2011 (cont.)

pu

bliC

at

ion

s

2� the BEAR BONES fall 2011 2�vol 11 | issue 2 UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

> Ryan, M., M. Harris and J. taunton (2011). “A survey of foot orthosis usage among athletes involved in basketball, soccer and running.” Clin J Sport Med 21(4): 376.

> taunton, J., P. Schamasch, M. Wilkinson, P. Renstrom, L.

Engebretsen, R. Celebrini, R. Stewart and T. Sasyniuk (2011).

“Medical facilities and encounters at the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Winter Games.” Brit J Sport Med 45(4): 376.

> Van de Vliet, P., S. Wilick, O. Martinez, M. Wilkinson, R. Stewart,

T. Sasyniuk, R. Celebrini, P. Pit-Grosheide and J. taunton (2011). “The Vancouver 2010 Paralympic Winter Games medical care programme: Facts, figures and recommendations.” Brit J Sport Med 45(4): 311.

> Wiebe, e. r. (2011). “Barriers to access and use of contraception in immigrant women presenting for abortion.” J Obstet Gynaecol Can 33: S45.

> Wiebe, e. r. and K. J. trouton (2011). “Does using tampons or menstrual cups increase early IUD expulsion rates?” J Obstet Gynaecol Can 33: S44.

January 1 – June 30, 2011 (cont.)

Invited Presentations

> dawes, m. (2011). Evidence-based identification of the sick child. 6th Annual BC Nurse Practitioner Conference. Vancouver, BC.

> dawes, m. (2011). Family physician training in Canada. Canadian Embassy. Beijing, China.

> Janssen, P. a. (2010, May). Maternal child health in the UBC School of Population and Public Health. Child and Family Research Institute Town Hall. Vancouver, BC.

> Janssen, P. a. (2010, October). Home birth: Consequences and controversies. Canadian Association of Midwives. Edmonton, AB. (Plenary)

> Janssen, P. a. (2010, October). Home birth: Costs, consequences and controversies. Site Wide Research Rounds, BC Women’s Hospital. Vancouver, BC.

> Janssen, P. a. (2010, October). Perspectives on the safety of home birth. Canadian Association of Midwives. Edmonton, AB. (Panelist)

> Janssen, P. a. (2010, October). Safety and cost of home birth in British Columbia. UBC School of Population and Public Health. Vancouver, BC.

> Janssen, P. a. (2010, November). Doing time and re-entry: The health trajectories of women leaving prison. Developmental Neurosciences and Child Health Unit, Child and Family Research Unit. Vancouver, BC.

> Janssen, P. a. (2010, November). Intimate partner violence and the child-bearing cycle: Issues in prevention and intervention. BC Injury Prevention Conference. Vancouver, BC. (Keynote)

> Janssen, P. a. (2011, March). Translating policy into practice: The ingredients of influence. Maternal Fetal Medicine Seminar, BC Women’s Hospital. Vancouver, BC.

> Kaczorowski, J. (2011, February 24). Barriers to adopting and implementing guidleines. Journal club (Quality care). BC Children’s Hospital. Vancouver, BC.

> Kaczorowski, J. (2011, March 11). Pan Canadian Hypertension Framework. An opportunity to discuss how to improve the prevention and control of hypertension in Canada. Vascular Network Planning Meeting. Toronto, ON.

> Kaczorowski, J. (2011, March 17). Abstract writing clinic. UBC Department of Family Practice. Vancouver, BC.

> Kaczorowski, J. (2011, April 5). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: An introduction. UBC Department of Pediatrics Academic Half Day. Vancouver, BC.

> Kaczorowski, J. (2011, April 28). CHAP Experience: A community-based approach. Contraception and Abortion in BC: Experience Guiding Research Guiding Care. Vancouver, BC.

> Kaczorowski, J. (2011, May 27-29). Community cluster randomized controlled trials: Developing an integrated strategy to support pediatric and perinatal clinical trials across Canada. Maternal Infant, Child and Youth Research Network. Eastern Townships, QC.

> Kaczorowski, J. (2011, June 16). Lessons learned from the Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP): Development, implementation and evaluation of a large scale randomized trial in primary care. UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC. (Keynote)

> Klein, m. c. (2011, May 7). Obstetricians are from Mars, midwives and doulas are from Venus, family doctors, nurses and women are searching for a friendly planet. Childbirth: Research Matters. The Association for Safe Alternatives in Childbirth Annual Meeting. Edmonton, AB. (Keynote)

> Klein, m. c. (2011, May 7). Pop stars, real women, and the so-called ‘cesarean section on maternal request’ debate: What is the evidence that childbirth is bad for your pelvic floor. The safety of home birth and benefits of midwifery care. Childbirth: Research Matters. The Association for Safe Alternatives in Childbirth Annual Meeting. Edmonton, AB.

> Klein, m. c. (2011, May 7). The safety of home birth and benefits of midwifery care. Childbirth: Research Matters. The Association for Safe Alternatives in Childbirth Annual Meeting. Edmonton, AB.

> Klein, m. c. (2011, May 7). The tyranny of meta-analysis: Why the Cochrane on epidurals is wrong. The safety of home birth and benefits of midwifery care. Childbirth: Research Matters. The Association for Safe Alternatives in Childbirth Annual Meeting. Edmonton AB.

> mcgregor, m. J. (2011, June). How can we improve seniors care in our community? Public screening and discussion of file “The Remaining Light” BC Hospital Employees Union and Kamloops Health Coalition. Kamloops, BC.

> mcgregor, m. J. and L. A. Ronald (2011, January). Residential long-term care for Canadian seniors: Nonprofit, for-profit or does it matter? The Institute for Research in Public Policy. Toronto, ON. (Panelist)

January 1 – June 30, 2011

Editorials or Letters

> Cessford, T. A. and W. V. norman (2011). “Abortion curriculum in undergraduate medical education is an issue of civic professionalism.” J Obstet Gynaecol Can 33(5): 435-6.

> Cessford, T. A. and W. V. norman (2011). “Making a case for abortion curriculum reform: A knowledge-assessment survey of undergraduate medical students.” J Obstet Gynaecol Can 33(6): 580.

> grzybowski, s., J. Kornelsen, L. Prinsloo, N. Kilpatrick and

r. Woollard (2011). “Professional isolation in small rural surgical programs: The need for a virtual department of operative care.” Canadian Journal of Rural Medicine 16(3): 103-105.

