6 results
Barriers and solutions to developing and maintaining research networks during a pandemic: An example from the iELEVATE perinatal network
- Donna A. Santillan, Debra S. Brandt, Rachel Sinkey, Sheila Scheib, Susan Peterson, Rachel LeDuke, Lisa Dimperio, Cindy Cherek, Angela Varsho, Melissa Granza, Kim Logan, Stephen K. Hunter, Boyd M. Knosp, Heather A. Davis, Joseph C. Spring, Debra Piehl, Rani Makkapati, Thomas Doering, Stacy Harris, Lyndsey Day, Milton Eder, Patricia Winokur, Mark K. Santillan
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 6 / Issue 1 / 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 17 January 2022, e56
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Introduction:
To improve maternal health outcomes, increased diversity is needed among pregnant people in research studies and community surveillance. To expand the pool, we sought to develop a network encompassing academic and community obstetrics clinics. Typical challenges in developing a network include site identification, contracting, onboarding sites, staff engagement, participant recruitment, funding, and institutional review board approvals. While not insurmountable, these challenges became magnified as we built a research network during a global pandemic. Our objective is to describe the framework utilized to resolve pandemic-related issues.
Methods:We developed a framework for site-specific adaptation of the generalized study protocol. Twice monthly video meetings were held between the lead academic sites to identify local challenges and to generate ideas for solutions. We identified site and participant recruitment challenges and then implemented solutions tailored to the local workflow. These solutions included the use of an electronic consent and videoconferences with local clinic leadership and staff. The processes for network development and maintenance changed to address issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, aspects of the sample processing/storage and data collection elements were held constant between sites.
Results:Adapting our consenting approach enabled maintaining study enrollment during the pandemic. The pandemic amplified issues related to contracting, onboarding, and IRB approval. Maintaining continuity in sample management and clinical data collection allowed for pooling of information between sites.
Conclusions:Adaptability is key to maintaining network sites. Rapidly changing guidelines for beginning and continuing research during the pandemic required frequent intra- and inter-institutional communication to navigate.
Broad-scale informed consent: A survey of the CTSA landscape
- Redonna Chandler, Kathleen T. Brady, Rebecca N. Jerome, Milton Eder, Erin Rothwell, Kimberly A. Brownley, Paul A. Harris
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 3 / Issue 5 / October 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 23 September 2019, pp. 253-260
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Introduction:
Research opportunities associated with the proliferation of the electronic health record (EHR), big data initiatives, and innovative approaches to trial design can present challenges for obtaining and documenting informed consent. Broad-scale informed consent (a term used herein to describe institutional models, rather than the Common Rule’s strict regulatory definition for “broad consent”) may facilitate the use of existing data and samples and speed the pace of research by minimizing barriers to consent. We explored the use of broad-scale informed consent within the Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program Network.
Methods:We surveyed CTSA Hubs concerning policies, practices, experiences, and needs within three domains of broad-scale informed consent: (1) participant recontact; (2) biospecimens; and (3) clinical data sharing.
Results:Of 61 CTSA Hubs surveyed, 37 (61%) indicated ongoing work related to at least 1 domain of broad-scale informed consent; 18 Hubs (30%) reported work in all 3 domains. The EHR predominated as the implementation system across all three domains. Research and IT leadership and the Institutional Review Board were most commonly endorsed as institutional drivers, while systems/technical issues and impact on clinical workflow were the most commonly reported barriers.
Conclusions:While survey results indicate considerable variability in the implementation of broad-scale informed consent across the CTSA consortium, it is clear that all CTSA Hubs are actively considering policy and process related to these concepts. Next steps cluster within three areas: training and workforce development, streamlined policies and templates, and implementation strategies that facilitate integration into clinical workflow.
