Pheromone Deployment Strategies for Mating Disruption of a Vineyard Mealybug.

The mealybug, Planococcus ficus (Signoret), is a primary vineyard pest in California and other grape-growing regions throughout the World. Mating disruption programs are commercially available to manage Pl. ficus, but widespread adoption has been limited, in part, by high costs compared with insecticide programs. To improve mating disruption economic effectiveness, different deployment technologies (passive, aerosol, and microencapsulated formulations) were individually examined. Adult male Pl. ficus captures in pheromone traps and categorical ratings of vine infestation or crop damage suggest that all deployment strategies lowered mealybug densities or damage. Using passive dispensers, deployment rates of 310 and 465 per ha lowered Pl. ficus crop damage similar to 615 per ha, a rate commonly used in commercial operations; reduced rates would lower product and deployment costs. Meso dispensers, containing more a.i., deployed at 35 per ha did not have a treatment impact, but a microencapsulated formulation and aerosol canisters lowered male flight captures and/or crop damage. Male mealybug flight activity was greatest from 0500-1100 hr, which coincided with temperatures >16° and <32°C. These restricted times and temperatures suggest programable dispensers might allow pheromone deployment to coincide only with flight patterns. A large field trial using passive dispensers found greater treatment separation after 3 yr of pheromone deployment. Discrepancies in results among vineyards may be related to Pl. ficus density, but combined results from all trials suggest that different deployment technologies can be used to impact Pl. ficus densities and damage, even at reduced rates, especially with continued use over multiple seasons.

Community recommendations on biobank governance: Results from a deliberative community engagement in California.

United States-based biorepositories are on the cusp of substantial change in regulatory oversight at the same time that they are increasingly including samples and data from large populations, e.g. all patients in healthcare system. It is appropriate to engage stakeholders from these populations in new governance arrangements. We sought to describe community recommendations for biorepository governance and oversight using deliberative community engagement (DCE), a qualitative research method designed to elicit lay perspectives on complex technical issues. We asked for stakeholders to provide input on governance of large biorepositories at the University of California (UC), a public university. We defined state residents as stakeholders and recruited residents from two large metropolitan areas, Los Angeles (LA) and San Francisco (SF). In LA, we recruited English and Spanish speakers; in SF the DCE was conducted in English only. We recruited individuals who had completed the 2009 California Health Interview Survey and were willing to be re-contacted for future studies. Using stratified random sampling (by age, education, race/ethnicity), we contacted 162 potential deliberants of whom 53 agreed to participate and 51 completed the 4-day DCE in June (LA) and September-October (SF), 2013. Each DCE included discussion among deliberants facilitated by a trained staff and simultaneously-translated in LA. Deliberants also received a briefing book describing biorepository operations and regulation. During the final day of the DCE, deliberants voted on governance and oversight recommendations using an audience response system. This paper describes 23 recommendations (of 57 total) that address issues including: educating the public, sharing samples broadly, monitoring researcher behavior, using informative consent procedures, and involving community members in a transparent process of biobank governance. This project demonstrates the feasibility of obtaining meaningful input on biorepository governance from diverse lay stakeholders. Such input should be considered as research institutions respond to changes in biorepository regulation.

EngageUC: Developing an Efficient and Ethical Approach to Biobanking Research at the University of California.

Biorepositories, or biobanks, provide researchers with access to biological samples and associated data in support of translational research. Efficient operation and ethical stewardship of biobanks involves coordinated efforts among multiple stakeholders including researchers who manage and use the repository, institutional officials charged with its oversight, and patients and volunteers who contribute samples and data. As advancements in translational research increasingly involve more data derived from larger numbers of diverse samples, the size and governance challenges facing biorepositories have grown. We describe an approach to developing efficient and ethical biobank governance that includes all major stakeholders. This model provides a pathway for addressing the technical and ethical challenges that must be resolved to ensure biorepositories continue to support translational research.

Gratitude buffers the adverse effect of viewing the thin ideal on body dissatisfaction.