> Kaczorowski, J. (2011). “SNPs and coronary heart disease.” Lancet 377(9763): 379.

> Khan, K. m., R. Weiler and S. N. Blair (2011). “Prescribing exercise in primary care: Ten practical steps on how to do it.” BMJ 343: d4141 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d4141.

The Sue Harris Family Practice (SHFP) Research Grant supports research that contributes to women’s health within the discipline of family practice. The fund honours the life and values of Dr. Sue Harris, a highly regarded family physician and former Head, Department of Family Practice at BC Women’s Hospital.

Dr. Harris’ values are reflected in the eligibility criteria for the grant:commitment to full-spectrum family practice primary care;woman-centered focus;collaborative;holistic approach;respect for innovation; and,commitment to supporting improvements in practice.

The principle investigator must be a family practitioner licensed in BC who resides in BC, or a UBC family practice resident. Grants will be awarded in amounts up to $2,500 for a family practice resident and up to $5,000 for a family practice practitioner. The application process consists of two stages – a Letter of Intent (LOI) and a full application. Successful LOI applicants will be invited to work with Women’s Health Research Institute staff to help them to develop the LOI into a full application.

The LOI is due 0000h January 27, 2012For more information contact Catriona Hippman at chippman@cw.bc.ca or visit www.whri.org

••••••

THE SuE HARRIS FAMILY PRACTICE (SHFP) RESEARCH GRANT

Funding opportunity

the BEAR BONES

pu

bliC

at

ion

s

2� the BEAR BONES fall 2011 2�vol 11 | issue 2 UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

> Ryan, M., M. Harris and J. taunton (2011). “A survey of foot orthosis usage among athletes involved in basketball, soccer and running.” Clin J Sport Med 21(4): 376.

> taunton, J., P. Schamasch, M. Wilkinson, P. Renstrom, L.

Engebretsen, R. Celebrini, R. Stewart and T. Sasyniuk (2011).

“Medical facilities and encounters at the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Winter Games.” Brit J Sport Med 45(4): 376.

> Van de Vliet, P., S. Wilick, O. Martinez, M. Wilkinson, R. Stewart,

T. Sasyniuk, R. Celebrini, P. Pit-Grosheide and J. taunton (2011). “The Vancouver 2010 Paralympic Winter Games medical care programme: Facts, figures and recommendations.” Brit J Sport Med 45(4): 311.

> Wiebe, e. r. (2011). “Barriers to access and use of contraception in immigrant women presenting for abortion.” J Obstet Gynaecol Can 33: S45.

> Wiebe, e. r. and K. J. trouton (2011). “Does using tampons or menstrual cups increase early IUD expulsion rates?” J Obstet Gynaecol Can 33: S44.

January 1 – June 30, 2011 (cont.)

Invited Presentations

> dawes, m. (2011). Evidence-based identification of the sick child. 6th Annual BC Nurse Practitioner Conference. Vancouver, BC.

> dawes, m. (2011). Family physician training in Canada. Canadian Embassy. Beijing, China.

> Janssen, P. a. (2010, May). Maternal child health in the UBC School of Population and Public Health. Child and Family Research Institute Town Hall. Vancouver, BC.

> Janssen, P. a. (2010, October). Home birth: Consequences and controversies. Canadian Association of Midwives. Edmonton, AB. (Plenary)

> Janssen, P. a. (2010, October). Home birth: Costs, consequences and controversies. Site Wide Research Rounds, BC Women’s Hospital. Vancouver, BC.

> Janssen, P. a. (2010, October). Perspectives on the safety of home birth. Canadian Association of Midwives. Edmonton, AB. (Panelist)

> Janssen, P. a. (2010, October). Safety and cost of home birth in British Columbia. UBC School of Population and Public Health. Vancouver, BC.

> Janssen, P. a. (2010, November). Doing time and re-entry: The health trajectories of women leaving prison. Developmental Neurosciences and Child Health Unit, Child and Family Research Unit. Vancouver, BC.

> Janssen, P. a. (2010, November). Intimate partner violence and the child-bearing cycle: Issues in prevention and intervention. BC Injury Prevention Conference. Vancouver, BC. (Keynote)

> Janssen, P. a. (2011, March). Translating policy into practice: The ingredients of influence. Maternal Fetal Medicine Seminar, BC Women’s Hospital. Vancouver, BC.

> Kaczorowski, J. (2011, February 24). Barriers to adopting and implementing guidleines. Journal club (Quality care). BC Children’s Hospital. Vancouver, BC.

> Kaczorowski, J. (2011, March 11). Pan Canadian Hypertension Framework. An opportunity to discuss how to improve the prevention and control of hypertension in Canada. Vascular Network Planning Meeting. Toronto, ON.

> Kaczorowski, J. (2011, March 17). Abstract writing clinic. UBC Department of Family Practice. Vancouver, BC.

> Kaczorowski, J. (2011, April 5). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: An introduction. UBC Department of Pediatrics Academic Half Day. Vancouver, BC.

> Kaczorowski, J. (2011, April 28). CHAP Experience: A community-based approach. Contraception and Abortion in BC: Experience Guiding Research Guiding Care. Vancouver, BC.

> Kaczorowski, J. (2011, May 27-29). Community cluster randomized controlled trials: Developing an integrated strategy to support pediatric and perinatal clinical trials across Canada. Maternal Infant, Child and Youth Research Network. Eastern Townships, QC.

> Kaczorowski, J. (2011, June 16). Lessons learned from the Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP): Development, implementation and evaluation of a large scale randomized trial in primary care. UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC. (Keynote)

> Klein, m. c. (2011, May 7). Obstetricians are from Mars, midwives and doulas are from Venus, family doctors, nurses and women are searching for a friendly planet. Childbirth: Research Matters. The Association for Safe Alternatives in Childbirth Annual Meeting. Edmonton, AB. (Keynote)

> Klein, m. c. (2011, May 7). Pop stars, real women, and the so-called ‘cesarean section on maternal request’ debate: What is the evidence that childbirth is bad for your pelvic floor. The safety of home birth and benefits of midwifery care. Childbirth: Research Matters. The Association for Safe Alternatives in Childbirth Annual Meeting. Edmonton, AB.

