Christine May, Ph.D.

Are you struggling to gain confidence and overcome self-doubt in your medical writing career? Today in Write Medicine’s Monday Mentor, we tackle the common challenges CME writers face in today's rapidly changing landscape. From navigating client expectations to proving your value as a strategic partner, we share practical tips to help you thrive as a medical writer. Join me to discover how to: ➡️ Shift your mindset from self-doubt to expert ➡️ Communicate effectively with clients to clarify project scope and expectations ➡️ Advocate for your value in driving content strategy And more! Tune in to learn powerful strategies for conquering self-doubt and mastering your role as a CME writer: https://lnkd.in/gqu9DiE7 #medicalwriting #CMEwriter #selfdoubt

6

2 Comments

Q about healthtech panels: Is it time to include folks with lived experience? Background: I saw an invite for a panel about how to use digital health products to address a particular set of health conditions. The folks included were accomplished, "industry-leading experts." And while I don't doubt that they would have useful, knowledgeable things to share, there's a part of me that feels I would get a better understanding of what "it's actually like" from someone with that condition. ❓ How have they navigated digital health solutions? ❓ How do those compare to navigating the central healthcare system? ❓ Was it useful to have digital health resources? ❓ Where did they fall short? ❓ What else can we do to meaningfully support folks with those conditions? Maybe it's partly because it's still weirdly taboo to be an "industry expert" and speak about lived healthcare experience. Maybe it's because folks that need to be in the room to provide the lived experience voice aren't there. Maybe it's because I'm coming to terms with my own navigation of professional + lived experience sharing. 🤔 Either way, as I consider future panels, I'll consider how well the "health" part of healthtech is actually represented. #HealthTech #HealthCare #ChronicIllness

57

20 Comments

⭐ 🔎 Let's talk about VIRB 🔍 ⭐ If your project requires approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB), you're in luck! An IRB is a research oversight body that prioritizes the protection of research subjects. By reviewing human-subject research proposals and protocols, IRBs prevent malpractice and ensure that research is done to the highest ethical standard. This crucial step in research can often be time-consuming and costly. VIRB was designed to provide our partners with all the advantages of an IRB at a more affordable price point than many other options out there. With VIRB, you can ensure that your research prioritize the well-being of participates, no matter the funding or timeline constraints you face. To learn more about how VIRB can benefit your project, visit our website or reach out to us directly. We're eager to connect with you and discuss how we can support your research endeavors. >> https://lnkd.in/gxJEXfFv

5

Last week, Katherine Grill, PhD Grill posted some questions sparking an awesome discussion within our community about best practices for reporting clinical outcomes in mental health tech. It was so energizing to see respected colleagues, industry experts and others freely sharing their experiences and insights around this important topic. I found myself trying to summarize the great takeaways and thought I might as well do it here. The perspectives shared highlighted several key themes: Meaningful engagement: Include affective/cognitive metrics. Meaningful engagement is a nuanced, multi-stakeholder challenge with no straightforward definition. Utilization metrics alone are insufficient - affective/cognitive metrics are needed for complete picture. Perspectives differ across stakeholders (Valerie Hoffman) Dosage transparency: Be transparent. Transparency is needed from companies on expected usage for stated benefits (Erin Berenz). Ideal dosage is unclear and varies by product/service. High individual variability in stressors/needs makes universal dosing recs difficult. Dose-response patterns depend on the population (general, cancer, kids, etc). Nuanced retention: Recognize retention as a poorly understood metric misleadingly conflated with success (Eliane Boucher, PhD). Auto-renewal subscriptions ≠ true engaged usage (Lindsay Ayearst, PhD). Prioritize demonstrating tangible real-world positive impact on symptoms, functioning, QOL over retention alone (Michele M.) . Expect differing retention patterns across populations and consider short-term versus long-term product value (LaToya Hinton, Ph.D.) Comprehensive reporting: Go beyond just primary symptom reduction. Examine related behavioral, mental health and user characteristics outcomes (age, race/ethnicity, etc). Define "clinically significant change" in understandable, relatable terms for audiences. (Leslie Rubin, PhD) Accessible communication: Communicate in a way that resonates with each audience. Use robust statistical tests, but avoid inaccessible jargon. Use simple language (Clark McKown). Pair with quantitative data with qualitative user insights for a fuller picture (Smriti Joshi). In Summary: ✔️ No universal approach - nuanced based on audience ✔️ Balance scientific rigor with accessibility ✔️ Prioritize clinical significance, meaningful engagement, real-world impact ✔️ Incorporate user voices to humanize data ✔️ Visuals aid communication of complex info ✔️ Cross-disciplinary collaboration is crucial

33

13 Comments

This will be an issue in healthcare across the board, even with retrieval-augmented generation LLMs that are highly curated and regularly updated. https://lnkd.in/eG6wnM23

