Podcasts about Mathematica Policy Research

Mieka Sanderson, Deputy Director for Public Health AmeriCorps, discusses the latest Notice of Funding Opportunity; Amy Wodarek O'Reilly, Principal Managing Consultant at Mathematica Policy Research, tells us Mathematica's role as an Implementation Center;  ASTHO's upcoming webinar focuses on how to best navigate the rulemaking process; and applications are now open for ASTHO's Diverse Executives Leading in Public Health program. AmeriCorps Web Page: FY 2025 AmeriCorps State and National Grants ASTHO Web Page: Public Health Infrastructure Partners Launch National Implementation Center Program to Support Data Modernization  PHIG Partners Web Page: Wave 1 (2024) Expression of Interest ASTHO Webinar: Navigating the Rulemaking Process ASTHO Web Page: Diverse Executives Leading in Public Health  

Dr. Shannon Westin, Dr. Stephanie Wheeler, and Dr. Caitlin Biddell discuss the paper "Economic Evaluation of a Non-Medical Financial Assistance Program on Missed Treatment Appointments Among Adults With Cancer," a simultaneous publication, podcast, and presentation at the ASCO Quality Care Symposium. TRANSCRIPT The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Dr. Shannon Westin: Hello, everyone, and welcome to another episode of JCO After Hours, the podcast where we get in-depth on manuscripts published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I'm your host, Shannon Westin, Social Media Editor of the JCO and GYN Oncologist. And I am so excited that today we have a simultaneous publication in JCO and presentation at the 2023 ASCO Quality Care Symposium here on 10/28/2023. And this is going to be the manuscript “Economic Evaluation of a Nonmedical Financial Assistance Program on Missed Treatment Appointments Among Adults With Cancer.” Very exciting work. And I'm thrilled to tell you I have two of the authors here with me today. First is Dr. Caitlin Biddell. She's a Health Services Researcher at Mathematica Policy Research.  Welcome, Caitlin.  Dr. Caitlin Biddell: Thank you. Happy to be here. Dr. Shannon Westin: And we also have Dr. Stephanie Wheeler. She is the Michael S. O'Malley Distinguished Professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, as well as being the Associate Director of Community Outreach and Engagement at UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center.  Welcome. Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: Thank you. Happy to be here as well. Dr. Shannon Westin: Please note that our authors and participants have no conflicts of interest.  Let's get started. So first I would love to level set. Can you speak a little bit about what financial toxicity is and how common it is among patients with cancer?  Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: Sure, Shannon. I'm happy to take that one. This is Stephanie. So we know that financial hardship is often reported by patients and survivors who've experienced cancer. And as many as 50% of people with cancer have trouble with financial toxicity. There has been prior work that has conceptualized financial toxicity in three domains. So there's the material hardship, kind of the out-of-pocket material costs associated with cancer, which include both medical and nonmedical expenses. There is the stress and the psychosocial effects of that material hardship. And then there's coping behaviors that patients and their caregivers may employ to help deal with the high cost of cancer care. And as we've seen, cancer care increases in cost over time, and these expenditures really have very burdensome effects on patients and their families. We've been interested in looking at ways that we can try to mitigate that harm and really thinking about interventions in addition to the health policy changes that are needed to really ensure that this doesn't become a barrier to patients seeking and receiving the best quality care that they can. Dr. Shannon Westin: I think that kind of leads pretty nicely into my next question, which is really: How does this toxicity potentially impact equitable cancer care delivery?  Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: Yeah, I'm happy to talk about that a little bit as well. So we know from prior research, including some of our own, that patients of color, those from rural areas, and those who are uninsured or underinsured face the largest financial burdens associated with their cancer care. So to the extent that those financial hardships influence people's ability to seek and continue with and complete their cancer care that's been recommended, this actually is directly in the pathway and a mechanism through which patients are not able to get recommended treatment and therefore can contribute to differences in cancer outcomes. So there's direct health impacts in terms of their ability to receive and respond to cancer treatment.   In addition to that, we know that this financial hardship contributes to household-level harms both economic and psychosocial in nature. And in some other work, this financial hardship has translated to worse quality of life, worse economic outcomes, things like being able to stay employed and seeking changes in employment or remaining within a particular position because you don't want to lose your insurance—this is referred to as “job lock”—or can also contribute to higher mortality. So there's been some really important work showing that financial toxicity is directly linked with cancer mortality.  And so, as we think about ways that we need to address this, it's really key to ensuring cancer health equity that we are thoughtful about multiple solutions implemented at multiple levels that can deal with not only the contributors to high cancer costs but that can also start to affect both the nonmedical and the medical components of this cost burden. And by nonmedical, I mean things like the cost associated with transportation and seeking care, accommodations for people who need to receive radiation therapy multiple days in a row at a different healthcare facility than where they live, childcare costs. These things really start to add up in addition to the medical costs associated with cancer treatment. Dr. Shannon Westin: I really was intrigued by the intervention here that you all are studying around this Cancer Patient Assistance Fund. Can you tell me a little bit more about exactly what that was or is? Dr. Caitlin Biddell: Yeah, absolutely. So this is a program at the North Carolina Basnight Cancer Hospital, located within the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, and it started back in 2013, actually, and has really grown in size. But the main goal of this program is to ensure that patients do not face the nonmedical financial barriers to care that Dr. Wheeler was just talking about. So thinking about giving patients gas cards so that they are able to drive to and from treatment. Lineberger has a catchment area of the entire state, so many people are coming a long distance to come for cancer treatment. They also provide things like lodging and accommodations, as Stephanie mentioned, and then even paying patients' utility bills, things to keep them housed with electricity, the lights on, while they're undergoing cancer treatment. So just last year, in 2022, they distributed almost $350,000 to over 700 patients, and most of this is funded by philanthropic grants to ensure that patients can access the care they need. And it is a program that's really targeted to patients with low incomes. So they target patients with household incomes less than 250% of the federal poverty level. Dr. Shannon Westin: And how does a patient get connected to the fund? How do they find it and get hooked up?  Dr. Caitlin Biddell: Yeah, there's a couple different ways. So one path is through the outpatient social work team. So they often perform distress screening for new cancer patients. So they use the Distress Thermometer, which was developed by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. And it measures a variety of different factors that may be contributing to distress, but that does include financial stress, job stress, and the expense of daily living stress. And so, when a patient scores a certain amount on that thermometer, a social worker will meet with them for a full assessment. And then part of the referral pathway from that assessment includes the Cancer Patient Assistance Fund. Patients who are in inpatient will often be screened with the Social Determinants of Health Module, which is housed in the electronic health record. And so that can also generate referrals for assistance. And then beyond the kind of standard pathways, there's also many other ways that a patient may express concerns to a nurse, a care coordinator, an oncologist, and then that provider can reach out directly to the Cancer Patient Assistance Fund. Dr. Shannon Westin: Your objective was to basically try to formally assess the impact of this fund on missed radiation or chemotherapy appointments. And so what was kind of your rationale for choosing this endpoint? And kind of take us through the design. Dr. Caitlin Biddell: Yeah, absolutely. So the idea for this study actually came about from the program coordinator of the Cancer Patient Assistance Fund several years back. We were just having a conversation about the program. I was commenting how important I thought it was, how interesting it was. And she was saying, “You know, I know anecdotally that this program makes a difference, but we've never really known how to quantify that.” And that's becoming increasingly important as they apply for philanthropic grants and really need to show that their program is having an impact. So that's what originally started our plan for evaluating the program.  