> Klein, m. c. (2011, May 7). The safety of home birth and benefits of midwifery care. Childbirth: Research Matters. The Association for Safe Alternatives in Childbirth Annual Meeting. Edmonton, AB.

> Klein, m. c. (2011, May 7). The tyranny of meta-analysis: Why the Cochrane on epidurals is wrong. The safety of home birth and benefits of midwifery care. Childbirth: Research Matters. The Association for Safe Alternatives in Childbirth Annual Meeting. Edmonton AB.

> mcgregor, m. J. (2011, June). How can we improve seniors care in our community? Public screening and discussion of file “The Remaining Light” BC Hospital Employees Union and Kamloops Health Coalition. Kamloops, BC.

> mcgregor, m. J. and L. A. Ronald (2011, January). Residential long-term care for Canadian seniors: Nonprofit, for-profit or does it matter? The Institute for Research in Public Policy. Toronto, ON. (Panelist)

January 1 – June 30, 2011

Editorials or Letters

> Cessford, T. A. and W. V. norman (2011). “Abortion curriculum in undergraduate medical education is an issue of civic professionalism.” J Obstet Gynaecol Can 33(5): 435-6.

> Cessford, T. A. and W. V. norman (2011). “Making a case for abortion curriculum reform: A knowledge-assessment survey of undergraduate medical students.” J Obstet Gynaecol Can 33(6): 580.

> grzybowski, s., J. Kornelsen, L. Prinsloo, N. Kilpatrick and

r. Woollard (2011). “Professional isolation in small rural surgical programs: The need for a virtual department of operative care.” Canadian Journal of Rural Medicine 16(3): 103-105.

> Kaczorowski, J. (2011). “SNPs and coronary heart disease.” Lancet 377(9763): 379.

> Khan, K. m., R. Weiler and S. N. Blair (2011). “Prescribing exercise in primary care: Ten practical steps on how to do it.” BMJ 343: d4141 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d4141.

The Sue Harris Family Practice (SHFP) Research Grant supports research that contributes to women’s health within the discipline of family practice. The fund honours the life and values of Dr. Sue Harris, a highly regarded family physician and former Head, Department of Family Practice at BC Women’s Hospital.

Dr. Harris’ values are reflected in the eligibility criteria for the grant:commitment to full-spectrum family practice primary care;woman-centered focus;collaborative;holistic approach;respect for innovation; and,commitment to supporting improvements in practice.

The principle investigator must be a family practitioner licensed in BC who resides in BC, or a UBC family practice resident. Grants will be awarded in amounts up to $2,500 for a family practice resident and up to $5,000 for a family practice practitioner. The application process consists of two stages – a Letter of Intent (LOI) and a full application. Successful LOI applicants will be invited to work with Women’s Health Research Institute staff to help them to develop the LOI into a full application.

The LOI is due 0000h January 27, 2012For more information contact Catriona Hippman at chippman@cw.bc.ca or visit www.whri.org

••••••

THE SuE HARRIS FAMILY PRACTICE (SHFP) RESEARCH GRANT

Funding opportunity

the BEAR BONES

pr

es

en

tat

ion

s

2� the BEAR BONES fall 2011 2�vol 11 | issue 2 UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

> campbell, K. (2011, June 23). Bridging internationally educated midwives: Report on a Canadian pilot. 29th Triennial Congress of the International Confederation of Midwives. Durban, South Africa.

> campbell, K. (2011, June 23). Using technology in teaching: A workshop. 29th Triennial Congress of the International Confederation of Midwives. Durban, South Africa.

> cave, d. (2011, May 30). IHHS 402: Group development. UBC Centre for Practitioner Renewal. Vancouver, BC.

> cave, d. (2011, June 17). Care for the caregivers: Seeking to maintain resilience of those who help others. ALS Client Services Conference. Vancouver, BC.

> cave, d. and d. Kuhl (2011, June 10). Know yourself: Engaging our hearts in health care. UBC Interprofessional HIV Course. Vancouver, BC.

> collins, m. (2011, June 16). Does your server* in Whistler have Chlamydia? (*any young adult employee in an international resort). UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> dharamsi, s. (2011, January 12). Ethical approaches to global health work. UBC Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine. Vancouver, BC.

> dharamsi, s. (2011, February 16). Social accountability and health advocacy. UBC Department of Surgery: Post Graduate Education and Core Surgery Seminar Series. Vancouver, BC.

> dharamsi, s. (2011, February-June). Advocacy training in pathology. UBC Department of Pathology and Laboratory Sciences. Vancouver, BC.

> dharamsi, s. (2011, March 10). Advocacy training in neurology: Opportunities and challenges. UBC Division of Neurology. Vancouver, BC.

> dharamsi, s. (2011, April 8). Social accountability and the health advocate role in family medicine. UBC Family Practice Residency Program – Nanaimo Site. Nanaimo, BC.

> donnelly, m. (2011, February 23). BC capability/competency workshop. 46th Annual Postgraduate Review in Family Medicine. Vancouver, BC.

> donnelly, m. (2011, May 12). Elder abuse: What it is; what it isn’t. Judging Women: Aging, Mental Health and Culture Conference – National Judicial Institute. Vancouver, BC.

> donnelly m. (2011, June 15). ER protocols for dementia care. The Rural Emergency Continuum of Care Conference, Rural Coordination Centre of BC. Kelowna, BC.

> donnelly, m. and C. Rusnak (2011, February 25). Main Pro-C: Third Canadian consensus conference on dementia guidelines: A small case-based workshop. 46th Annual Postgraduate Review in Family Medicine. Vancouver, BC.

> ellis, c. and P. Musoke (2011). Reducing neo-natal mortality through professional mentorship: Canadian and Ugandan midwives in partnership. 29th Triennial Congress of the International Confederation of Midwives. Durban, South Africa.

> gabriel, P. (2011, June 16). Government assisted refugees’ attitudes and knowledge about research – a work in progress. UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> garrison, s. (2011, June 16). Nocturnal leg cramps and prescriptions that precede them: A sequence symmetry analysis. UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> Joyce, d. (2011, June 16). Comparison of the ASQ and PEDS in screening for developmental delay in children presenting for primary care. UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> Klein, m. c. (2011, May 12). Building partnerships with women, their families and their care providers. Turning the tide: Balancing birth experiences and interventions for best outcomes. Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue. Vancouver, BC.

