Funding global emergency medicine research-from seed grants to NIH support
Authors
Hansoti, BhaktiLevine, Adam
Ganti, Latha
Oteng, Rockefeller
DesRosiers, Taylor
Modi, Payal
Brown, Jeremy
UMass Chan Affiliations
Department of Emergency MedicineDocument Type
Letter to the EditorPublication Date
2016-12-01Keywords
Emergency carefunding
global emergency medicine
grants
international emergency medicine
public health
research
Emergency Medicine
International Public Health
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
BACKGROUND: Funding for global health has grown significantly over the past two decades. Numerous funding opportunities for international development and research work exist; however, they can be difficult to navigate. The 2013 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference on global health and emergency care identified the need to strengthen global emergency care research funding, solidify existing funding streams, and expand funding sources. RESULTS: This piece focuses on the various federal funding opportunities available to support emergency physicians conducting international research from seed funding to large institutional grants. In particular, we focus on the application and review processes for the Fulbright and Fogarty programs, National Institutes of Health (NIH) Career development awards, and the Medical Education Partnership Initiative (MEPI), including tips and pathways through each application process. CONCLUSIONS: Lastly, the paper provides an index that may be used as a guide in determining whether the amount of funding provided by a grant is worth the effort in applying.Source
Int J Emerg Med. 2016 Dec;9(1):27. Epub 2016 Oct 18. Link to article on publisher's site
DOI
10.1186/s12245-016-0121-8Permanent Link to this Item
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/28444PubMed ID
27757807Related Resources
Rights
Copyright © The Author(s). 2016. Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.Distribution License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1186/s12245-016-0121-8
Scopus Count
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Copyright © The Author(s). 2016. Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Screening for Suicidal Ideation and Attempts Among Emergency Department Medical Patients: Instrument and Results from the Psychiatric Emergency Research CollaborationAllen, Michael H.; Abar, Beau W.; McCormick, Mark; Barnes, Donna H.; Haukoos, Jason; Garmel, Gus M.; Boudreaux, Edwin D. (2013-06-01)Joint Commission National Patient Safety Goal 15 calls for organizations "to identify patients at risk for suicide." Overt suicidal behavior accounts for 0.6% of emergency department (ED) visits, but incidental suicidal ideation is found in 3%-11.6%. This is the first multicenter study of suicide screening in EDs. Of 2,243 patients in six diverse emergency settings, 1,068 (47.7%) were screened with a brief instrument. Depression was endorsed by 369 (34.5%); passive suicidal ideation by 79 (7.3%); and active suicidal ideation by 24 (2.3%). One hundred thirty-seven (12.8%) reported prior attempts, including 35 (3.3%) with current suicidal ideation. Almost half of those with current ideation had a prior attempt (43.8%) versus those without current ideation, 10.3%, chi(2) (1) = 75.59, p < .001. Twenty cases (25%) were admitted to medical services, but only 10 (12.5%) received mental health assessment; none were admitted directly to a psychiatry service. The prevalence of suicidal ideation here is similar to previous studies but the frequency of prior attempts has not been reported. The 35 cases with current ideation and prior attempt are at risk. As they did not present psychiatrically, they would likely have gone undetected. Despite reporting these cases to clinical staff, few received risk assessment.