And then, in thinking about endpoints, of course we imagined this program could have an impact on a range of different endpoints. So missed appointments is quite practicable. We also imagine it could influence patient health-related quality of life, patient symptoms associated with their cancer treatment, even potentially other long-term outcomes like mortality. But for the purposes of this evaluation, we needed to identify an endpoint that we believed could be measured, the association could be measured, in the data we had. And so we had electronic health record data. Missed appointments is something that is routinely captured in the electronic health record data because it's an endpoint that matters financially to health systems. So they are regularly tracking missed or no-show appointments. And it's also an outcome that matters financially to the health system, so they want to reduce this.  So we thought if we measure the impact of this program on missed appointments, there's potentially an opportunity to kind of align financial incentives so that if we show that the program has an impact on missed appointments, then that could be something that could get decision makers at the health system level to say, well, that's also an endpoint that we want to reduce, and so let's think about ways that we can align resources to reduce missed appointments through potentially the Cancer Patient Assistance Fund and other mechanisms. Dr. Shannon Westin: It's interesting because it definitely caught my eye because we give radiation, obviously, for gynecologic malignancies, and there's some pretty decent data that longer treatment duration for radiation has worse outcomes, with the implication that patients have missed appointments and so then, to finish their work, it takes longer, or to finish their treatment plan, it takes longer. So I definitely would be really intrigued to see the cancer-related outcomes. But I completely agree, like something practical, straightforward, and something easily obtained was the right way to start. I was just curious. So that's really interesting. So why don't you just walk us through the design of how you laid this out? Dr. Caitlin Biddell: Yeah, absolutely. So we conducted a retrospective evaluation between 2015 and 2019, and we chose that time point to end before the COVID-19 pandemic since we know that had many impacts on missed appointments. And we compared the proportion of missed appointments in the six months following treatment initiation between patients who were receiving Cancer Patient Assistance Fund assistance and then propensity-weighted comparators. And this is really just a method to make the pool of potential comparison patients look as similar to those receiving Cancer Patient Assistance Fund assistance as possible so that we can really tease apart that direct effect of the Cancer Patient Assistance Fund and separate it out from other characteristics that may be influencing missed appointments.  So we had stratified our analysis by treatment type. We looked at radiation therapy, and then we also looked at oncology infusion, so specifically immunotherapy and chemotherapy. And to evaluate these endpoints, we used a couple of different data sources that we linked together. So the first and the primary data source was the electronic health record. So at UNC, we have EHR data for research purposes stored in a data warehouse that we were able to pull from. And then we also linked in UNC Health's portion of the North Carolina Cancer Registry to get that really important information on cancer stage, cancer type, and treatment start date. And then, of course, we pulled in program records from the Cancer Patient Assistance Fund to identify which patients were receiving assistance, how much, and at what time points. And so, essentially, using that data and thinking about missed appointment outcomes in those six months following treatment initiation, we created a couple different models. So we looked at the high versus low no-show proportion using a logistic regression. And then we also looked at just the continuous no-show proportion in the sample to see if there was an effect on that as well. Dr. Shannon Westin: And what did you find? What was the impact of the fund's support on your outcomes? Dr. Caitlin Biddell: For radiation therapy, which I'll start with, the radiation therapy had a higher number of encounters, as we might expect, than immunotherapy/chemotherapy. There were a mean of 37 total radiation therapy encounters in the six-month follow-up period, and about 53% of the sample had one or more no shows. And so, then, when we looked at the impact the Cancer Patient Assistance Fund on radiation therapy missed appointments, we found that receipt of any assistance was associated with an eight-percentage-point decrease in the probability of having a no-show proportion in the highest quintile.  And then, when looking at continuous no-show proportion, we found it was associated with a 2.1-percentage-point decrease in the overall proportion of no shows, which corresponds to a 51% decrease in the overall mean no-show proportion. So a really substantial effect on radiation therapy missed appointments. And unsurprisingly, when we stratified the analysis by the amount of assistance received, we did see a greater impact of the program among patients receiving higher amounts of assistance.  Moving on to the oncology infusion cohort, this sample had a lower number of encounters in the follow-up period and less no shows, so only about 14% had one or more no shows. And so it potentially wasn't as surprising that we did not see an impact of the Cancer Patient Assistance Fund on infusion oncology missed appointments, though, of course, with the additional power and alternative analyses, it's not to say that there wasn't an effect, but in our population, we were not able to detect that. Dr. Shannon Westin: Yeah, and that makes a lot of sense. I mean, radiation is so much more time intensive and having to come back and forth. And when you were describing the fund and saying, like, housing assistance, I was like, “Oh, well, there you go.” Because that, I feel like, is one of the major issues. At MD Anderson, we also kind of take care of a very large catchment area, and it can be a huge burden for patients to have to come for that 15-minute appointment every day. So, yeah, when I saw your results, I thought that was likely what you were hypothesizing was the reason. And certainly, the impact on radiation is so impressive. It's just a hugely successful study and a hugely successful fund. So congratulations.  So, I guess, any other variables? You spoke a little bit about the amount of financial assistance received. Was there anything else that impacted the number of missed appointments in your study? Dr. Caitlin Biddell: Yeah, because of our propensity-weighting design, we really didn't focus as much on other patient-level contributors to missed appointments. So we attempted to control for all of those things through the waiting and then kind of didn't add those into the final model. So that was really the main focus, was looking at the impact of the Cancer Patient Assistance Fund and then, of course, looking by amount of assistance. That was a really important finding and also, of course, needs to be taken in the context that every patient has different needs and so the amount of assistance may differ for every patient. And so there's always a need to kind of really assess what a patient's needs are and base the amount of assistance on that. Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: It's probably worth saying again that the level at which we dichotomized these results was $180, which was sort of the median level of assistance provided. As you can imagine, there's a long tail, with some people receiving considerably more financial assistance. But I think it's really noteworthy that in the grand scheme of things, $180 per patient is a very small amount of money to provide to assist with things like housing support, transportation support, gas cards, and so forth. And the program does not have strict rules about how those funds are used. So, in our setting, where we've got a lot of rural patients potentially traveling hours across state in their own vehicles, gas cards are really important for them. But in other settings—more urban settings, for example—having flexibility in how those funds are used could be really helpful for people who need bus assistance or other public transportation beyond kind of having to drive a private vehicle to appointments.  Dr. Shannon Westin: It is a great point, and it is incredible how much you can do with a fairly little amount of money. And when we were talking about healthcare spending, obviously, that's a lot of money to an individual or a family. But in the grand scheme of what we spend on healthcare, that is a very, very small amount. So really, again, congratulations.  So I think the last question I'll ask is just kind of what are the next steps? And really should we be making sure that we have these programs everywhere? Do I need to go back and make sure that this kind of situation is set up in my institution? Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: Well, we also should share a little bit more about the economic evaluation results. Caitlin, why don't you describe that? Dr. Caitlin Biddell: Yeah, absolutely. And this speaks exactly to what you were talking about in terms of the amount of assistance that can go a really long way for a patient and is a drop in the bucket for a health system. So we did want to look at what the cost-effectiveness, or the cost consequence, of this program was from the health system perspective. And so we conducted a decision tree analysis, which is a method used in economic evaluation research, using kind of a hypothetical cohort of 350 patients, that mean number of radiation therapy encounters, 37 encounters over a six-month time horizon. And we did find that under the current funding of the model, which essentially is that philanthropy covers all of the financial assistance and then UNC Lineberger covers the cost of the staffing and the indirect cost of housing the program, we found that this program was estimated to save the health system $153 per missed appointment averted.  And then, in kind of an additional threshold analysis we conducted to see how much could the health system chip into this program in some way, whether it's through indirect cost or direct financial assistance, while still kind of breaking even from the perspective of no shows averted, and it was around $100 per patient. So, of course, that would be split across patients in different ways. Not everyone might receive that same amount. But there is opportunity here for health systems to make investments in reducing patient nonmedical barriers to care in a way that will come back in the form of saved revenue from averting missed appointments. Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: And the only thing I would add to that is this obviously was focused on those no-show appointments, but we anticipate that there's other financial benefits to the health system, like retention in care, patient satisfaction. There's a whole host of quality-of-life and clinical outcomes that are probably also benefited through use of this kind of nonmedical financial assistance program that we weren't able to measure. But I think part of our goal with this analysis is to start to make the case to hospitals and health systems that providing direct nonmedical financial assistance helps their bottom line as well. Dr. Shannon Westin: We, as clinicians and researchers, always want the benefit to the patients. But I agree, when you're dealing with administrators, we also need to show that. So I think that is super clever and a really nice part of the design.  So what's next steps for your research? Dr. Caitlin Biddell: Yeah, so I think we're currently kind of disseminating these findings within our own institution, so disseminating them back to the Cancer Patient Assistance Fund program so that they can use them in additional grant applications, but also really trying to get these findings in front of the health system administrators who might be able to make funding decisions surrounding this program. And then I think we are also thinking about ways to measure other endpoints beyond missed appointments. So we've kind of created this data set that involved some complicated linkages upfront, and now I do think there's opportunities to pull in other endpoints and even potentially some patient-reported endpoints as our electronic health records get better at collecting patient-reported data and even social determinant of health data, opportunities to really think about other impacts of this program.  And then I'll also add that there is talk among other groups at our institution about using this kind of approach to measure other similar programs. For example, we have a pretty large AYA program that does a lot of similar types of assistance and also psychosocial assistance. And so they're thinking about ways to use a similar methodology to evaluate some of their own work. So I think it's just kind of starting to open the door to thinking about how we can use the data we have within our institutions to really underscore the impacts that the programs that already exist are having on patients. Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: I would only add to Caitlin's fabulous answer that dissemination of this is really critical because we know that NCI-Designated Conference of Cancer Centers, the vast majority of them provide some kind of direct medical and nonmedical financial assistance, but many of them have restrictions on who can access those funds and eligibility criteria that preclude patients with certain cancers from accessing those funds or patients with still what we would consider to be relatively high financial vulnerability to not be able to access those funds. In addition to that, we know that community oncology practices less often have access to these kinds of financial support resources. And so what often happens—and this is an extremely fragmented space for patients and their caregivers to be navigating—is that when nonmedical financial needs present, people are left to their own devices to have to search out, seek out, and identify programs for which they're eligible in the community. And these are often funded by philanthropic organizations, really wonderful healthcare support organizations. But oftentimes these types of financial supports are not directly provided through the hospital, or if they are, they're in the form of “charity care provisions,” which are often opaque to patients and their caregivers to even find. And then the eligibility requirements for those programs, again, are often preventing access for a number of patients in need.   So what I would like to see, as a person who does a lot of research in this space around financial hardship, is for that burden to be shifting away from patients and caregivers and more towards the systems that are treating these patients and that are supporting the caregivers so that people can focus on what's important during their cancer care, which is getting treatment that's recommended, staying in treatment, and attaining the best possible health that they can. When patients and their families spend hours and hours and days and weeks trying to understand existing financial support programs in the community and then those disappear or evaporate, as they do when funding and contributions subside, that really has a very detrimental impact on the patient's entire care experience. And I think it's on us, as people who are part of the healthcare system, to ensure that that doesn't happen. And the financial case to hospitals is clear, I think, from this analysis, but the moral case to all of us, as providers, should be clear and should be compelling in itself.   Dr. Shannon Westin: On that note, I think that's a perfect way to end. Thank you so much. This was such an intriguing discussion, and I really hope people are listening that are making the decisions for their hospitals and will see how they can implement something like this in their institution.  Again, this was a discussion of “Economic Evaluation of a Nonmedical Financial Assistance Program on Missed Treatment Appointments Among Adults with Cancer,” simultaneous publication in the JCO and presentation at the 2023 ASCO Quality Care Symposium on October 28th. It was great to have you all here. This was amazing, and I hope our listeners had a good time. And please do check out our other podcast offerings wherever you get your podcasts.  The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the Podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, patient activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.      