> Klein, m. c. (2011, June 16). What are the attitudes of Canadian women approaching their first birth about birth technology and their roles in birth? UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> Kuhl, d., d. cave, h. Pearson and P. Whitehead (2011,

February 11). Researchers abroad, featuring: “The Centre for Practitioner Renewal: Its origin, its work, its research.” St. Paul’s Hospital. Vancouver, BC.

> manville, m. (2011, June 16). Improving outcomes for alternate level of care (ALC) patients: A practical approach to post-acute care. UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> mcgregor, m. J. (2011, April). Facility ownership and organizational characteristics associated with nursing home to emergency departments’ transfers in one large health region in British Columbia. Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation. Vancouver, BC.

> mcgregor, m. J. and L. A. Ronald (2011, May). La qualité des soins de longue durée dans les résidences pour aînés. The Institute for Research in Public Policy. Montreal, QC. (Panelist)

> mcKenzie, d. c. (2011, April 9). Respiratory physiology: Adaptation to high-level exercise. IOC World Conference on Prevention of Injury and Illness in Sport. Monaco.

> Ngui, D., P. Lee and m. donnelly (2011, April 15). Treating dementia patients with cholinesterase inhibitors – to stop or not to stop, that is the question. Canadian Geriatrics Society. Vancouver, BC. (Panel moderator)

> shroff, F. (2011, April 20). Transformations and celebrations. UBC Graduate Students’ Women’s Studies Conference. Vancouver, BC. (Keynote)

> taunton, J. (2011, January 27). Advanced skills in sports medicine. Inaugural SMAQ (Sports Medicine Australia-Queensland Branch) and SMAC (Sport Medicine Council of Alberta) Conference. Honolulu, HI.

> taunton, J. (2011, January 27). Medical facilities and encounters at the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. Inaugural SMAQ (Sports Medicine Australia-Queensland Branch) and SMAC (Sport Medicine Council of Alberta) Conference. Honolulu, HI.

> taunton, J. (2011, February 17). Tendinopathy: Diagnosis and new management protocols. UBC School of Rehabilitation. Vancouver, BC.

> taunton, J. (2011, February 25). Medical services in 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. National Capitol Sports Medicine Congress. Ottawa, ON.

> taunton, J. (2011, March 29). 2010 Medical services for the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. Surrey Memorial Hospital Grand Rounds. Surrey, BC.

> taunton, J. (2011, April 12). Tendinopathy: What’s new in diagnosis and management? Hollyburn Winter Club Forum. Vancouver, BC.

> taunton, J. (2011, April 20). History of the Vancouver Marathon. BMO 40th Anniversary Vancouver International Marathon Symposium. Vancouver, BC.

> taunton, J. (2011, May 7). Integrated medical services 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. BC Association of Kinesiologists Professional Development. Vancouver, BC. (Keynote)

> Vedam, s. (March, 2011). The core Midwifery phase at UBC. Multi-jurisdictional Bridging Pilot 2, Forum for Provincial Partners, Funders, and Regulators. Vancouver, BC. (Keynote)

> Wiebe, e. r. (2011, April). Barriers to access and use of contraception in immigrant women presenting for abortion. National Abortion Federation Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL.

> Wiebe, e. r. (2011, April). Difficult cases. National Abortion Federation Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL.

> Wiebe, e. r. (2011, April). IUDs in abortion clinics. National Abortion Federation Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL.

> Wiebe, e. r. (2011, April). Should we be offering follow-up phone calls for women having abortions? National Abortion Federation Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL.

> Wiebe, e. r. (2011, May 14). IUD/endometrial biopsy workshop. Annual Women’s Health Update. Vancouver, BC.

> Woollard, r. (2011, March 12). Affirming equity: Strengthening healthcare, finance, and delivery. Simon Fraser University. Vancouver, BC. (Panelist)

> Woollard, r. (2011, June 13-15). Strategic planning meeting: Global consensus for social accountability of medical schools. Yvoire, France. (Co-Chair)

Presentations

> ashe, m. (2011, June 16). Mobilizing evidence into action to improve outcomes of vulnerable seniors. UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> Bourgeois-Law, G., c. newton, R. Wong, B. Bluman, B. Lynn and S.

Barron (2011, May). The increasing coordination and integration of faculty development and CPD: Threats and opportunities. The 1st International Faculty Development Conference. Toronto, ON.

> Brcic, V. (2011, June 16). How to address poverty in family practice: Defining a pathway to advocacy in primary care – methods and preliminary findings. UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> campbell, K. (2011, April). Homebirth in Canada. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) International Continuing Medical Education (CME) Program. Ixtapa, Mexico.

> campbell, K. (2011, June 21). An international midwifery bridging program: Canada’s experience with internationally educated midwives. 29th Triennial Congress of the International Confederation of Midwives. Durban, South Africa.

January 1 – June 30, 2011 (cont.)

pr

es

en

tat

ion

s

2� the BEAR BONES fall 2011 2�vol 11 | issue 2 UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

> campbell, K. (2011, June 23). Bridging internationally educated midwives: Report on a Canadian pilot. 29th Triennial Congress of the International Confederation of Midwives. Durban, South Africa.

> campbell, K. (2011, June 23). Using technology in teaching: A workshop. 29th Triennial Congress of the International Confederation of Midwives. Durban, South Africa.

> cave, d. (2011, May 30). IHHS 402: Group development. UBC Centre for Practitioner Renewal. Vancouver, BC.

> cave, d. (2011, June 17). Care for the caregivers: Seeking to maintain resilience of those who help others. ALS Client Services Conference. Vancouver, BC.

> cave, d. and d. Kuhl (2011, June 10). Know yourself: Engaging our hearts in health care. UBC Interprofessional HIV Course. Vancouver, BC.

> collins, m. (2011, June 16). Does your server* in Whistler have Chlamydia? (*any young adult employee in an international resort). UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> dharamsi, s. (2011, January 12). Ethical approaches to global health work. UBC Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine. Vancouver, BC.

> dharamsi, s. (2011, February 16). Social accountability and health advocacy. UBC Department of Surgery: Post Graduate Education and Core Surgery Seminar Series. Vancouver, BC.

> dharamsi, s. (2011, February-June). Advocacy training in pathology. UBC Department of Pathology and Laboratory Sciences. Vancouver, BC.

