Florence Rena Sabin (1871–1953), William Osler (1849–1919) and Tuberculosis

2005 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 162-169
Author(s):  
Charles F Wooley
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Department Head ◽  
Tuberculosis Control ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Rockefeller Institute ◽  
Johns Hopkins University ◽  
Woman Professor ◽  
William Osler ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Medical Intern

Florence Rena Sabin received her MD from the Johns Hopkins University in 1900. She was one of the first women to become a medical intern at Johns Hopkins and worked for the year of her internship (1900–01) under William Osler. At Johns Hopkins from y>1902 to 1925, Sabin studied embryology and histology with mentor Franklin Mall. She became the first woman professor of histology at an American school. Recruited to the Rockefeller Institute (1925), she focused on tuberculosis immunology, tubercle-bacillus biochemistry and haematology. She was the first woman department head at the Rockefeller and, in 1925, the first woman elected to the National Academy of Sciences. Settling in Colorado in 1938, she entered public health, emphasizing tuberculosis control. She received the Trudeau Award in 1945 and the Lasker Award in 1951. Her experience with tuberculosis under Osler's tutelage defined the shape of her work in basic tuberculosis research and in public health.

scholarly journals How a Nutritional Deficiency Became Treated with Fluoride

Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (12) ◽  
pp. 4361
Author(s):  
Philippe P. Hujoel
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Vitamin D ◽  
Medical Profession ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Professional Organizations ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Causes Of Disease ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Health Experts

Ignoring evidence on causes of disease such as smoking can harm public health. This report explores how public health experts started to ignore evidence that pediatric vitamin D deficiencies are associated with dental caries. Historical analyses show that an organization of clinical specialists, the American Dental Association (ADA), initiated this view. The ADA was a world-leading organization and its governing bodies worked through political channels to make fluoride a global standard of care for a disease which at the time was viewed as an indicator of vitamin D deficiencies. The ADA scientific council was enlisted in this endeavor and authorized the statement saying that “claims for vitamin D as a factor in tooth decay are not acceptable”. This statement was ghost-written, the opposite of what the ADA scientific council had endorsed for 15 years, and the opposite of what the National Academy of Sciences concluded. Internal ADA documents are informative on the origin of this scientific conundrum; the ADA scientific council had ignored their scientific rules and was assisting ADA governing bodies in conflicts with the medical profession on advertising policies. The evidence presented here suggests that professional organizations of clinical specialists have the power to create standards of care which ignore key evidence and consequently can harm public health.

Aspirin Use and Reye Syndrome

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 79 (6) ◽  
pp. 1049-1050
Author(s):  
RALPH E. KAUFFMAN ◽  
ROBERT J. ROBERTS
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Health Service ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Environmental Toxins ◽  
Reye Syndrome ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Metabolic Defects ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Service Task

The search for causes of Reye syndrome has resulted in colorful, if not controversial, incrimination of numerous factors including influenza, varicella, environmental toxins, aflotoxin, inherited metabolic defects, and various medications. Attempts to associate salicylates with Reye syndrome date from the 1960s1-3; most of these reports lacked sufficient design, conduct, or controls to implicate or exclude aspirin as a risk factor. Since 1980, several epidemiologic studies4-6 renewed concern and controversy regarding the role of aspirin in Reye syndrome. As a result, a Public Health Service Task Force was formed which culminated in the Centers for Disease Control/National Academy of Sciences pilot study7 which was designed to address the problems and shortcomings identified in the previous efforts to examine the role of aspirin as a causal factor in Reye syndrome.

scholarly journals Priority domains, aims, and testable hypotheses for implementation research: Protocol for a scoping review and evidence map

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan R. Garner ◽  
Sheila V. Patel ◽  
M. Alexis Kirk
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Implementation Science ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Implementation Research ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Evidence Map ◽  
Path Diagram ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Academy Of Sciences

Abstract Background The challenge of implementing evidence-based innovations within practice settings is a significant public health issue that the field of implementation research (IR) is focused on addressing. Significant amounts of funding, time, and effort have been invested in IR to date, yet there remains significant room for advancement, especially regarding IR’s development of scientific theories as defined by the National Academy of Sciences (i.e., a comprehensive explanation of the relationship between variables that is supported by a vast body of evidence). Research priority setting (i.e., promoting consensus about areas where research effort will have wide benefits to society) is a key approach to helping accelerate research advancements. Thus, building upon existing IR, general principles of data reduction, and a general framework for moderated mediation, this article identifies four priority domains, three priority aims, and four testable hypotheses for IR, which we organize in the priority aims and testable hypotheses (PATH) diagram. Methods The objective of this scoping review is to map the extent to which IR has examined the identified PATH priorities to date. Our sample will include IR published in leading implementation-focused journals (i.e., Implementation Science, Implementation Science Communications, and Implementation Research and Practice) between their inception and December 2020. The protocol for the current scoping review and evidence map has been developed in accordance with the approach developed by Arksey and O’Malley and advanced by Levac, Colquhoun, and O’Brien. Because scoping reviews seek to provide an overview of the identified evidence base rather than synthesize findings from across studies, we plan to use our data-charting form to provide a descriptive overview of implementation research to date and summarize the research via one or more summary tables. We will use the PATH diagram to organize a map of the evidence to date. Discussion This scoping review and evidence map is intended to help accelerate IR focused on suggested priority aims and testable hypotheses, which in turn will accelerate IR’s development of National Academy of Sciences-defined scientific theories and, subsequently, improvements in public health. Systematic review registration Open Science Framework https://osf.io/3vhuj/

scholarly journals Priority domains, aims, and testable hypotheses for implementation research: Protocol for a scoping review and evidence map