Gratitude has robust associations with multiple aspects of well-being. However, little research has explored whether the psychological benefits of gratitude extend to body image. We used a repeated measures experimental design to test whether a brief period of grateful reflection would buffer the adverse effect of exposure to thin-ideal media. Female undergraduates (N=67) completed three sessions one week apart. The conditions were specifically designed to isolate (a) the effects of viewing thin models on body dissatisfaction and (b) the moderating effect of grateful contemplation. Results showed that body dissatisfaction scores were lower for women who engaged in a brief period of grateful contemplation before viewing photographs of thin models than for women who reflected upon life hassles before viewing the same photographs. The magnitude of this decrease depended on BMI. Gratitude offers an innovative direction for future research directed toward helping women to accept their bodies.

Guideline funding and conflicts of interest: article 4 in Integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report.

INTRODUCTION: Professional societies, like many other organizations around the world, have recognized the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that healthcare recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the fourth of a series of 14 articles prepared to advise guideline developers in respiratory and other disease. It focuses on commercial funding of guidelines and managing conflict of interest effectively in the context of guidelines. METHODS: In this review, we addressed the following topics and questions. (1) How are clinical practice guidelines funded? (2) What are the risks associated with commercial sponsorship of guidelines? (3) What relationships should guideline committee members be required to disclose? (4) What is the most efficient way to obtain complete and accurate disclosures? (5) How should disclosures be publicly shared? (6) When do relationships require management? (7) How should individual conflicts of interest be managed? (8) How could conflict of interest policies be enforced? The literature review included a search of PubMed and other databases for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. Our conclusions are based on available evidence, consideration of what guideline developers are doing, and workshop discussions. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Professional societies often depend on industry funding to support clinical practice guideline development. In addition, members of guideline committees frequently have financial relationships with commercial entities, are invested in their intellectual work, or have conflicts related to clinical revenue streams. No systematic reviews or other rigorous evidence regarding best practices for funding models, disclosure mechanisms, management strategies, or enforcement presently exist, but the panel drew several conclusions that could improve transparency and process.

Evaluation of monitoring traps with novel bait for navel orangeworm (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in California almond and pistachio orchards.

Experiments conducted in three almond, Prunus dulcis (Rosales: Rosaceae), orchards and three pistachio, Pistacia vera (Sapindales: Anicardiaceae), orchards in 2009 and 2010, and determined that sticky bottom wing traps baited with ground pistachio mummies, or a combination of ground pistachio plus ground almond mummies, trapped more adult female navel orangeworm, Amyelois transitella (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), than did traps baited with ground almond mummies alone. During both years of this study, 2.9 and 1.8 more moths were caught in traps baited with pistachio mummies compared with traps baited with almond mummies in almond orchards and pistachio orchards, respectively. Also, traps located in pistachio orchards caught 5.9 and 8.3 times more navel orangeworm than were trapped from almond orchards in 2009 and 2010, respectively. Implications for use of this novel baited trap in almond and pistachio orchard integrated pest management programs are discussed.

"It's not just what the doctor tells me:" factors that influence surrogate decision-makers' perceptions of prognosis.

OBJECTIVE: Physicians and surrogate decision-makers for seriously ill patients often have different views of patients' prognoses. We sought to understand what sources of knowledge surrogates rely on when estimating a patient's prognosis. DESIGN: Prospective, mixed-methods study using face-to-face, semistructured interviews with surrogate decision-makers. SETTING: Four intensive care units at the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center in 2006 to 2007. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 179 surrogate decision-makers for 142 incapacitated, critically ill patients at high risk for death. MAIN RESULTS: Less than 2% (3 of 179) of surrogates reported that their beliefs about the patients' prognoses hinged exclusively on prognostic information provided to them by physicians. The majority cited other factors in addition to physicians' predictions that also contributed to their beliefs about the patients' prognoses, including perceptions of the patient's individual strength of character and will to live; the patient's unique history of illness and survival; the surrogate's own observations of the patient's physical appearance; the surrogate's belief that their presence at the bedside may improve the prognosis; and the surrogate's optimism, intuition, and faith. For some surrogates, these other sources of knowledge superseded the importance of the physician's prognostication. However, most surrogates endeavored to balance their own knowledge of the patient with physicians' biomedical knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Surrogates use diverse types of knowledge when estimating their loved ones' prognoses, including individualized attributes of the patient, such as their strength of character and life history, of which physicians may be unaware. Attention to these considerations may help clinicians identify and overcome disagreements about prognosis.