> dharamsi, s. (2011, March 10). Advocacy training in neurology: Opportunities and challenges. UBC Division of Neurology. Vancouver, BC.

> dharamsi, s. (2011, April 8). Social accountability and the health advocate role in family medicine. UBC Family Practice Residency Program – Nanaimo Site. Nanaimo, BC.

> donnelly, m. (2011, February 23). BC capability/competency workshop. 46th Annual Postgraduate Review in Family Medicine. Vancouver, BC.

> donnelly, m. (2011, May 12). Elder abuse: What it is; what it isn’t. Judging Women: Aging, Mental Health and Culture Conference – National Judicial Institute. Vancouver, BC.

> donnelly m. (2011, June 15). ER protocols for dementia care. The Rural Emergency Continuum of Care Conference, Rural Coordination Centre of BC. Kelowna, BC.

> donnelly, m. and C. Rusnak (2011, February 25). Main Pro-C: Third Canadian consensus conference on dementia guidelines: A small case-based workshop. 46th Annual Postgraduate Review in Family Medicine. Vancouver, BC.

> ellis, c. and P. Musoke (2011). Reducing neo-natal mortality through professional mentorship: Canadian and Ugandan midwives in partnership. 29th Triennial Congress of the International Confederation of Midwives. Durban, South Africa.

> gabriel, P. (2011, June 16). Government assisted refugees’ attitudes and knowledge about research – a work in progress. UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> garrison, s. (2011, June 16). Nocturnal leg cramps and prescriptions that precede them: A sequence symmetry analysis. UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> Joyce, d. (2011, June 16). Comparison of the ASQ and PEDS in screening for developmental delay in children presenting for primary care. UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> Klein, m. c. (2011, May 12). Building partnerships with women, their families and their care providers. Turning the tide: Balancing birth experiences and interventions for best outcomes. Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue. Vancouver, BC.

> Klein, m. c. (2011, June 16). What are the attitudes of Canadian women approaching their first birth about birth technology and their roles in birth? UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> Kuhl, d., d. cave, h. Pearson and P. Whitehead (2011,

February 11). Researchers abroad, featuring: “The Centre for Practitioner Renewal: Its origin, its work, its research.” St. Paul’s Hospital. Vancouver, BC.

> manville, m. (2011, June 16). Improving outcomes for alternate level of care (ALC) patients: A practical approach to post-acute care. UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> mcgregor, m. J. (2011, April). Facility ownership and organizational characteristics associated with nursing home to emergency departments’ transfers in one large health region in British Columbia. Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation. Vancouver, BC.

> mcgregor, m. J. and L. A. Ronald (2011, May). La qualité des soins de longue durée dans les résidences pour aînés. The Institute for Research in Public Policy. Montreal, QC. (Panelist)

> mcKenzie, d. c. (2011, April 9). Respiratory physiology: Adaptation to high-level exercise. IOC World Conference on Prevention of Injury and Illness in Sport. Monaco.

> Ngui, D., P. Lee and m. donnelly (2011, April 15). Treating dementia patients with cholinesterase inhibitors – to stop or not to stop, that is the question. Canadian Geriatrics Society. Vancouver, BC. (Panel moderator)

> shroff, F. (2011, April 20). Transformations and celebrations. UBC Graduate Students’ Women’s Studies Conference. Vancouver, BC. (Keynote)

> taunton, J. (2011, January 27). Advanced skills in sports medicine. Inaugural SMAQ (Sports Medicine Australia-Queensland Branch) and SMAC (Sport Medicine Council of Alberta) Conference. Honolulu, HI.

> taunton, J. (2011, January 27). Medical facilities and encounters at the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. Inaugural SMAQ (Sports Medicine Australia-Queensland Branch) and SMAC (Sport Medicine Council of Alberta) Conference. Honolulu, HI.

> taunton, J. (2011, February 17). Tendinopathy: Diagnosis and new management protocols. UBC School of Rehabilitation. Vancouver, BC.

> taunton, J. (2011, February 25). Medical services in 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. National Capitol Sports Medicine Congress. Ottawa, ON.

> taunton, J. (2011, March 29). 2010 Medical services for the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. Surrey Memorial Hospital Grand Rounds. Surrey, BC.

> taunton, J. (2011, April 12). Tendinopathy: What’s new in diagnosis and management? Hollyburn Winter Club Forum. Vancouver, BC.

> taunton, J. (2011, April 20). History of the Vancouver Marathon. BMO 40th Anniversary Vancouver International Marathon Symposium. Vancouver, BC.

> taunton, J. (2011, May 7). Integrated medical services 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. BC Association of Kinesiologists Professional Development. Vancouver, BC. (Keynote)

> Vedam, s. (March, 2011). The core Midwifery phase at UBC. Multi-jurisdictional Bridging Pilot 2, Forum for Provincial Partners, Funders, and Regulators. Vancouver, BC. (Keynote)

> Wiebe, e. r. (2011, April). Barriers to access and use of contraception in immigrant women presenting for abortion. National Abortion Federation Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL.

> Wiebe, e. r. (2011, April). Difficult cases. National Abortion Federation Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL.

> Wiebe, e. r. (2011, April). IUDs in abortion clinics. National Abortion Federation Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL.

> Wiebe, e. r. (2011, April). Should we be offering follow-up phone calls for women having abortions? National Abortion Federation Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL.

> Wiebe, e. r. (2011, May 14). IUD/endometrial biopsy workshop. Annual Women’s Health Update. Vancouver, BC.

> Woollard, r. (2011, March 12). Affirming equity: Strengthening healthcare, finance, and delivery. Simon Fraser University. Vancouver, BC. (Panelist)

> Woollard, r. (2011, June 13-15). Strategic planning meeting: Global consensus for social accountability of medical schools. Yvoire, France. (Co-Chair)

Presentations

> ashe, m. (2011, June 16). Mobilizing evidence into action to improve outcomes of vulnerable seniors. UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> Bourgeois-Law, G., c. newton, R. Wong, B. Bluman, B. Lynn and S.

Barron (2011, May). The increasing coordination and integration of faculty development and CPD: Threats and opportunities. The 1st International Faculty Development Conference. Toronto, ON.

> Brcic, V. (2011, June 16). How to address poverty in family practice: Defining a pathway to advocacy in primary care – methods and preliminary findings. UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> campbell, K. (2011, April). Homebirth in Canada. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) International Continuing Medical Education (CME) Program. Ixtapa, Mexico.