Looking Backward, Looking Forward: MLA Members Speak
- April Alliston, Elizabeth Ammons, Jean Arnold, Nina Baym, Sandra L. Beckett, Peter G. Beidler, Roger A. Berger, Sandra Bermann, J.J. Wilson, Troy Boone, Alison Booth, Wayne C. Booth, James Phelan, Marie Borroff, Ihab Hassan, Ulrich Weisstein, Zack Bowen, Jill Campbell, Dan Campion, Jay Caplan, Maurice Charney, Beverly Lyon Clark, Robert A. Colby, Thomas C. Coleman III, Nicole Cooley, Richard Dellamora, Morris Dickstein, Terrell Dixon, Emory Elliott, Caryl Emerson, Ann W. Engar, Lars Engle, Kai Hammermeister, N. N. Feltes, Mary Anne Ferguson, Annie Finch, Shelley Fisher Fishkin, Jerry Aline Flieger, Norman Friedman, Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, Sandra M. Gilbert, Laurie Grobman, George Guida, Liselotte Gumpel, R. K. Gupta, Florence Howe, Cathy L. Jrade, Richard A. Kaye, Calhoun Winton, Murray Krieger, Robert Langbaum, Richard A. Lanham, Marilee Lindemann, Paul Michael Lützeler, Thomas J. Lynn, Juliet Flower MacCannell, Michelle A. Massé, Irving Massey, Georges May, Christian W. Hallstein, Gita May, Lucy McDiarmid, Ellen Messer-Davidow, Koritha Mitchell, Robin Smiles, Kenyatta Albeny, George Monteiro, Joel Myerson, Alan Nadel, Ashton Nichols, Jeffrey Nishimura, Neal Oxenhandler, David Palumbo-Liu, Vincent P. Pecora, David Porter, Nancy Potter, Ronald C. Rosbottom, Elias L. Rivers, Gerhard F. Strasser, J. L. Styan, Marianna De Marco Torgovnick, Gary Totten, David van Leer, Asha Varadharajan, Orrin N. C. Wang, Sharon Willis, Louise E. Wright, Donald A. Yates, Takayuki Yokota-Murakami, Richard E. Zeikowitz, Angelika Bammer, Dale Bauer, Karl Beckson, Betsy A. Bowen, Stacey Donohue, Sheila Emerson, Gwendolyn Audrey Foster, Jay L. Halio, Karl Kroeber, Terence Hawkes, William B. Hunter, Mary Jambus, Willard F. King, Nancy K. Miller, Jody Norton, Ann Pellegrini, S. P. Rosenbaum, Lorie Roth, Robert Scholes, Joanne Shattock, Rosemary T. VanArsdel, Alfred Bendixen, Alarma Kathleen Brown, Michael J. Kiskis, Debra A. Castillo, Rey Chow, John F. Crossen, Robert F. Fleissner, Regenia Gagnier, Nicholas Howe, M. Thomas Inge, Frank Mehring, Hyungji Park, Jahan Ramazani, Kenneth M. Roemer, Deborah D. Rogers, A. LaVonne Brown Ruoff, Regina M. Schwartz, John T. Shawcross, Brenda R. Silver, Andrew von Hendy, Virginia Wright Wexman, Britta Zangen, A. Owen Aldridge, Paula R. Backscheider, Roland Bartel, E. M. Forster, Milton Birnbaum, Jonathan Bishop, Crystal Downing, Frank H. Ellis, Roberto Forns-Broggi, James R. Giles, Mary E. Giles, Susan Blair Green, Madelyn Gutwirth, Constance B. Hieatt, Titi Adepitan, Edgar C. Knowlton, Jr., Emanuel Mussman, Sally Todd Nelson, Robert O. Preyer, David Diego Rodriguez, Guy Stern, James Thorpe, Robert J. Wilson, Rebecca S. Beal, Joyce Simutis, Betsy Bowden, Sara Cooper, Wheeler Winston Dixon, Tarek el Ariss, Richard Jewell, John W. Kronik, Wendy Martin, Stuart Y. McDougal, Hugo Méndez-Ramírez, Ivy Schweitzer, Armand E. Singer, G. Thomas Tanselle, Tom Bishop, Mary Ann Caws, Marcel Gutwirth, Christophe Ippolito, Lawrence D. Kritzman, James Longenbach, Tim McCracken, Wolfe S. Molitor, Diane Quantic, Gregory Rabassa, Ellen M. Tsagaris, Anthony C. Yu, Betty Jean Craige, Wendell V. Harris, J. Hillis Miller, Jesse G. Swan, Helene Zimmer-Loew, Peter Berek, James Chandler, Hanna K. Charney, Philip Cohen, Judith Fetterley, Herbert Lindenberger, Julia Reinhard Lupton, Maximillian E. Novak, Richard Ohmann, Marjorie Perloff, Mark Reynolds, James Sledd, Harriet Turner, Marie Umeh, Flavia Aloya, Regina Barreca, Konrad Bieber, Ellis Hanson, William J. Hyde, Holly A. Laird, David Leverenz, Allen Michie, J. Wesley Miller, Marvin Rosenberg, Daniel R. Schwarz, Elizabeth Welt Trahan, Jean Fagan Yellin
-
- Journal:
- PMLA / Publications of the Modern Language Association of America / Volume 115 / Issue 7 / December 2000
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 23 October 2020, pp. 1986-2078
- Print publication:
- December 2000
-
- Article
- Export citation
Chapter 2 - Financial contracting theory
- Edited by Jean-Jacques Laffont, Université de Toulouse I (Sciences Sociales)
-
- Book:
- Advances in Economic Theory
- Published online:
- 05 January 2013
- Print publication:
- 11 February 1993, pp 64-150
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
One of the oldest and most important questions in corporate finance is what determines how firms finance their investments and operations. This question has been referred to as the “capital structure” problem. The modern theory of capital structure began with the celebrated paper of Modigliani and Miller (1958). Here Modigliani and Miller (MM) pointed the direction that such theories must take by showing under what conditions capital structure is irrelevant. Since then, many economists have followed the path mapped by MM. Now, some thirty years later it seems appropriate to take stock of where this research stands and where it is going. Our goal in this survey is to synthesize the recent literature, summarize its results, relate these to the known empirical evidence, and suggest promising avenues for future research.