Surrogate decision-makers' perspectives on discussing prognosis in the face of uncertainty.

RATIONALE: Many physicians are reluctant to discuss a patient's prognosis when there is significant prognostic uncertainty. OBJECTIVES: We sought to understand surrogate decision makers' views regarding whether physicians should discuss prognosis in the face of uncertainty. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 179 surrogates for 142 incapacitated patients at high risk of death in four intensive care units at an academic medical center. The interviews explored surrogates' attitudes about whether physicians should discuss prognosis when they cannot be certain their prognostic estimates are correct. We used constant comparative methods to analyze the transcripts. Validation methods included triangulation by multidisciplinary analysis and member checking. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-seven percent (155/179) of surrogates wanted physicians to discuss an uncertain prognosis. We identified five main reasons for this, including surrogates' belief that prognostic uncertainty is unavoidable, that physicians are their only source for prognostic information, and that discussing prognostic uncertainty leaves room for realistic hope, increases surrogates' trust in the physician, and signals a need to prepare for possible bereavement. Twelve percent (22/179) of surrogates felt that discussions about an uncertain prognosis should be avoided. The main explanation was that it is not worth the potential emotional distress if the prognostications are incorrect. Surrogates suggested that physicians should explicitly discuss uncertainty when prognosticating. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of surrogates of patients that are critically ill want physicians to disclose their prognostic estimates even if they cannot be certain they are correct. This stems from surrogates' belief that prognostic uncertainty is simultaneously unavoidable and acceptable.

Hope, truth, and preparing for death: perspectives of surrogate decision makers.

BACKGROUND: Although many physicians worry that openly discussing a poor prognosis will cause patients and families to lose hope, surrogate decision makers' perspectives on this topic are largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine surrogate decision makers' attitudes toward balancing hope and telling the truth when discussing prognosis. DESIGN: Prospective, mixed-methods cohort study. SETTING: 4 intensive care units at the University of California, San Francisco, Medical Center, San Francisco, California. PARTICIPANTS: 179 surrogate decision makers for incapacitated patients at high risk for death. MEASUREMENTS: One-on-one, semistructured interviews with surrogates were conducted on the patients' 5th day of receiving mechanical ventilation. Constant comparative methods were used to inductively develop a framework to describe participants' responses. Validation methods included multidisciplinary analysis and member checking. RESULTS: Overall, 93% (166 of 179) of surrogates felt that avoiding discussions about prognosis is an unacceptable way to maintain hope. The main explanatory theme was that timely discussion of prognosis is essential to allow family members to prepare emotionally and logistically for the possibility of a patient's death. Other themes that emerged included surrogates' belief that an accurate understanding of a patient's prognosis allows them to better support the patient and each other, a moral aversion to the idea of false hope, the perception that physicians have an obligation to discuss prognosis, and the notion that some surrogates look to physicians primarily for truth and seek hope elsewhere. A few surrogates (6 of 179) felt that physicians should withhold prognostic information because of a belief that discussing death could be emotionally damaging to the family or could negatively affect the patient's health. LIMITATION: The authors did not longitudinally assess whether early disclosure about prognosis predicts fewer adverse bereavement outcomes. CONCLUSION: Most surrogates of critically ill patients do not view withholding prognostic information as an acceptable way to maintain hope, largely because timely discussions about prognosis help families begin to prepare emotionally, existentially, and practically for the possibility that a patient will die.

Reporting science and conflicts of interest in the lay press.

