APAP Committee Report, April 18, 2002
Committee Name: APAP Research and Review Committee
Committee Chair: Rick Dehn, MPA, PA-C
Current Activities:
--Review of survey instruments utilized for surveying APAP member programs, faculty, or students is ongoing.
--Peer-review of the APAP Research Institute small grant program applications as needed per grant cycle (ongoing).
--Peer-review of proposals for faculty research presentations for October conferences as needed (ongoing).
--Peer-review of proposals for research poster presentations as needed (ongoing).
--Discussions continue to be held with NCCPA about cooperation with research activities. The R&R Chair (Rick Dehn) has been appointed to the NCCPA Research Committee and attended the NCCPA Research Committee meeting in March 2002 and is scheduled to attend the September 2002 meeting in Atlanta to discuss and refine the cooperative grant process for next year. Three R&R members again joined with three NCCPA Research Committee members to review proposals for the spring 2002 NCCPA/APAP research grant cycle, which is expect to conclude next week. This is expected to be an ongoing process.
--The Research and Review Committee again conducted the J.Peter Nyquist Student Writing Contest this year (ongoing). I. Keir Todd, MEd, PA-C, from Central Michigan University PA Program, again administered the competition. JAAPA is again generously sponsoring the awards of cash prizes, transportation, and lodging for the winners. This is an annually occurring ongoing activity.
--The committee is planning an add-on day dedicated to “Research in the PA Profession” for October 2002 APAP meeting directed at showcasing the research done on the PA profession, including work done by non-PA researchers who research the PA profession. Rod Hooker is responsible for suggesting this proposal and submitting it to APAP staff.
--The Research and Review Committee Chair has in the past few years worked in cooperation with the Education Committee to review research-oriented workshop proposals for APAP meetings, and at this time the process appears to be an ongoing activity (see further discussion of this issue below in Concerns section).
Completion dates: As above
Accomplishments/Success Stories:
--Development of objective criteria for accepting/rejecting survey instruments was completed May 2000 and posted on committee's web site at http://paprogram.medicine.uiowa.edu/randr. The process of reviewing surveys is intended to avoid duplication in surveys, improve the quality of research done on the PA education system, and to prevent "survey burnout" that would negatively impact all of our research efforts. The new criterion and mechanism appear to be working as expected. Since last October 2001, 7 surveys have been approved with two others currently in suggested revisions, and the R&R Chair has directed several potential researchers to existing data that addresses their research questions. Two researchers outside of APAP were rudely informed by their APAP subjects that their survey needed approval, so we have been interacting with non-APAP researchers, some who are not happy that they must submit to yet another approval process. A process of informing potential PA researchers outside of APAP that approval is needed to research PA education is needed, and this committee will continue to look for solutions to this problem
--This year's J. Peter Nyquist PA Student Writing Contest received nearly 70 submissions, and the winners have be chosen. J. Peter Nyquist PA Student Writing Contest Subcommittee Chair Keir Todd would like to thank all who served as reviewers, as well as JAAPA for underwriting this award. The winners are:
First Place: Polypharmacy: A Prominent yet Preventable Geriatric Problem by Paul Talarico, Larry Nilsson, Laura Carlson, Augsburg College.
Second Place: Etiological Perspectives and Treatment Methods of Childhood Nocturnal Enuresis by Dara M. Wisnieski, Union College.
Third Place: The Use of Acupuncture in the Treatment and Prevention of Migraine Headaches by Sharon Kaden, UMDNJ/Rutgers.
The Research and Review Committee would like to thank all who contributed to the support of the student writing contest.
--There is an increase in the number of original papers and abstracts presented at the October 2001 APAP meeting as well as an increase in the size of the audience. An additional hour was added to this year’s allocation of time for faculty paper presentations. Since on of APAP’s missions is to provide a venue for faculty advancement as well as dissemination of PA education information, it is proposed that two 2-hour faculty research presentation sessions (four hours total) be allocated for Fall 2002.
--The Research and Review Committee closed list serve is currently in use. It appears to be useful in allowing members to discuss committee issues as they come up rather than twice a year at meetings. The Research and Review Committee web site (http://paprogram.medicine.uiowa.edu/randr) has been successful at keeping the survey review and grant activities organized and available to the public. The survey review section provides submission guidelines as well as a list of all approved surveys, while the grants sections provide links to guidelines for each of our grant processes as well as a listing of submitted and funded proposals in each cycle.
--The Research and Review Committee has been providing unsuccessful grant authors feedback on their proposals starting with the Spring 2001 cycle.
--In anticipation of the restructuring of APAP's committee system, Research and Review Committee activities are being delegated to smaller task-focused subcommittees. Typically these committees will contain 3-6 members and will require a substantial work commitment for a limited period of time. The first attempt at this process was a subcommittee formed to re-write the small grants guidelines, and it has since been utilized for the NCCPA research reviews in the Spring of 2001 and 2002, and the Fall 2001 Research Institute small research review process. The intent is to develop a cadre of experienced subcommittee members for each activity in order to foster institution memory and stability in ongoing processes, and to compartmentalize the work demands on volunteers to predictable times. So far these experiments in organization appear to be quite successful and will be continued/expanded.