> campbell, K. (2011, June 21). An international midwifery bridging program: Canada’s experience with internationally educated midwives. 29th Triennial Congress of the International Confederation of Midwives. Durban, South Africa.

January 1 – June 30, 2011 (cont.)

pr

es

en

tat

ion

s

pr

es

en

tat

ion

s

30 the BEAR BONES fall 2011 31vol 11 | issue 2 UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

> mcgregor, m. J. (2011, June 16). Facility ownership and organizational characteristics associated with nursing home to emergency departments’ transfers in one large health region in British Columbia. UBC Department of Family Practice Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> martin, r. e. (2011, June 16). Doing time. UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> newton, c. (2011, March). Improved patient care through collaborative practice: Panel debate. National Health Sciences Student Association Annual Conference. Toronto, ON.

> newton, c. and L. Di Loreto (2011, March). The health care team challenge: A ‘social-demic’ approach to interprofessional education. National Health Sciences Student Association Annual Conference.Toronto, ON.

> newton, c., L. Nasmith and V. Wood (2011, January). Building capacity for interprofessional professional development: The IP-CLS. IPE Ontario. Toronto, ON.

> newton, c., L. Nasmith and V. Wood (2011, April). Building capacity for interprofessional professional development: The IP-CLS. Conference of the Canadian Association for Continuing Health Education. Banff, AB.

> newton, c., L. Nasmith and V. Wood (2011, May). Building capacity for interprofessional professional development: The IP-CLS. Canadian Conference on Medical Education. Toronto, ON.

> norman, W. V. (2011, April). Planning for a Canadian contraception and abortion research team. Canadian Provider’s Day. National Abortion Federation Meeting. Chicago, IL.

> norman, W. V. (2011, April 28). Experience guiding research guiding care: Reducing barriers to contraception and abortion services in BC. Contraception and Abortion Research Team Conference (CART). Richmond, BC.

> norman, W. V. (2011, April 28). Trends in abortion access in BC. Contraception and Abortion Research Team (CART) Conference. Richmond, BC.

> norman, W. V. (2011, May). Family planning education for medical undergraduate programs. UCSF Ryan Family Planning Fellowship meeting within the Annual Meeting for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Washington, DC.

> norman, W. V., H. Smith and B. Hagan (2011, January).

Abortion provision for northern British Columbia. Health Professional Forum, University of Northern British Columbia. Prince George, BC.

> norman, W. V., F. Teng, C. Ng, e. Kwok and J. Soon (2011, June

25). Virtual patients for teaching family planning to undergraduate medical students. Best Practices Workshop Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada Annual Meeting. Vancouver, BC.

> Olaro, A. A. and c. ellis (2011, June 23). Strengthening midwives and midwifery practice. 29th Triennial Congress of the International Confederation of Midwives. Durban, South Africa.

> Price, m. (2011, June 16). Visualizing the patient’s health care system: Circle of care modelling. UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> shroff, F. (2011, April). Women’s health and community development. UBC Global Indigenous Conference Vancouver, BC.

> shroff, F. (2011, May 18). The complexities of diasporic education. Simon Fraser University, Dialogue on Diaspora and Education. Vancouver, BC.

> shroff, F. (2011, June). Revitalizing health for all. International Peoples’ Health University. New York, NY.

> shroff, F. (2011, June 16). Experiences with holistic heath practices among adults with spinal cord injury. UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC. > singh, s. (2011, June 16). Can a mobile falls prevention clinic reduce falls and risk in community dwelling seniors? UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> taunton, J. (2011, June 11). Future of soft tissue management – role of stem cells. Allan McGavin Sports Medicine Centre Annual Retreat. Whistler, BC.

> taunton, J. (2011, June 11). Management of major games. Allan McGavin Sports Medicine Centre Annual Retreat. Whistler, BC.

> Vedam, s. (2011, May 5). BC Midwives Day proclamation. International Midwives Day, BC legislature. Victoria, BC.

> Vedam, s. (2011, May 9). What can we learn from the gold standard? “No place like home.” Turning the Tide: A consensus conference. Vancouver, BC.

January 1 – June 30, 2011 (cont.)

> Vedam, s. and P. a. Janssen (2011, June 21). Strengthening midwifery through critical appraisal: Conversations with clients, colleagues and critics. 29th Triennial Congress of the International Confederation of Midwives. Durban, South Africa.

> Vedam, s. and l. schummers (2011, April). How can UBC Midwifery support the growth and sustainability of rural midwifery? Rural Midwifery Research Workshop. Vancouver, BC.

> Vedam, s. and l. schummers (2011, May 26). Why are American midwives and doctors in conflict over home birth? Lessons learned from The Canadian Birth Place Study. The American College of Nurse-Midwives’ Annual Conference. San Antonio, TX.

> Wiebe, e. r. (2011, June 16). Barriers to access and use of contraception in immigrant women presenting for abortion. UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

Abstract Podium Presentations

> Van de Vliet, P., S. Wilick, O. Martinez, M. Wilkinson, R. Stewart,

T. Sasyniuk, R. Celebrini, P. Pit-Grosheide and J. taunton (2011,

April 5). The Vancouver 2010 Paralympic Winter Games medical care programme: Facts, figures and recommendations. IOC World Conference on Prevention of Injuries. Monaco.

Abstract Poster Presentations

> taunton, J., P. Schamasch, M. Wilkinson, P. Renstrom,

L. Engebretsen, R. Celebrini, R. Stewart and T. Sasyniuk (2011,

April 7). Medical facilities and encounters at the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Winter Games. IOC World Conference on Prevention of Injuries. Monaco.

> taunton, J., P. Schamasch, M. Wilkinson, P. Renstrom, L.

Engebretsen, R. Celebrini, R. Stewart and T. Sasyniuk (2011,

May 16). Medical facilities and encounters at the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Winter Games. 8th Biennial ISAKOS Congress. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Posters

> Brcic, V. (2011, June 16). How to address poverty in family practice: Defining a pathway to advocacy in primary care – methods and preliminary findings. UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> dawes, m. and d. dawes (2011, June 16). Preventing diabetes with intensive lifestyle prescriptions: A pilot study. UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> leslie, J. J. t., W. V. norman and J. A. Soon (2011, June). Developing competencies and attitudes toward interprofessional collaboration: A reproductive health project during undergraduate training. Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Annual Meeting. Vancouver, BC. > Maultsaid, D., C. Wu, B. Lynn and m. donnelly (2011, May

9). Physician education in dementia: Using mixed methods to determine physician implementation of clinical practice guidelines. 2011 Canadian Conference on Medical Education. Toronto, ON.