Capital structure theories have traditionally been concerned with what determines the relative amounts issued by firms of various given securities, mainly debt and equity. A much deeper question, however, is what determines the specific form of the contract (security) under which investors supply funds to the firm. Investors provide such funds with the expectation of sharing in the returns generated by the firms' investments. Therefore, financial contract design must resolve the problem of allocating the cash flows generated to investors. For example, debt contracts generally promise a fixed payment not contingent on firm performance. If the firm fails to make this payment, returns to debtholders are negotiated under the bankruptcy law of the relevant jurisdiction. Equity contracts specify that the holders share the residual returns after debtholders are paid, subject to limited liability. Returns to be allocated by financial contracts depend, however, on decisions made within the firm such as choice of project, assignment of personnel, day-to-day operating decisions, etc. As a result, returns depend on who is in control of these activities.
Characterization of Ion Beam Synthesized Materials Using Microscope-Spectrophotometry
- Rachel M. Geatches, Karen J. Reeson, Alan J. Criddle, Mark S. Finney, Milton A. Harry, Roger P. Webb, Peter J. Pearson
-
- Journal:
- MRS Online Proceedings Library Archive / Volume 316 / 1993
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 22 February 2011, 813
- Print publication:
- 1993
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
In this paper, the technique of microscope-spectrophotometry, used to nondestructively characterize the microstructure of ion beam synthesized iron-disilicide layers, is described. The results obtained agree extremely well, in terms of layer thickness and interfacial roughness, with those from Rutherford backscattering. The results also show that it is possible to interpret the measured spectral reflectance data in terms of: 1) defect annealing; 2) iron redistribution; and 3) phase transformations from the β to the α phase.
What We Need to Know: Panel Discussion
-
- By Charles P. Kindleberger, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Hollis B. Chenery, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Jagdish Bhagwati, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Richard N. Cooper, Yale University, Wilson Schmidt, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Milton Gilbert, Bank for International Settlements, Harry G. Johnson, University of Chicago, Charles P. Kindleberger, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- Edited by Peter B. Kenen
-
- Book:
- International Trade and Finance
- Published online:
- 05 November 2011
- Print publication:
- 30 January 1976, pp 503-528
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
I have been asked to open this panel discussion, which is designed to explore the directions in which future research in international economics should go. I shall do so by trying to provoke the distinguished panelists with a few questions not covered by the discussions at earlier sessions, questions which seem to me worth investigation. In particular:
1. How general is the Canadian case under which capital continues to flow after the adoption of a floating exchange rate?
2. With a floating pound sterling, will capital continue to move, as with the Canadian dollar, or dry up under the pressure of increased exchange risks?
3. How realistic is it to attempt to devise a system that is in all respects symmetrical, or is asymmetry inherent in the relations between trading and financial centers?
4. Is there room in international economic research for economic history, as opposed to econometrics, to examine more deeply how the prewar gold standard functioned with very little liquidity by modern standards, how the Franco-Prussian indemnity was transferred, how the Baring crash was surmounted, how the Latin Monetary Union functioned, and so on?
5. To move to current matters, in the determination of foreign exchange and balance-of-payments policy, are econometrics and rigorous mathematical analysis adequate substitutes for experience with, and a feeling for, markets? I have the impression that the passive attitude toward the devaluation of February 1973 was determined in Washington, without much input from the market experts in New York.