BACKGROUND: Forthright reporting of financial ties and conflicts of interest of researchers is associated with public trust in and esteem for the scientific enterprise. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We searched Lexis/Nexis Academic News for the top news stories in science published in 2004 and 2005. We conducted a content analysis of 1152 newspaper stories. Funders of the research were identified in 38% of stories, financial ties of the researchers were reported in 11% of stories, and 5% reported financial ties of sources quoted. Of 73 stories not reporting on financial ties, 27% had financial ties publicly disclosed in scholarly journals. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Because science journalists often did not report conflict of interest information, adherence to gold-standard recommendations for science journalism was low. Journalists work under many different constraints, but nonetheless news reports of scientific research were incomplete, potentially eroding public trust in science.

Defining financial conflicts and managing research relationships: an analysis of university conflict of interest committee decisions.

Despite a decade of federal regulation and debate over the appropriateness of financial ties in research and their management, little is known about the actual decision-making processes of university conflict of interest (COI) committees. This paper analyzes in detail the discussions and decisions of three COI committees at three public universities in California. University committee members struggle to understand complex financial relationships and reconcile institutional, state, and federal policies and at the same time work to protect the integrity of the scientific process, the autonomy and intellectual freedom of their faculty colleagues and students, and the financial interests of the university.

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 4. Managing conflicts of interests.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the fourth of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed the literature on conflicts of interest to answer the following questions: 1. What is the best way to obtain complete and accurate disclosures on financial ties and other competing interests? 2. How to determine when a disclosed financial tie or other competing interest constitutes a conflict of interest? 3. When a conflict of interest is identified, how should the conflict be managed? 4. How could conflict of interest policies be enforced? METHODS: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Methodology Register and selectively searched for the published policies of several organizations, We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments. KEY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: What is the best way to obtain complete and accurate disclosures on financial ties and other competing interests? Although there is little empirical evidence to guide the development of disclosure forms, minimal or open-ended formats are likely to be uninformative. We recommend the development of specific, detailed, structured forms that solicit as much information as possible about the nature and extent of the competing interests. How to determine when a disclosed financial tie or other competing interest constitutes a conflict of interest?* There is no empirical evidence to suggest that explicit criteria are preferable to ad hoc committee decisions when deciding if a disclosed financial tie is a conflict of interest. However, explicit criteria may make decision-making easier. When a conflict of interest is identified, how should the conflict be managed? Descriptive studies suggest that appropriate management strategies are best determined on a case-by-case basis. Thus, WHO should use a wide range of management strategies to address disclosed conflicts of interest, with public disclosure of conflicts associated with each meeting as a minimum and recusal of conflicted individuals as the other extreme. How could conflict of interest policies be enforced? Although there are no empirical studies of the enforcement of conflict if interest policies, descriptive studies of other organizations and institutions suggest that WHO convene a standing committee to review all financial disclosure statements prior to the commencement of committee meetings/hearings and to make management recommendations when necessary. A standard policy requiring all financial ties to be made public (i.e., recorded into the meeting minutes) should reduce the number of problematic cases. In instances where the conflicts seem intractable, a recommendation of recusal may be necessary to protect the greater interests of WHO and its constituents.

Predictors of publication: characteristics of submitted manuscripts associated with acceptance at major biomedical journals.