--NCCPA has appointed two new members to the NCCPA/APAP Research Grant review subcommittee. Elaine Grant and George Thomas will join co-chair Emil Petrusa in representing NCCPA, and last year’s APAP representatives Bill Tozier, Pat Kelly, and co-chair Rick Dehn will again serve. Emil Petrusa and Rick Dehn will again serve as co-chairs. NCCPA will contribute $20,000 for the spring research grant cycle, with awards to be presented at the May 2002 meeting in Boston. NCCPA should be recognized for its generous support of PA research. Nineteen proposals were received in the 2002 cycle, and have been ranked by the committee. The committee will determine next week which proposals will be funded.
--Poster presentations displayed at the October 2001 APAP meeting in Albuquerque were invited without further peer review for display at AAPA May 2002 conference under an agreement with CSAC. It is projected that allowing APAP poster presenters to also display at the May AAPA meeting without additional peer review will encourage greater participation in APAP’s poster activities and increase the number of ways PA faculty can participate in activities related to promotion and tenure.
--The APAP BOD approved a proposal to change the name of the J. Peter Nyquist competition to the APAP student writing award, where one of the specific awards (likely first place) will be named the J. Peter Nyquist Award. This change will be implemented for the 2003 competition.
Concerns:
--APAP member faculty are responding to increasing pressure due to the demands of promotion and tenure, likely due to the conversion of programs to awarding advanced degrees. Since participation in professional academic activities on a national level is typically part of academic promotion and tenure processes, this committee has seen a sharp increase in the number of proposals for presentation of original work. In order to effectively provide for our members' needs in this area, APAP will need to provide adequate time and resources for faculty presentation activities since APAP is one of the few national venues available to PA faculty where this can be done. As one variation of how to accomplish this, a poster-presentation option was revived for the Fall 2001 conference, although the number of submission was underestimated. In response to the unprecedented number of faculty presentation submissions, an extra hour of faculty presentation time was scheduled for the Fall 2001 meeting. This trend is likely to increase; therefore next year more time should be scheduled at the October meeting for faculty presentation, and plans should be made for a larger number of poster displays. In anticipation of next year's demand, four hours of presentation time should be allocated, as well as room for up to 12 posters. Beyond the Fall 2002 conference, this trend is likely to continue, so APAP will need to devise ways to accommodate member PA faculty demand for presentation of original work.
--This committee has found it difficult to plan and implement research curriculum at APAP meetings. This is due to this committee’s duties and responsibilities in this area overlapping with those of the Education Committee. For example, the Research Track presented at the October 2001 meeting took three years to bring to our member because it was derailed in 1999 and 2000 by this committee overlap. Similar problems of overlapping committee responsibilities have occurred with other R&R activities such as paper and abstract presentations as well as the poster presentation. This structural problem works to the detriment of this committee being able to offer research resources to the APAP membership, and thus should be addressed by the BOD. As faculty are subjected to more traditional promotion and tenure demands associated with graduate-level education, it is likely the member PA faculty demand for research-oriented curriculum will increase at a greater rate that for other curriculum, therefore a long-term solution to this problem should be considered.
--This year’s J. Peter Nyquist competition included several original research studies masquerading as writing submissions. As part of APAP’s support of developing the profession’s future research community, we should also encourage the development of research interest and skills in our student population. As the number of programs that require this type of project from their students increases, APAP should create a mechanism for showcasing the best research done at the student level.
--At the March 2002 NCCPA Cluster Meetings, the NCCPA Research Committee made a formal request to present data about their testing results to the APAP membership. Time needs to be allocated at the Fall 2002 APAP meeting to accommodate this request. This introduces the issue of how to manage requests by PA groups closely allied to APAP that would like to present their research data that may be of interest to APAP members.
Budget Issues:
--The Spring NCCPA/APAP research grant will have a $25,000 contribution to APAP to administer $20,000 for Year 2002 awards.
--APAP staff administered the funding ($6000 from JAAPA) for the J. Peter Nyquist Student Writing Contest for the first time in 2001, and similar funding is proposed for this year’s competition.
--$20,000 will be required to fund the APAP Research Institute Research Grants fall 2002 cycle.
--The committee is planning an add-on day dedicated to “Research in the PA Profession” for the October 2002 APAP meeting directed at showcasing all the research done on the PA profession, which is to be funded by an additional registration fee and possibly some outside grant money.
Board Action Required: The Research and Review Committee will likely send proposals to the BOD at the May 2002 meeting that need attention:
--At the October 2001 APAP BOD meeting the Research and Review Committee requested that additional time at the fall conferences be dedicated to individual faculty presentations and poster presentations. Specifically four hours was requested for paper and abstract presentations. This proposal was defeated, and a motion was made to study the larger issue of conference curriculum at future BOD meetings. The Research and Review Committee requests again that the board resolve this issue of conflicts with the Education Committee over time allocations that seriously limit the conference resources available for research activities (which also includes the issue of research skills workshops directed at APAP membership). It is anticipated that faculty demands for paper and abstract presentations as well as poster submissions will increase significantly as graduate level education becomes the norm in PA education, and that faculty will desire more research-oriented curriculum at future conferences, therefore conflicts inherent in this process will likely only intensify in the future if not addressed.
--The Research and Review Committee requests that APAP establish a student research award to be given annually at either the fall or spring meetings, and that development of this award be moved forward so that a funding source can be found.
--The NCCPA Research Committee has formally requested time at the Fall 2002 APAP meeting to present data on their testing experiences. The Research and Review Committee requests that time be allocated at the Fall 2002 meeting for NCCPA research staff to make a presentation.
--Additionally, the committee asks the board to support the add-on day dedicated to showcasing research in the profession and to direct the staff to work with Rod Hooker to implement it.