-
Lethal Means Restriction for Suicide Prevention: Beliefs and Behaviors of Emergency Department ProvidersBetz, Marian E.; Miller, Matthew; Barber, Catherine; Miller, Ivan; Sullivan, Ashley F.; Camargo, Carlos A. Jr.; Boudreaux, Edwin D.; Boyer, Edward W.; Clark, Robin E.; Coleman, Mardia A.; et al. (2013-10-01)BACKGROUND: We sought to examine the beliefs and behaviors of emergency department (ED) providers related to preventing suicide by reducing suicidal patients' access to lethal methods (means restriction) and identify characteristics associated with asking patients about firearm access. METHODS: Physicians and nurses at eight EDs completed a confidential, voluntary survey. RESULTS: The response rate was 79% (n = 631); 57% of respondents were females and 49% were nurses. Less than half believed, "most" or "all" suicides are preventable. More nurses (67%) than physicians (44%) thought "most" or "all" firearm suicide decedents would have died by another method had a firearm been unavailable (P < .001). The proportion of providers who reported they "almost always" ask suicidal patients about firearm access varied across five patient scenarios: suicidal with firearm suicide plan (64%), suicidal with no suicide plan (22%), suicidal with nonfirearm plan (21%), suicidal in past month but not today (16%), and overdosed but no longer suicidal (9%). In multivariable logistic regression, physicians were more likely than nurses to "almost always" or "often" ask about a firearm across all five scenarios, as were older providers and those who believed their own provider type was responsible for assessing firearm access. CONCLUSIONS: Many ED providers are skeptical about the preventability of suicide and the effectiveness of means restriction, and most do not assess suicidal patients' firearm access except when a patient has a firearm suicide plan. These findings suggest the need for targeted staff education concerning means restriction for suicide prevention.
-
Outpatient Emergency Department Utilization: Measurement and Prediction: A DissertationLines, Lisa M. (2014-04-30)Approximately half of all emergency department (ED) visits are primary-care sensitive (PCS) – meaning that they could potentially be avoided with timely, effective primary care. Reducing undesirable types of healthcare utilization (including PCS ED use) requires the ability to define, measure, and predict such use in a population. In this retrospective, observational study, we quantified ED use in 2 privately insured populations and developed ED risk prediction models. One dataset, obtained from a Massachusetts managed-care network (MCN), included data from 2009-11. The second was the MarketScan database, with data from 2007-08. The MCN study included 64,623 individuals enrolled for at least 1 base-year month and 1 prediction-year month in Massachusetts whose primary care provider (PCP) participated in the MCN. The MarketScan study included 15,136,261 individuals enrolled for at least 1 base-year month and 1 prediction-year month in the 50 US states plus DC, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. We used medical claims to identify principal diagnosis codes for ED visits, and scored each according to the New York University Emergency Department algorithm. We defined primary-care sensitive (PCS) ED visits as those in 3 subcategories: nonemergent, emergent but primary-care treatable, and emergent but preventable/avoidable. We then: 1) defined and described the distributions of 3 ED outcomes: any ED use; number of ED visits; and a new outcome, based on the NYU algorithm, that we call PCS ED use; 2) built and validated predictive models for these outcomes using administrative claims data; 3) compared the performance of models predicting any ED use, number of ED visits, and PCS ED use; 4) enhanced these models by adding enrollee characteristics from electronic medical records, neighborhood characteristics, and payor/provider characteristics, and explored differences in performance between the original and enhanced models. In the MarketScan sample, 10.6% of enrollees had at least 1 ED visit, with about half of utilization scored as PCS. For the top risk group (those in the 99.5th percentile), the model’s sensitivity was 3.1%, specificity was 99.7%, and positive predictive value (PPV) was 49.7%. The model predicting PCS visits yielded sensitivity of 3.8%, specificity of 99.7%, and PPV of 40.5% for the top risk group. In the MCN sample, 14.6% (±0.1%) had at least 1 ED visit during the prediction period, with an overall rate of 18.8 (±0.2) visits per 100 persons and 7.6 (±0.1) PCS ED visits per 100 persons. Measuring PCS ED use with a threshold-based approach resulted in many fewer visits counted as PCS, discarding information unnecessarily. Out of 45 practices, 5 to 11 (11-24%) had observed values that were statistically significantly different from their expected values. Models predicting ED utilization using age, sex, race, morbidity, and prior use only (claims-based models) had lower R2 (ranging from 2.9% to 3.7%) and poorer predictive ability than the enhanced models that also included payor, PCP type and quality, problem list conditions, and covariates from the EMR, Census tract, and MCN provider data (enhanced model R2 ranged from 4.17% to 5.14%). In adjusted analyses, age, claims-based morbidity score, any ED visit in the base year, asthma, congestive heart failure, depression, tobacco use, and neighborhood poverty were strongly associated with increased risk for all 3 measures (all P<.001).