> norman, W. V. (2011, June 16). Immediate vs. delayed insertion of intrauterine contraception after second trimester abortion: Protocol and rationale for a randomized controlled trial. UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> norman, W. V., J. Kaczorowski, J. A. Soon, R. Brant, S. Bryan, K.

trouton and J. A. Dicus (2011, June). Randomized controlled trial of immediate vs. interval insertion of intrauterine contraception after second trimester abortion. Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Annual Meeting. Vancouver, BC.

> Wiebe, e. r. (2011, April). Environmental benefits of manual vacuum aspiration. National Abortion Federation Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL.

> Wiebe, e. r. (2011, April). Support for women in abortion clinics: Use and benefits of mobile cell phone use for emotional support by patients in abortion clinics. National Abortion Federation Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL.

> Wiebe, e. r. (2011, May). Barriers to access and use of contraception in immigrant women presenting for abortion. Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada Annual Meeting. Vancouver, BC.

> Wiebe, e. r. (2011, May). Does using tampons or menstrual cups increase early IUD expulsion rates? Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada Annual Meeting. Vancouver, BC.

> Woollard, r. (2011, May 20). Curriculum development and training programs in support of patient-centered care. 2011 Annual Education Program: Patients First – Social Accountability, Massachusetts Medical Society. Boston, MA.

the BEAR BONES

pr

es

en

tat

ion

s

pr

es

en

tat

ion

s

30 the BEAR BONES fall 2011 31vol 11 | issue 2 UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office

> mcgregor, m. J. (2011, June 16). Facility ownership and organizational characteristics associated with nursing home to emergency departments’ transfers in one large health region in British Columbia. UBC Department of Family Practice Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> martin, r. e. (2011, June 16). Doing time. UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> newton, c. (2011, March). Improved patient care through collaborative practice: Panel debate. National Health Sciences Student Association Annual Conference. Toronto, ON.

> newton, c. and L. Di Loreto (2011, March). The health care team challenge: A ‘social-demic’ approach to interprofessional education. National Health Sciences Student Association Annual Conference.Toronto, ON.

> newton, c., L. Nasmith and V. Wood (2011, January). Building capacity for interprofessional professional development: The IP-CLS. IPE Ontario. Toronto, ON.

> newton, c., L. Nasmith and V. Wood (2011, April). Building capacity for interprofessional professional development: The IP-CLS. Conference of the Canadian Association for Continuing Health Education. Banff, AB.

> newton, c., L. Nasmith and V. Wood (2011, May). Building capacity for interprofessional professional development: The IP-CLS. Canadian Conference on Medical Education. Toronto, ON.

> norman, W. V. (2011, April). Planning for a Canadian contraception and abortion research team. Canadian Provider’s Day. National Abortion Federation Meeting. Chicago, IL.

> norman, W. V. (2011, April 28). Experience guiding research guiding care: Reducing barriers to contraception and abortion services in BC. Contraception and Abortion Research Team Conference (CART). Richmond, BC.

> norman, W. V. (2011, April 28). Trends in abortion access in BC. Contraception and Abortion Research Team (CART) Conference. Richmond, BC.

> norman, W. V. (2011, May). Family planning education for medical undergraduate programs. UCSF Ryan Family Planning Fellowship meeting within the Annual Meeting for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Washington, DC.

> norman, W. V., H. Smith and B. Hagan (2011, January).

Abortion provision for northern British Columbia. Health Professional Forum, University of Northern British Columbia. Prince George, BC.

> norman, W. V., F. Teng, C. Ng, e. Kwok and J. Soon (2011, June

25). Virtual patients for teaching family planning to undergraduate medical students. Best Practices Workshop Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada Annual Meeting. Vancouver, BC.

> Olaro, A. A. and c. ellis (2011, June 23). Strengthening midwives and midwifery practice. 29th Triennial Congress of the International Confederation of Midwives. Durban, South Africa.

> Price, m. (2011, June 16). Visualizing the patient’s health care system: Circle of care modelling. UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> shroff, F. (2011, April). Women’s health and community development. UBC Global Indigenous Conference Vancouver, BC.

> shroff, F. (2011, May 18). The complexities of diasporic education. Simon Fraser University, Dialogue on Diaspora and Education. Vancouver, BC.

> shroff, F. (2011, June). Revitalizing health for all. International Peoples’ Health University. New York, NY.

> shroff, F. (2011, June 16). Experiences with holistic heath practices among adults with spinal cord injury. UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC. > singh, s. (2011, June 16). Can a mobile falls prevention clinic reduce falls and risk in community dwelling seniors? UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> taunton, J. (2011, June 11). Future of soft tissue management – role of stem cells. Allan McGavin Sports Medicine Centre Annual Retreat. Whistler, BC.

> taunton, J. (2011, June 11). Management of major games. Allan McGavin Sports Medicine Centre Annual Retreat. Whistler, BC.

> Vedam, s. (2011, May 5). BC Midwives Day proclamation. International Midwives Day, BC legislature. Victoria, BC.

> Vedam, s. (2011, May 9). What can we learn from the gold standard? “No place like home.” Turning the Tide: A consensus conference. Vancouver, BC.

January 1 – June 30, 2011 (cont.)

> Vedam, s. and P. a. Janssen (2011, June 21). Strengthening midwifery through critical appraisal: Conversations with clients, colleagues and critics. 29th Triennial Congress of the International Confederation of Midwives. Durban, South Africa.

> Vedam, s. and l. schummers (2011, April). How can UBC Midwifery support the growth and sustainability of rural midwifery? Rural Midwifery Research Workshop. Vancouver, BC.

> Vedam, s. and l. schummers (2011, May 26). Why are American midwives and doctors in conflict over home birth? Lessons learned from The Canadian Birth Place Study. The American College of Nurse-Midwives’ Annual Conference. San Antonio, TX.