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan R Garner ◽  
Sheila Patel ◽  
M. Alexis Kirk
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Implementation Science ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Implementation Research ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Evidence Map ◽  
Path Diagram ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Academy Of Sciences

Abstract Background: The challenge of implementing evidence-based innovations within practice settings is a significant public health issue the field of implementation research (IR) is focused on addressing. Significant amounts of funding, time, and effort have been invested in IR to date, yet there remains significant room for advancement, especially regarding IR’s development of scientific theories as defined by the National Academy of Sciences (i.e., a comprehensive explanation of the relationship between variables that is supported by a vast body of evidence). Research priority setting (i.e., promoting consensus about areas where research effort will have wide benefits to society) is a key approach to helping accelerate research advancements. Thus, building upon existing IR, general principles of data reduction, and a general framework for moderated mediation, this article identifies four priority domains, three priority aims, and four testable hypotheses for IR, which we organize in the priority aims and testable hypotheses (PATH) diagram..Methods: The objective of this scoping review is to map the extent to which IR has examined the identified PATH priorities to date. Our sample will include IR published in leading implementation-focused journals (i.e., Implementation Science, Implementation Science Communications, and Implementation Research and Practice) between their inception and December 2020. The protocol for the current scoping review and evidence map has been developed in accordance with the approach developed by Arksey & O’Malley and advanced by Levac, Colquhoun, and O’Brien. Because scoping reviews seek to provide an overview of the identified evidence base rather than synthesize findings from across studies, we plan to use our data-charting form to provide a descriptive overview of implementation research to-date and summarize the research via one or more summary tables. We will use the PATH diagram to organize a map of the evidence to date.Discussion: This scoping review and evidence map is intended to help accelerate IR focused on suggested priority aims and testable hypotheses, which in turn will accelerate IR’s development of National Academy of Sciences-defined scientific theories and, subsequently, improvements in public health.Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/3vhuj/

The Pathology Residency Program of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine: A Model of Its Kind

2015 ◽  
Vol 139 (3) ◽  
pp. 400-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrizio Caturegli ◽  
Edward F. McCarthy ◽  
J. Brooks Jackson ◽  
Ralph H. Hruban
Keyword(s):  
Residency Program ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
Academic Career ◽  
Medical Schools ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
School Of Medicine ◽  
Johns Hopkins University ◽  
Study Of Medicine ◽  
History Of ◽  
Academy Of Sciences

Context The Department of Pathology of the Johns Hopkins University pioneered in the late 19th century the application of the scientific method to the study of medicine and fostered the development of residency training programs. Objective To trace the history of the Johns Hopkins Pathology Residency Program and assess with quantifiable outcomes the performance of former residents. Design We reviewed archival and departmental records from September 1899 to June 2014 to create a database of pathology residents. We then analyzed resident in-service examinations, American Board of Pathology examinations, and career paths. Results In 115 years the department trained 555 residents who came from 133 medical schools located in 23 countries. Residents performed well on the in-service examinations, obtaining mean scaled total scores that were significantly better (P = .02) than those of the national peer groups. Residents (371 of 396, 94%) passed their boards typically at the first attempt, a percentage pass that was higher than the national average for both anatomic (P < .001) and clinical (P = .002) pathology. Approximately half of the residents went into private practice, whereas a third followed an academic career. Of the latter group, 124 (75%) became professors of pathology, 31 (19%) chairs of pathology departments, 10 (6%) deans of medical schools, 5 (3%) were elected into the National Academy of Sciences, and 1 won the Nobel prize. Conclusions While maintaining its original core values, the Johns Hopkins Pathology Residency Program has trained physicians to be outstanding researchers, diagnosticians, and leaders in pathology.

scholarly journals Priority domains, aims, and testable hypotheses for implementation research: Protocol for a scoping review and evidence map

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan R Garner ◽  
Sheila Patel ◽  
M. Alexis Kirk
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Implementation Science ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Implementation Research ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Evidence Map ◽  
Path Diagram ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Academy Of Sciences

Abstract Background: The challenge of implementing evidence-based innovations within practice settings is a significant public health issue the field of implementation research (IR) is focused on addressing. Significant amounts of funding, time, and effort have been invested in IR to date, yet there remains significant room for advancement, especially regarding IR’s development of scientific theories as defined by the National Academy of Sciences (i.e., a comprehensive explanation of the relationship between variables that is supported by a vast body of evidence). Research priority setting (i.e., promoting consensus about areas where research effort will have wide benefits to society) is a key approach to helping accelerate research advancements. Thus, building upon existing IR, general principles of data reduction, and a general framework for moderated mediation, this article identifies four priority domains, three priority aims, and four testable hypotheses for IR, which we organize in the priority aims and testable hypotheses (PATH) diagram..Methods: The objective of this scoping review is to map the extent to which IR has examined the identified PATH priorities to date. Because Implementation Science is the leading journal for publishing IR and receives over 800 submissions annually, our sample will include IR (specifically, original research articles and short reports) published in Implementation Science between its inception in 2006 and December 2019. The protocol for the current scoping review and evidence map has been developed in accordance with the approach developed by Arksey & O’Malley and advanced by Levac, Colquhoun, and O’Brien. Because scoping reviews seek to provide an overview of the identified evidence base rather than synthesize findings from across studies, we plan to use our data-charting form to provide a descriptive overview of implementation research to-date and summarize the research via one or more summary tables. We will use the PATH diagram to organize a map of the evidence to date.Discussion: This scoping review and evidence map is intended to help accelerate IR focused on suggested priority aims and testable hypotheses, which in turn will accelerate IR’s development of National Academy of Sciences-defined scientific theories and, subsequently, improvements in public health.Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/3vhuj/

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document