We discussed a number of things including:1. Jonathan's and Michelle's education career journeys2. How the pandemic has disrupted education sector3. The role credentials play - past, present and future4. Credly: challenges and opportunities; vision5. Future trends and forecastsJonathan is founder and CEO of Credly, a leading digital credential service provider which enables organizations to recognize, reward and market skills, competencies and certifications.  Previously, as founder of LearningTimes, Jonathan helped mission-driven organizations produce and launch innovative online programs, products and platforms that impacted the lives of millions of learners. Previously, Jonathan was a co-founder and led product strategy at HorizonLive (acquired by Blackboard).  He is author of Learning in Real Time (Wiley), co-author of a report for the US Department of Education on the potential for digital badges, and a frequent speaker on digital credentials and the future of learning and workforce development. The son of New York City public school teachers, Jonathan graduated with honors from Harvard University.-----Michelle is the Director of the Education and Employment Research Center at the School of Management and Labor Relations at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. She has over 20 years of experience conducting research on education and the workforce focused on credentials, community colleges, and connections between higher education and the labor market.  She is currently leading studies on technician education and economic development, quality in community college noncredit education non-degree credentials, student decision making about programs and careers, higher education labor market alignment, and effective practices in workforce education.  Before joining EERC, Michelle conducted at the Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers, the Community College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University, and Mathematica Policy Research. She holds a Ph.D. in sociology and education from Columbia University, a M.S. in public policy from Rutgers, and a B.A. in psychology and Spanish from Rutgers. 

