COVID-19 related interdisciplinary methods: Preventing errors and detecting research opportunities

More than 130,000 peer-reviewed studies have been published within one year after COVID-19 emerged in many countries. This large and rapidly growing field may overwhelm the synthesizing abilities of both researchers and policy-makers. To provide a sinopsis, prevent errors, and detect cognitive gaps that may require interdisciplinary research methods, the literature on COVID-19 is summarized, twice. The overall purpose of this study is to generate a dialogue meant to explain the genesis of and/or find remedies for omissions and contradictions. The first review starts in Biology and ends in Policy. Policy is chosen as a destination because it is the setting where cognitive integration must occur. The second review follows the opposite path: it begins with stated policies on COVID-19 and then their assumptions and disciplinary relationships are identified. The purpose of this interdisciplinary method on methods is to yield a relational and explanatory view of the field -one strategy likely to be incomplete but usable when large bodies of literature need to be rapidly summarized. These reviews identify nine inter-related problems, research needs, or omissions, namely: (1) nation-wide, geo-referenced, epidemiological data collection systems (open to and monitored by the public); (2) metrics meant to detect non-symptomatic cases -e.g., test positivity-; (3) cost-benefit oriented methods, which should demonstrate they detect silent viral spreaders even with limited testing; (4) new personalized tests that inform on biological functions and disease correlates, such as cell-mediated immunity, co-morbidities, and immuno-suppression; (5) factors that influence vaccine effectiveness; (6) economic predictions that consider the long-term consequences likely to follow epidemics that growth exponentially; (7) the errors induced by self-limiting and/or implausible paradigms, such as binary and reductionist approaches; (8) new governance models that emphasize problem-solving skills, social participation, and the use of scientific knowledge; and (9) new educational programs that utilize visual aids and audience-specific communication strategies. The analysis indicates that, to optimally address these problems, disciplinary and social integration is needed. By asking what is/are the potential cause(s) and consequence(s) of each issue, this methodology generates visualizations that reveal possible relationships as well as omissions and contradictions. While inherently limited in scope and likely to become obsolete, these shortcomings are avoided when this 'method on methods' is frequently practiced. Open-ended, inter-/trans-disciplinary perspectives and broad social participation may help researchers and citizens to construct, de-construct, and re-construct COVID-19 related research.

A low-cost, in silico nutritional genomics course-based undergraduate research experience applicable to multiple disciplines

This article describes the development and assessment of a Nutritional Genomics course, designed to be held in a regular classroom during normal class periods, with few extra costs to the students or the department. The course was run as an upper-level undergraduate and lower-level graduate student course. Student taking the course spent 11 weeks learning and then 4 weeks using various in silico methods to independently characterize genes of interest in the field. During the last 4 weeks of the course, students combined their methods to test a hypothesis they generated about a gene they have not yet studied and completed a final report in the form of a journal article. Two students have published or are in the process of publishing work from their final project. Validated surveys of genetic knowledge given at least 6 months following the course indicated a very high level of genetic knowledge retainment, and favorable attitudes toward genetics testing and medical use of genetics. Finally, self-perceived critical thinking skills were high, and students indicated that they perceived these skills to be gained by their participation in the course. Materials and syllabus provided in the manuscript makes this CURE easily transferrable to other disciplines.

Defining Advance Care Planning for Adults: A Consensus Definition From a Multidisciplinary Delphi Panel

CONTEXT

Despite increasing interest in advance care planning (ACP) and previous ACP descriptions, a consensus definition does not yet exist to guide clinical, research, and policy initiatives.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop a consensus definition of ACP for adults.

METHODS

We convened a Delphi panel of multidisciplinary, international ACP experts consisting of 52 clinicians, researchers, and policy leaders from four countries and a patient/surrogate advisory committee. We conducted 10 rounds using a modified Delphi method and qualitatively analyzed panelists' input. Panelists identified several themes lacking consensus and iteratively discussed and developed a final consensus definition.

RESULTS

Panelists identified several tensions concerning ACP concepts such as whether the definition should focus on conversations vs. written advance directives; patients' values vs. treatment preferences; current shared decision making vs. future medical decisions; and who should be included in the process. The panel achieved a final consensus one-sentence definition and accompanying goals statement: "Advance care planning is a process that supports adults at any age or stage of health in understanding and sharing their personal values, life goals, and preferences regarding future medical care. The goal of advance care planning is to help ensure that people receive medical care that is consistent with their values, goals and preferences during serious and chronic illness." The panel also described strategies to best support adults in ACP.

CONCLUSIONS

A multidisciplinary Delphi panel developed a consensus definition for ACP for adults that can be used to inform implementation and measurement of ACP clinical, research, and policy initiatives.