Research in healthcare settings and medical education has relied heavily on quantitative methods. However, there are research questions within these academic domains that may be more adequately addressed by qualitative inquiry. While there are many qualitative approaches, ethnography is one method that allows the researcher to take advantage of relative immersion in order to obtain thick description. The purpose of this article is to introduce ethnography, to describe how ethnographic methods may be utilized, to provide an overview of ethnography's use in healthcare and medical education, and to summarize some key limitations with the method.
Anthropology, Cultural ; Delivery of Health Care ; Education, Medical ; Imidazoles ; Immersion ; Nitro Compounds ; Qualitative Research

PURPOSE: Traditional approaches to blueprint creation may focus on fine-grained detail at the expense of important foundational concepts. The purpose of this study was to develop a method for constructing an assessment blueprint to guide the creation of a new post-test for a two-day prehospital emergency medical services training program. METHODS: In order to create the blueprint, we first determined the proportions of the total classroom and home-study minutes associated with the lower- and higher-order cognitive objectives of each chapter of the textbook and the two-day classroom activities during training courses conducted from January to April 2015. These proportions were then applied to a 50-question test structure in order to calculate the number of desired questions by chapter and content type. RESULTS: Our blueprint called for the test to contain an almost even split of lower- and higher-order cognitive questions. One-best-answer multiple choice items and extended matching-type items were written to assess lower- and higher-order cognitive content, respectively. CONCLUSION: We report the first known application of an assessment blueprint to a prehospital professional development education program. Our approach to blueprint creation is computationally straightforward and could be easily adopted by a group of instructors with a basic understanding of lower- and higher-order cognitive constructs. By blueprinting at the chapter level, as we have done, item-writers should be more inclined to construct questions that focus on important central themes or procedures.
Choice Behavior ; Cognition ; Education* ; Emergencies* ; Emergency Medical Services* ; United States*

In this paper, we review and discuss ten common methodological mistakes found in retrospective chart reviews. The retrospective chart review is a widely applicable research methodology that can be used by healthcare disciplines as a means to direct subsequent prospective investigations. In many cases in this review, we have also provided suggestions or accessible resources that researchers can apply as a "best practices" guide when planning, conducting, or reviewing this investigative method.
Delivery of Health Care ; Medical Records ; Practice Guidelines as Topic ; Research Design ; Retrospective Studies*

Medical school administrators, educators, and other key personnel must often make difficult choices regarding the creation, retention, modification, or termination of the various programs that take place at their institutions. Program evaluation is a data-driven strategy to aide decision-makers in determining the most appropriate outcome for programs within their purview. The purpose of this brief article is to describe one program evaluation model, the utilization-focused approach. In particular, we address the focus of this model, the personal factor, the role of the evaluator, and the evaluation process. Based on the flexibility of this model as well as its focus on stakeholder involvement, we encourage readers to consider the utilization-focused approach when evaluating programs.
Administrative Personnel ; Education, Medical ; Humans ; Hypogonadism ; Mitochondrial Diseases ; Ophthalmoplegia ; Pliability ; Program Evaluation ; Retention (Psychology) ; Schools, Medical

Purpose: Our study aimed to evaluate the risk and benefit profiles of clinical trials using abiraterone in cancer treatment. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted on May 24, 2023, using databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We extracted data on adverse events, progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), and prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSA-RR). The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events were used to assess risks, while ORR and PSA-RR were used to assess benefits. Trials were categorized as positive, negative, or indeterminate based on their safety profiles and efficacy outcomes. Results: Nearly all clinical trials testing abiraterone in prostate cancer showed promising outcomes with 89% of studies meeting their endpoint. Our study supports abiraterone’s use in prostate cancer, its only U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved indication to treat, with a median ORR of 20.0% and a median PSA-RR of 42.0%. However, when looking at the 3 novel indications tested, the risk-to-benefit profile was similar to that of its original approval. Even though most novel indications failed to meet their primary endpoint, the overall toxicity profile was similar to that found in prostate cancer. Conclusion Abiraterone showed an overall risk-to-benefit portfolio that supports the use of its treatment in prostate cancer. Although the primary endpoints in ovarian and breast cancer trials were not met, the use was appropriate when assessing how the mechanism of action for abiraterone could be beneficial in patients with these types of cancers.

Purpose: Our study aimed to evaluate the risk and benefit profiles of clinical trials using abiraterone in cancer treatment. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted on May 24, 2023, using databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We extracted data on adverse events, progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), and prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSA-RR). The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events were used to assess risks, while ORR and PSA-RR were used to assess benefits. Trials were categorized as positive, negative, or indeterminate based on their safety profiles and efficacy outcomes. Results: Nearly all clinical trials testing abiraterone in prostate cancer showed promising outcomes with 89% of studies meeting their endpoint. Our study supports abiraterone’s use in prostate cancer, its only U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved indication to treat, with a median ORR of 20.0% and a median PSA-RR of 42.0%. However, when looking at the 3 novel indications tested, the risk-to-benefit profile was similar to that of its original approval. Even though most novel indications failed to meet their primary endpoint, the overall toxicity profile was similar to that found in prostate cancer. Conclusion Abiraterone showed an overall risk-to-benefit portfolio that supports the use of its treatment in prostate cancer. Although the primary endpoints in ovarian and breast cancer trials were not met, the use was appropriate when assessing how the mechanism of action for abiraterone could be beneficial in patients with these types of cancers.

Purpose: Our study aimed to evaluate the risk and benefit profiles of clinical trials using abiraterone in cancer treatment. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted on May 24, 2023, using databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We extracted data on adverse events, progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), and prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSA-RR). The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events were used to assess risks, while ORR and PSA-RR were used to assess benefits. Trials were categorized as positive, negative, or indeterminate based on their safety profiles and efficacy outcomes. Results: Nearly all clinical trials testing abiraterone in prostate cancer showed promising outcomes with 89% of studies meeting their endpoint. Our study supports abiraterone’s use in prostate cancer, its only U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved indication to treat, with a median ORR of 20.0% and a median PSA-RR of 42.0%. However, when looking at the 3 novel indications tested, the risk-to-benefit profile was similar to that of its original approval. Even though most novel indications failed to meet their primary endpoint, the overall toxicity profile was similar to that found in prostate cancer. Conclusion Abiraterone showed an overall risk-to-benefit portfolio that supports the use of its treatment in prostate cancer. Although the primary endpoints in ovarian and breast cancer trials were not met, the use was appropriate when assessing how the mechanism of action for abiraterone could be beneficial in patients with these types of cancers.