In 2020, Clemson University attempted to drop a bunch of sports, including men's track and field. Minnesota did the same thing with four sports (including both indoor and outdoor track and field), and ended up dropping indoor only. Brown University also tried to drop its men's track and field team, and then re-added… Etc. etc. Enter my guests today. Russell Dinkins, a former 400 and 800m track athlete at Princeton University, has been credited with helping restore many of the men's track and field programs that were on the chopping block, including Clemson. He happened to have some extra time during the early phases of the pandemic after getting laid off from his job at Mathematica Policy Research. He penned a piece on Medium called “Brown University, If You Were Actually Serious About Racial Justice You Would Not Be Cutting the Men's Track Team” that went viral. Russell spoke recently at the 2021 College Track and Field Convention about his successful argument-that dropping one of the most diverse teams on a PWI (primarily white institution) campus is the opposite of what colleges claim they stand for. He's joined by friend of the podcast Arthur Bryant, partner in the law firm Bailey Glasser, and a legal expert in all things Title IX. Arthur and Russell have worked together to advance the narrative around DEI and Title IX in college sports. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/karen-weaver/message

 On today's episode Sujani speaks with Shanna Shulman about informational interviews. Informational interviews are very important and key to a successful career, whether it's in public health or not. Shanna gives us the rundown of what informational interviews are, how to do them, share her experience, and a whole lot more insight into the topic including some homework for you.Grab a notebook and let's get into it.What You'll Learn from this Episode:What is an informational interview?Shanna's story of using informational interviews in her career, specifically how she's leveraged them to achieve certain objectivesWhy you should conduct informational interviews? Specifically discussing the following four categories: to find a job, to understand your sector's landscape, to assess your fit, and to build your professional network.At what point during your career should you conduct do informational interviews?Barriers people (especially students) face when conducting informational interviews.The importance of informational interviews for a public health since it is to our advantage for our work to know as many people in the sub disciplines of public health.Shanna's thoughts on whether you are "bothering" people when reaching out to chat through informational interviews?Why informational interviews are so critical as students.Who should you do informational interviews with and how do you go about executing one? We discuss an easy to follow process.Tips on how to reach an individual for an informational interview, including a sample email you could send, and vest practices on following up.How to make the best of the time you do get with a contact for an informational interview (what to talk about!).Memorable interviews Shanna has had, both positive and negative/Homework to get you started on informational interviews!Today's Guest:Shanna Shulman, PhD, is the Director of Health and Medical Research at the Richard and Susan Smith Family Foundation where she directs the Foundation's health-related portfolio of grants and initiatives. Prior to this, Dr. Shulman was Managing Director of the Boston Children's Hospital Center of Excellence for Pediatric Quality Measurement where she co-led the development of new quality of care measures for broad national use. Dr. Shulman was previously Director of Policy and Research at the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation where she was responsible for assessing cost, access, and health outcomes resulting from Massachusetts' landmark 2006 universal health care law. Dr. Shulman was also Senior Researcher at Mathematica Policy Research in Cambridge where she directed evaluations of large-scale public health programs. Dr. Shulman focuses her work on the quality of health care and access to health care for vulnerable populations. She received her BA summa cum laude from Washington University in Saint Louis and her PhD in Health Policy from Harvard University.Featured on the Show:Jumpstart your public health career - A WORKSHOP: Join the waitlist for the next cohort.Other Resources:Share ideas for the podcast: Fill out this formBe notified when new episodes come out, and receive hand-picked public health opportunities every week by joining the PH SPOT community.Contribute to the public health career blog: www.phspot.ca/contributeSupport the show (http://www.phspot.ca/signup)

Episode IntroductionWomen farmers in rural communities are responsible for feeding much of the world, but they often don't get enough to eat themselves. They struggle to access financial support that would help them earn a decent income—and the pandemic is making this situation even worse. In this episode, we discuss how the COVID-19 crisis is impacting women in rural communities and how we can support them to become the leaders and food producers our world needs. Willy Foote and Katie Naeve of Root Capital discuss this with Nico Janssen, Programme Manager for our Agricultural Livelihoods Portfolio. Guest Bio Willy Foote is the Founder and CEO of Root Capital, a nonprofit that offers credit and financial advice to small agricultural businesses, especially women, so that they can build profitable and climate smart livelihoods. Foote is a Skoll Entrepreneur and an Ashoka Global Fellow. He was named a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum in 2008, one of Forbes' “Impact 30” in 2011, and was a 2012 Henry Crown Fellow of the Aspen Institute. Katie Naeve is the Director of Impact and Partnerships at Root Capital. She works on developing and growing strategic partnerships that present opportunities for Root Capital to scale growth and impact. Previously, she conducted evaluations of a number of international development projects around the globe with Harvard's Center for International Development and Mathematica Policy Research. She has also worked in Colombia with children affected by armed conflict. Mentioned in this episode:To know more about the IKEA Foundation's partnership with Root Capital, read this story: https://ikeafoundation.org/story/how-root-capital-and-the-ikea-foundation-are-building-the-resilience-of-smallholder-farmers-in-east-africa/Show credits:Host: Altaf MakhiawalaExecutive Producer: Truus HuismanResearcher: Lotika MehtaAn Andy Clark Media Production for the IKEA FoundationWant to contact the show? Reach out at wehearyou@ikeafoundation.orgFACEBOOK | TWITTER | LINKEDIN | INSTAGRAMLearn more about the IKEA Foundation: www.ikeafoundation.orgProgramming Note:This conversation was recorded as part of the Ask An Expert series livestreamed online on 7 May 2020. This is an edited version of the conversation for the podcast.  Youtube link to the original video conversation.  