> Wiebe, e. r. (2011, June 16). Barriers to access and use of contraception in immigrant women presenting for abortion. UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

Abstract Podium Presentations

> Van de Vliet, P., S. Wilick, O. Martinez, M. Wilkinson, R. Stewart,

T. Sasyniuk, R. Celebrini, P. Pit-Grosheide and J. taunton (2011,

April 5). The Vancouver 2010 Paralympic Winter Games medical care programme: Facts, figures and recommendations. IOC World Conference on Prevention of Injuries. Monaco.

Abstract Poster Presentations

> taunton, J., P. Schamasch, M. Wilkinson, P. Renstrom,

L. Engebretsen, R. Celebrini, R. Stewart and T. Sasyniuk (2011,

April 7). Medical facilities and encounters at the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Winter Games. IOC World Conference on Prevention of Injuries. Monaco.

> taunton, J., P. Schamasch, M. Wilkinson, P. Renstrom, L.

Engebretsen, R. Celebrini, R. Stewart and T. Sasyniuk (2011,

May 16). Medical facilities and encounters at the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Winter Games. 8th Biennial ISAKOS Congress. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Posters

> Brcic, V. (2011, June 16). How to address poverty in family practice: Defining a pathway to advocacy in primary care – methods and preliminary findings. UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> dawes, m. and d. dawes (2011, June 16). Preventing diabetes with intensive lifestyle prescriptions: A pilot study. UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> leslie, J. J. t., W. V. norman and J. A. Soon (2011, June). Developing competencies and attitudes toward interprofessional collaboration: A reproductive health project during undergraduate training. Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Annual Meeting. Vancouver, BC. > Maultsaid, D., C. Wu, B. Lynn and m. donnelly (2011, May

9). Physician education in dementia: Using mixed methods to determine physician implementation of clinical practice guidelines. 2011 Canadian Conference on Medical Education. Toronto, ON.

> norman, W. V. (2011, June 16). Immediate vs. delayed insertion of intrauterine contraception after second trimester abortion: Protocol and rationale for a randomized controlled trial. UBC Department of Family Practice Faculty Research Day. Vancouver, BC.

> norman, W. V., J. Kaczorowski, J. A. Soon, R. Brant, S. Bryan, K.

trouton and J. A. Dicus (2011, June). Randomized controlled trial of immediate vs. interval insertion of intrauterine contraception after second trimester abortion. Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Annual Meeting. Vancouver, BC.

> Wiebe, e. r. (2011, April). Environmental benefits of manual vacuum aspiration. National Abortion Federation Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL.

> Wiebe, e. r. (2011, April). Support for women in abortion clinics: Use and benefits of mobile cell phone use for emotional support by patients in abortion clinics. National Abortion Federation Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL.

> Wiebe, e. r. (2011, May). Barriers to access and use of contraception in immigrant women presenting for abortion. Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada Annual Meeting. Vancouver, BC.

> Wiebe, e. r. (2011, May). Does using tampons or menstrual cups increase early IUD expulsion rates? Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada Annual Meeting. Vancouver, BC.

> Woollard, r. (2011, May 20). Curriculum development and training programs in support of patient-centered care. 2011 Annual Education Program: Patients First – Social Accountability, Massachusetts Medical Society. Boston, MA.

the BEAR BONES

Feedback / Suggestions

Is there a topic, profile, or notice you would like to see in an upcoming issue of the Bear Bones?

Would you like to receive our Writer’s Guidelines to contribute or write an article? Please contact us.

UBC Department of Family Practice Research Office Suite 320–5950 University Boulevard

Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3 | www.familymed.ubc.ca | email: research.office@familymed.ubc.ca

tel: 604.827.4129 | fax: 604.827.4184

*bACK bONES

This publication is printed by Bond Repro

using 50% recycled and 25% post-consumer

waste paper.

The Bear Bones is published twice a year by

the Department of Family Practice Research

Office.

Dr. Christie Newton, Assistant Professor and Director, Continuing Professional Development and Community Engagement, has researched interprofessionalism over the past eight years. Interprofessional education (IPE) is being increasingly recognized as a means to ensure future health care providers are prepared to provide collaborative, team-based care when they enter the workforce.

Dr. Newton organizes the annual UBC Health Care Team ChallengeTM (HCTCTM), an interprofessional case-based health sciences student competition that attracts approximately 400 participants. In June 2011, UBC hosted an International HCTCTM workshop funded by a CIHR Meetings, Planning and Dissemination Grant. The workshop brought together HCTCTM experts to develop an international research program to facilitate a better understanding of how the IPE model impacts collaborative practice in primary community-based care. Over the longer term, the goal of this International Network of Health Care Team Challenges (INHCTC) is to demonstrate that students exposed to the IPE model are more likely to engage in collaborative practice thus improving health care delivery.

Dr. Gina Ogilvie, Associate Professor and Medical Director, Clinical Prevention Services, BC Centre for Disease Control is currently leading the first North American randomized controlled trial evaluating Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) DNA testing for primary cervical cancer screening. The HPV Focal study compares HPV DNA testing to Liquid Based Cytology (LBC) as the primary form of cervical cancer screening. Samples were taken from approximately 28,000 women at family physicians’ offices throughout Vancouver and Victoria.

At the end of the round one screening, HPV testing has detected more moderate or greater cervical dysplasia than in women screened with cytology. The trial will continue for the next four years. The results of this study will demonstrate whether or not HPV testing as primary screening is effective, safe and cost efficient to implement into the provincial screening program.

Spotlight on UBC Family Practice Researchers

DFP Faculty Invited to Present at 2011 NAPCRG Annual MeetingDr. Scott Garrison was selected to present a Distinguished Paper at the 2011 North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG) Annual Meeting. Garrison will present his study, “Nocturnal leg cramps and prescriptions that precede them: A sequence symmetry analysis.” Garrison was supported in this study by Colin Dormuth, Richard Morrow, Greg Carney, and Karim Khan.

Distinguished Papers are selected by the NAPCRG Review Subcommittee based on overall excellence, quality of research methods and writing, relevance to primary care clinical research, and overall impact of the research on primary care and/or clinical practice.

Dr. Michael Klein was chosen to present an Extended Paper based on his study, “What are the attitudes and knowledge of Canadian women approaching their first birth towards birth technology and their roles in birth?”

The 39th NAPCRG Annual Meeting will be held in Banff, AB from November 12-16, 2011.

For more information visit

www.napcrg.org