OBJECTIVE: To identify characteristics of submitted manuscripts that are associated with acceptance for publication by major biomedical journals. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective cohort study of manuscripts reporting original research submitted to three major biomedical journals (BMJ and the Lancet [UK] and Annals of Internal Medicine [USA]) between January and April 2003 and between November 2003 and February 2004. Case reports on single patients were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Publication outcome, methodological quality, predictors of publication. RESULTS: Of 1107 manuscripts enrolled in the study, 68 (6%) were accepted, 777 (70%) were rejected outright, and 262 (24%) were rejected after peer review. Higher methodological quality scores were associated with an increased chance of acceptance (odds ratio [OR], 1.39 per 0.1 point increase in quality score; 95% CI, 1.16-1.67; P < 0.001), after controlling for study design and journal. In a multivariate logistic regression model, manuscripts were more likely to be published if they reported a randomised controlled trial (RCT) (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.21-4.80); used descriptive or qualitative analytical methods (OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.51-5.37); disclosed any funding source (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.01-3.60); or had a corresponding author living in the same country as that of the publishing journal (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.14-3.46). There was a non-significant trend towards manuscripts with larger sample size (>/= 73) being published (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 0.94-4.32). After adjustment for other study characteristics, having statistically significant results did not improve the chance of a study being published (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.34-1.96). CONCLUSIONS: Submitted manuscripts are more likely to be published if they have high methodological quality, RCT study design, descriptive or qualitative analytical methods and disclosure of any funding source, and if the corresponding author lives in the same country as that of the publishing journal. Larger sample size may also increase the chance of acceptance for publication.

Implementation of financial disclosure policies to manage conflicts of interest.

Amid concerns that clinical and basic research is increasingly vulnerable to pressure from industry sponsors, many federal agencies and professional organizations are recommending new or revised policies regardingfinancial disclosure and conflicts of interest. Despite pressure for greater external regulation and common professional standards, little is known about how existing policies are implemented. We analyze the implementation of conflict-of-interest policies within the multicampus University of California system. We show that there is variation among campuses in defining problematic relationships and in determining appropriate remedies to mitigate conflicts of interest. Our study suggests the importance of local culture and context for institutional decision making.

Conflicts of interest in academic research: policies, processes, and attitudes.

Few studies have examined academic researchers' understandings or attitudes toward conflict of interest policies even though these understandings and attitudes represent a crucial component of both compliance and educational efforts. This study reports the results of a large-scale, cross-sectional survey of research faculty at the nine campuses of the University of California regarding their understandings of and attitudes toward campus conflict of interest policies. We gathered information on their general assessments of investigators with financial ties to industry sponsors and reactions to the process of implementing conflict of interest policies at their respective campuses. We surveyed 1,971 faculty members from the nine-campus University of California system and had 779 responses (39% response rate). The sampled faculty were in the ten departments with the most number of financial disclosures at each campus. We utilized the WebSurveyor software to create a secure, online, 21-item survey. Our study reveals faculty with complex, sometimes contradictory, feelings about academic-industry relationships and highlights perceived gaps in policy and process. Most respondents were concerned about unlimited financial relationships, but a sizable number also viewed campus policies as irrelevant. Some expressed considerable anger over the process of policy implementation, rejecting the policies on the basis of professional and individual self-determination and moral integrity. Our study suggests the need for renewed efforts to encourage awareness of the relevance of conflict of interest policies for all faculty, new efforts to increase understanding of the situational nature of conflicts of interest, and reexamination of the processes of policy implementation at the campus level.

Financial conflict-of-interest policies in clinical research: issues for clinical investigators.

As industry sponsorship of clinical research grows, investigators' personal financial relationships with those sponsors are under increasing scrutiny. The federal government, some states, and many universities have enacted conflict-of-interest policies to monitor and regulate investigators' financial relationships. Little is known, however, about investigators' awareness of or support for these policies or their attitudes toward regulatory efforts. To explore the possible implications of conflict-of-interest policies for clinical researchers, the authors interviewed active clinical investigators at two institutions where the conflict-of-interest policies differ. The most striking feature of the interviews was the range of perceptions and attitudes expressed by clinical investigators and their implications for administrators, professional societies, and policymakers concerned with conflicts of interest. Fewer than half of the interviewed investigators could accurately describe their campus' conflict-of-interest policy. Many investigators felt that professional societies, the public, and individual investigators were appropriate monitors of conflicts of interest. Many investigators recognized the general risks associated with conflicts of interest, but felt that they personally were not at risk. A fundamental challenge facing administrators and policymakers is to demonstrate to all investigators, both clinical and nonclinical, that the potential for bias, pressure and conflict is relevant to all investigators with industry relationships.