Episode SummaryWith dubious news articles clogging the internet it can be difficult to know where to find information you can trust and that's where the Nerdy Girls come in. A group of ten (and growing) female public health experts, including guests of The Sydcast Alison Buttenheim and Lindsey Leininger, came together to provide evidence-based information on the COVID-19 pandemic to the public. Using their “Dear Pandemic” social media profiles, the Nerdy Girls have gone viral for their fact-based answers to everybody's questions about everything COVID. Prepare to feel better informed after this episode of The Sydcast.Syd Finkelstein Syd Finkelstein is the Steven Roth Professor of Management at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College. He holds a Masters degree from the London School of Economics and a Ph.D. from Columbia University. Professor Finkelstein has published 25 books and 90 articles, including the bestsellers Why Smart Executives Fail and Superbosses: How Exceptional Leaders Master the Flow of Talent, which LinkedIn Chairman Reid Hoffman calls the “leadership guide for the Networked Age.” He is also a Fellow of the Academy of Management, a consultant and speaker to leading companies around the world, and a top 25 on the global Thinkers 50 list of top management gurus. Professor Finkelstein's research and consulting work often relies on in-depth and personal interviews with hundreds of people, an experience that led him to create and host his own podcast, The Sydcast, to uncover and share the stories of all sorts of fascinating people in business, sports, entertainment, politics, academia, and everyday life. Alison M. Buttenheim, PhDAlison M. Buttenheim wants to understand how people make decisions about their health and focuses her research on the use of behavioral economics to increase the uptake of evidence-based care. Her work ranges from how households in Peru decide whether to apply insecticide to eliminate a disease-carrying insect to why parents in the United States request exemptions from child immunization laws. Patricia Bleznak Silverstein and the Howard A. Silverstein Term Endowed Professorship in Global Women's Health Assistant Professor of Health Policy, Perelman School of MedicineSenior Fellow, Leonard Davis Institute of Health EconomicsAssociate Director, Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral EconomicsAssociate Director, National Clinician Scholars ProgramLindsey Leininger, PhDLindsey Leininger is a health services researcher who specializes in the health care experiences of vulnerable populations. Prior to joining Tuck, she spent a decade designing and managing advanced analytics projects supporting the Medicaid program. She pursued this work in both academic and non-academic settings, most recently as an associate director and senior researcher at Mathematica Policy Research. She has a longstanding interest in teaching and translating quantitative methods to professionals, and has taught and trained physicians, policy makers, and health care administrators.Clinical Professor of Business Administration, Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth CollegeAdjunct Professor of The Dartmouth InstituteInsights from this episode:Benefits of using communication that is understandable by the general population to provide scientific information on a complicated subject to reach a broader audience.Details on the origin of the Nerdy Girls, how they curate and validate information, and how they are evolving.Strategies behind using social media to reach different audiences and age groups to disseminate accurate information.Secrets we can learn from how the 1918 flu pandemic was managed that can still help today.How to reduce your risk of becoming infected using “personal harm reduction” methods such as forming “pods.”Differences between Sweden's approach to handling the COVID-19 pandemic versus the rest of the world.Benefits of wearing masks now more information has become available that highlights their efficacy.Quotes from the show:On science communication: “I come with a lot of empathy towards scientists because their institutional rewards are not based on translation. They get rewarded for the grants that they get and the scientific publications that they write. I think it's hard to expect scientists to be providing this service when their institutions don't reward it.” – Lindsey LeiningerOn how COVID-19 is motivating scientists: “I really think there are a lot of people who are getting off the bench and into the game right now.” – Lindsey LeiningerOn using social media: ”I would say the climate change folks are actually ahead of the curve … on understanding the science, not just communicating science, but the science of communicating science.” – Alison M. ButtenheimOn changing scientific terminology: “How you frame something is so important and climate change is a much, much more neutral name for something, global warming, it's pretty clear what's going on.” – Syd FinkelsteinOn comparing COVID-19 to the 1918 flu pandemic: “I think the context in which we're living is different enough that it's not unreasonable to be hopeful that we'll have a better outcome.” – Lindsey LeiningerOn comparing COVID-19 to the 1918 flu pandemic: “The other interesting parallel is that there was fake news in 1918. It was just a lot slower.” – Alison M. ButtenheimOn how to balance risk going forward: “That's going to be the name of the game for summer is people figuring out their comfort level.” – Alison M. Buttenheim“It's not that the mask is not going to help you, it's your management of that mask that will reduce the odds that it's going to help you. The mask itself is going to do a good job.” – Syd Finkelstein“I think the fight's actually on three fronts. I think it's on the vaccine front. I think it's on the clinical protocol front, and it's on the treatment front.” – Lindsey Leininger“I am hopeful. I really am hopeful on a vaccine and we have the best minds in the world working on this with a lot of resources.” – Lindsey LeiningerStay Connected: Syd FinkelsteinWebsite: http://thesydcast.comLinkedIn: Sydney FinkelsteinTwitter: @sydfinkelsteinFacebook: The SydcastInstagram: The SydcastThe Nerdy GirlsFacebook: Dear PandemicTwitter: @Dear PandemicInstagram: @Dear_PandemicSubscribe to our podcast + download each episode on Stitcher, iTunes, and Spotify.This episode was produced and managed by Podcast Laundry (www.podcastlaundry.com)

