Prevalence and Predictors of Adolescent Dating Violence

This study of 561 rural North Carolina adolescents examined relationships among race, parental educational level, family structure, parental discipline, family violence exposure, and dating violence experiences. The sample was predominantly female (77%), with 40% black and 58% white. The subjects ranged in age from 15 to 20 years; 80% of the adolescents were 16–18. Dating violence experiences were assessed by a researcher-constructed instrument measuring warning signs of potential violence and actual violent experiences. The results suggested that recognition of abusive relationships is difficult, with many adolescents denying such a relationship but actually reporting numerous abusive events. Sixty percent had experienced violent acts during dating relationships; 24% reported extreme violence (episodes of rape, use of weapons). More than 20% of the adolescents reported family violence and 2.2% reported family sexual abuse. The study suggests new avenues for research in adolescent date violence, and for interventions with high risk groups.     

American Cancer Society prostate cancer survivorship care guidelines

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Prostate cancer survivors approach 2.8 million in number and represent 1 in 5 of all cancer survivors in the United States. While guidelines exist for timely treatment and surveillance for recurrent disease, there is limited availability of guidelines that facilitate the provision of posttreatment clinical follow‐up care to address the myriad of long‐term and late effects that survivors may face. Based on recommendations set forth by a National Cancer Survivorship Resource Center expert panel, the American Cancer Society developed clinical follow‐up care guidelines to facilitate the provision of posttreatment care by primary care clinicians. These guidelines were developed using a combined approach of evidence synthesis and expert consensus. Existing guidelines for health promotion, surveillance, and screening for second primary cancers were referenced when available. To promote comprehensive follow‐up care and optimal health and quality of life for the posttreatment survivor, the guidelines address health promotion, surveillance for prostate cancer recurrence, screening for second primary cancers, long‐term and late effects assessment and management, psychosocial issues, and care coordination among the oncology team, primary care clinicians, and nononcology specialists. A key challenge to the development of these guidelines was the limited availability of published evidence for management of prostate cancer survivors after treatment. Much of the evidence relies on studies with small sample sizes and retrospective analyses of facility‐specific and population databases. CA Cancer J Clin 2014;64:225–249. © 2014 American Cancer Society .     

Operationalizing a simulation program: Practical information for leadership

Failure to ensure organizational readiness for curricular integration of simulation can result in a costly and ineffective simulation program. Organizational leaders who are aware of the principles of changemaker leadership and specific operational considerations are best positioned to ensure a quality simulation program. To assist these leaders, this article provides practical information derived from dissection of the Standard of Best Practice: Simulation^SM: Operations, including topics of strategic planning, financial resources, expert personnel, resource management systems, policies and procedures, and systems integration. Additionally, an introduction to a foundational tool to spearhead change is offered, and characteristics of the changemaker leader needed to develop and sustain an effective and efficient simulation program are highlighted. Understanding the criteria necessary for effective simulation operations and early recognition of the conditions and variables that can influence organizational culture is of utmost importance to ensure programmatic success.     

Choice of Vein‐Harvest Technique for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Rationale and Design of the REGROUP Trial

The Randomized Endo‐vein Graft Prospective (REGROUP) trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov  NCT01850082) is a randomized, intent‐to‐treat, 2‐arm, parallel‐design, multicenter study funded by the Cooperative Studies Program (CSP No. 588) of the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Cardiac surgeons at 16 Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers with technical expertise in performing both endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) and open vein harvesting (OVH) were recruited as the REGROUP surgeon participants. Subjects requiring elective or urgent coronary artery bypass grafting using cardiopulmonary bypass with use of ≥1 saphenous vein graft will be screened for enrollment using pre‐established inclusion/exclusion criteria. Enrolled subjects (planned N = 1150) will be randomized to 1 of the 2 arms (EVH or OVH) after an experienced vein harvester has been assigned. The primary outcomes measure is the rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization. Subject assessments will be performed at multiple times, including at baseline, intraoperatively, postoperatively, and at discharge (or 30 days after surgery, if still hospitalized). Assessment of leg‐wound complications will be completed at 6 weeks after surgery. Telephone follow‐ups will occur at 3‐month intervals after surgery until the participating sites are decommissioned after the trial's completion (approximately 4.5 years after the full study startup). To assess long‐term outcomes, centralized follow‐up of MACE for 2 additional years will be centrally performed using VA and non‐VA clinical and administrative databases. The primary MACE outcome will be compared between the 2 arms, EVH and OVH, at the end of the trial duration.