JAND Editor-in-Chief Linda Snetselaar, PhD, RDN, LD, FAND discusses Bayesian Decision Making and its use in nutrition and dietetics with Philip Gleason, PhD from Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

On this episode of Career Journeys we have Ayesha DeMond ’01 on the phone from Buffalo. DeMond graduated from HWS with a degree in Political Science and Women’s Studies. She is currently a survey analyst with Mathematica Policy Research, working with a wide range of clients, including the United States government, on research and methods. She has previously worked as a production associate for The Today Show, …

Interview with Jonathan Gay, Executive Director, and Dana Harris, Program Manager, of Playworks New England. Founded in 1996, Playworks helps schools and districts re-imagine recess and school-wide culture to promote social-emotional learning, safety, fun, and full inclusion. Today Playworks partners with 250 schools in New England, and 3,000 schools around the country. Playworks begins with the premise that play is essential to human development, and that Kids who play are resilient, empathetic, and active. They learn to make friends, solve problems, and become more self-confident. To promote positive play, Playwork onsite coaches organize activities, teach social-emotional skills, and encourage broad participation before, during, and after school. Playworks also builds the skills of school staff through on-site consulting and modeling, as well as through onsite and online professional development. A randomized study completed by Stanford University and Mathematica Policy Research found that, compared to students at similar schools, Playworks students were more physically active and teachers reported that students had greater feelings of school safety and less bullying behavior. In this interview, Jonathan and Dana discuss the need for schools to prioritize play and recess, how play and social-emotional learning translates into school and life success, and what working at Playworks has meant to them both personally.

Dr. Crystal Blyler is a senior researcher at Mathematica Policy Research, where she directed the evaluation of the Medicaid Emergency Psychiatric Services Demonstration. In addition to her work at Mathematica, Dr. Blyler has experience as a researcher at various universities and in government at both the national and state level.

How do otherwise considerate human beings do cruel things and still live in peace with themselves? Drawing on his agentic theory, Dr. Bandura provides a definitive exposition of the psychosocial mechanism by which people selectively disengage their moral self-sanctions from their harmful conduct. They do so by sanctifying their harmful behavior as serving worthy causes; they absolve themselves of blame for the harm they cause by displacement and diffusion of responsibility; they minimize or deny the harmful effects of their actions; and they dehumanize those they maltreat and blame them for bringing the suffering on themselves. Dr. Bandura's theory of moral disengagement is uniquely broad in scope. Theories of morality focus almost exclusively at the individual level. He insightfully extends the disengagement of morality to the social-system level through which wide-spread inhumanities are perpetrated. In so doing, he offers enlightening new perspectives on some of the most provocative issues of our time, addressing:Moral disengagement in all aspects of the death penalty—from public policy debates, to jury decisions, to the processes of execution The social and moral justifications of major industries—including gun manufacturers, the entertainment industry, tobacco companies, and the world of "too big to fail" finance Moral disengagement in terrorism, and how terrorists rationalize the use of violence as a means of social change Climate change denial, and the strenuous efforts by some to dispute the overwhelming scientific consensus affirming the impact of human behavior on the environment“Al Bandura is the most cited individual in the history of psychology for the depth, breadth and originality of his ideas and writings. Now with his ground-breaking new contribution, Moral Disengagement, his reach extends not only to teachers and students but also to the general public --making them aware of everyday evils in many spheres of daily life that must be counteracted by mindful moral engagement.” ----Phil Zimbardo, Ph.D. Author, The Lucifer Effect; President, The Heroic Imagination Project“The authoritative statement by the world's most-cited living psychologist, laying out his influential theory. Plunge into these fascinating historical and modern case studies of moral disengagement—morality tales for all time, illuminated by the psychology of how people do harm to themselves and others.”-- Susan T. Fiske, Psychology and Public Affairs, Princeton University "This fascinating book is a sad reminder of the ubiquity of moral disengagement; it is a much needed call to arms; and it is even a practical primer of how to engage with others in ways that recognize and build on our shared humanity. It helps us identify and resist what threatens to diminish each of us and reminds us that morality is less about the ends we seek to achieve and more about the means we use. "----Thomas D. Cook, Joan and Serepta Harrison Professor of Ethics and Justice, Professor of Sociology, Psychology, Education, and Social Policy, Northwestern University; and Senior Fellow, Mathematica Policy Research, Washington, DC“Dr. Albert Bandura is one of the great behavioral scientists of our time. His superb contributions include a deep analysis of human morality, its fundamental importance and the complexity of its development.” ----David A. Hamburg, MD, Visiting Scholar, American Association for the Advancement of Science; DeWitt Wallace Distinguished Scholar, Weill Cornell Medical College; President Emeritus, Carnegie Corporation of New YorkReview"Al Bandura is the most cited individual in the history of psychology for the depth, breadth and originality of his ideas and writings. Now with his ground-breaking new contribution, Moral Disengagement, his reach extends not only to teachers and students but also to the general public --making them aware of everyday evils in many spheres of daily life that must be counteracted by mindful moral engagement." ----Phil Zimbardo, Ph.D. Author , The Lucifer Effect; President, The Heroic Imagination Project"The authoritative statement by the world s most-cited living psychologist, laying out his influential theory. Plunge into these fascinating historical and modern case studies of moral disengagement morality tales for all time, illuminated by the psychology of how people do harm to themselves and others." ---- Susan T. Fiske, Psychology and Public Affairs, Princeton University"Dr. Albert Bandura is one of the great behavioral scientists of our time. His superb contributions include a deep analysis of human morality, its fundamental importance and the complexity of its development."----David A. Hamburg, MD, Visiting Scholar, American Association for the Advancement of Science; DeWitt Wallace Distinguished Scholar, Weill Cornell Medical College; President Emeritus, Carnegie Corporation of New York "This fascinating book is a sad reminder of the ubiquity of moral disengagement; it is a much needed call to arms; and it is even a practical primer of how to engage with others in ways that recognize and build on our shared humanity. It helps us identify and resist what threatens to diminish each of us and reminds us that morality is less about the ends we seek to achieve and more about the means we use. "----Thomas D. Cook, Joan and Serepta Harrison Professor of Ethics and Justice, Professor of Sociology, Psychology, Education, and Social Policy, Northwestern University; and Senior Fellow, Mathematica Policy Research, Washington, DC"Bandura's book is a breakthrough in ethics. It shows how moral disengagement works in business, politics and social life, and how these practices should be unmasked for ethical human functioning."----Laszlo Zsolnai, Professor and Director, Business Ethics Center, Corvinus University of Budapest and President, European SPES Institute, Leuven"Moral Disengagement holds the key for unlocking the greatest mystery at the root our biggest policy problems: why do moral people behave immorally? Compellingly written, Bandura draws on the best social science - much of it his own - to illuminate policy issues ranging from gun violence to climate change. It is, in short, must-reading for all."----Jon D. Hanson, Alfred Smart Professor of Law and director of The Project on Law and Mind Sciences, Harvard Law School"Timely and soaring above the plethora of psychological theorizing published today, Bandura's work on Moral Disengagement utilizes social cognitive theory to explain morality. This work should be essential reading for humanity. Sharp, insightful, and provocative, it provides comprehensive answers to dispel the myriad questions about how human beings can commit atrocious immoral acts and still live with themselves." Regan A. R. Gurung, Ph.D. Ben J. & Joyce Rosenberg Professor of Human Development & Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay"About the AuthorAlbert Bandura is one of the most eminent psychologists of modern times. He is a renowned scholar whose pioneering research in social cognitive theory has served as a rich resource for academics, practitioners, and policy makers alike across disciplinary lines. His illustrative career includes groundbreaking work across a broad range of areas. His seminal research on social modeling expanded our view of human learning and the growing primacy of this mode of learning in this electronic era. His later research on self-regulatory mechanisms laid the theoretical foundation for his theory of human agency. These diverse programs of research blend his theoretical interests with an abiding concern for the use of psychological knowledge for human enlightenment and betterment. He is the recipient of countless awards for his distinguished lifetime contributions to psychological science and innovative social applications."

In a new article for the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, experts from Mathematica Policy Research reveal why some patients might reject physician recommendations even if they are grounded in good evidence. Listen to Mathematica researchers Cara Stepanczuk and Nyna Williams discuss this issue in this episode of the “Policy in Perspective” podcast.

Public leaders — whether they’re helping run a state agency, a school system, a hospital, a set of Head Start centers or any other organization — are likely to implement changes over time, whether it’s adjusting programs or adding new services. Maybe it’s a new curriculum for students in a school district or new intake procedure for patients in a hospital. Whatever the change, how […] The post Making rigorous program evaluation easier with RCT-YES software: An interview with Peter Schochet, Fellow, Mathematica Policy Research – Episode #137 appeared first on Gov Innovator podcast.

Ira Nichols-Barrer and Brian Gill of Mathematica Policy Research sit down with Marty West to discuss an important testing decision faced by Massachusetts: whether to keep the MCAS assessment or switch to the PARCC assessment.

How can public leaders and program managers track the performance of different sites within a program in a way that reflects impact — i.e., the value added of each site? The most rigorous approach is to run a rigorous program evaluation, such as a randomized controlled trial, by site, but that type of evaluation is not always feasible. Another approach (the […] The post How to design performance measures to better measure impact: An interview with Peter Schochet, Senior Fellow, Mathematica Policy Research – Episode #94 appeared first on Gov Innovator podcast.

Paternity leave, men's role in childcare, and their work-life balance have become more commonly discussed topics by policymakers and business leaders. What kinds of policies succeed in getting fathers involved in their children's lives from the beginning? What are the long-term consequences for families, in terms of fathers' and mothers' careers, incomes, and the division of household labor at home? In this seminar, Ankita Patnaik discusses how parental leave schemes can be designed to induce fathers to participate and whether small changes in the initial parenting experience can have lasting effects on both parents' behavior. She presents findings from a study that shows that even a few weeks of paternity leave can have a large and persistent impact on sex specialization in the long-term by encouraging a more equal distribution of household responsibilities. Speaker: Ankita Patnaik, Researcher, Mathematica Policy Research

In this episode of the PolicyViz Podcast, I speak with Adam Coyne and Jennifer de Vallance from Mathematica Policy Research. MPR conducts policy and economic research to improve public well-being by bringing the highest standards of quality, objectivity, and excellence... The post PolicyViz Podcast Episode #13: Mathematica Policy Research appeared first on PolicyViz.