7

Question for my network: how do you evaluate your digital health and health tech initiatives? Do you use any frameworks or services, etc? I am not one of those "tech can solve everything" people, but I do think it is a primary enabler for the future of health, equity, and "doing more with less" since we can't seem to magically triple our workforce or funding for it. Digital Health initiatives have been a little willy nilly and certainly aren't a silver bullet. But—for that reason, more and more attention is now being given to both evaluating digital health/health tech initiatives (finally!), AND bringing the health equity lens into their development/implementation (heck yes!) For the latter, I was interested to read the development of this Digital Health Equity-Focused Implementation Research (DH-EquIR) model! This framework outlines how you might start to integrate considerations of health equity into the implementation of your digital health technologies. Key takeaways: 👏 Inclusive Design: Technologies must be accessible and culturally sensitive, designed with input from diverse communities. 👏 Equity-Focused Planning: Integrate health equity considerations at every stage to reduce disparities. 👏 Continuous Evaluation: Monitor and adapt interventions to meet the needs of underserved populations. 👏 Sustainability: Ensure financial sustainability and interoperability for long-term success. 👏 Collaboration: Engage stakeholders from all sectors to drive impactful health solutions. It is promising to see health equity being promoted through thoughtful and inclusive digital health solutions designed to meet people where their real challenge is at, and I recognize that tech, people, and workflows go ✋in ✋ Frameworks like this are helpful as directional guidance to start with. I am also seeing a lot of "Digital Determinants of Health" crop up, though still meaning different things by different groups. Source: Construction of the Digital Health Equity Focused Implementation Research Conceptual Model - Bridging the Divide Between Equity-focused Digital Health and Implementation Research (https://buff.ly/3RbWmDQ) ----------------------------- (AI was used to generate this strange and misshapen/spelled image, but I actually kind of liked it!!)

3

“There is an evaluation crisis in mobile health.” That’s the first sentence of an abstract that caught my eye this week—and the review was so insightful that it kept me reading every word. “The majority of mHealth apps are released with little evidence base.” Preacher, meet choir. Here are a few of the topics from the scoping review (link in comments) that I think are the most spot-on: 1. Partnerships: When companies and academic institutions team up, BOTH sides need to get value. To make sure that happens, you need a scientist who has navigated things like IPs, MOUs, and understands the importance of research yielding evidence that makes sense for the business. 2. You don’t necessarily need a full-time scientist: Even early-stage startups can conduct research studies without full-time scientists. One of my clients, still working on getting investment, has been working with a commercial IRB to analyze and use their data for research and reporting. My team has developed and restructured their patient assessments, and we’ll run preliminary data to create reports for potential investors. 3. Research matters at all stages: No matter where companies are in their growth plan, they can make significant contributions to research. I've helped pre-seed startups design pilot studies and guided Series B companies through full-scale RCTs. Science can (and should) happen at every stage. The key is tuning into the necessary design and resources to make it happen. 4. RCTs are achievable (yes, I mean for you): The review found RCTs are feasible across all company stages. RCTs are doable, even if they’re not the first step. But you don’t need RCTs right away- there's a lot of science that can be done before it’s time for an RCT. Don’t let the big players with deep pockets make you think that science is just for them- it’s for every digital health startup that wants to matter. #DigitalHealth #FractionalCSO #IndustryScience

42

6 Comments

As we close out #AAPIHeritageMonth and start #Pride, some data on the specific health challenges faced by AAPI LGBTQ+ people. https://lnkd.in/ePaiZS99

2

Why is disaggregating health data important for everyone, not just a few? 🧐 Overly broad classifications often create gaps in how health data is collected and analyzed. For example, the commonly used "Asian American" demographic combines Chinese, Filipino, Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese, and South Asian communities. This aggregation often obscures significant health disparities between these socially and culturally distinct groups. This recent article explores how detailed, subgroup-specific health data can lead to better healthcare outcomes for everyone. Check it out here: https://lnkd.in/e8PiGuk4 Weill Cornell Medicine Cornell Executive MBA/MS in Healthcare Leadership Dhruv Khullar Neil Lewis, Jr. Elise Hu Tae-Youn Park Riyana Bilimoria Elaine Lin Hering Swathi Tadepalli Rohit Mali Priya Nalkur, Ed.D. Jamila Michener Sri Lekha Tummalapalli Pragya Kakani William Schpero Jaideep Prabhu Shital Sharma, DPM, FACFAS Cary Gross Waleed Javaid MD, FACP, FIDSA, FSHEA Jigar Thakkar, MBA, FACHE Reema Shah Nija Patel PT, DPT, GCS Nichele Nivens MD, FAAFP, FCUCM Julia Joseph Kerri Winston, PhD, MBA, MS #Diversity #Healthcare #Equity

22

2 Comments

This is a very interesting report focused on the use of #immersivetechnology, like #virtualreality, in the #healthcare sector. The goal of the work is to help those in healthcare (including providers, built environment experts, and policy makers) to: 1.     Advocate for the benefits of #XR as a means to innovate health and social care 2.     Increase debate and dialog across networks of expertise to create health-promoting environments 3.     Understand the overriding priorities in making effective pathways to the implementation of #XR. This research is unique in its methodology that includes literature review but also semi-structured interviews. The unique nature of this work really pays off in the knowledge gained. The authors conclude that: (a)   both built environment and healthcare sectors can benefit from the various capabilities of XR through cross-sectional initiatives, evidence-based practices, and participatory approaches. (b)   a confluence of knowledge and methods of HCI and HBI can increase the interoperability and usability of #XR for the patient-centered and value-based healthcare models. (c)    the XR-enabled technological regime will largely affect the new forms of value in healthcare premises by fostering more decentralized, preventive, and #therapeutic characteristics in the future healthcare ecosystems. Great insights!

44

2 Comments

All communities should be seen, heard, and acknowledged. Disaggregated data allows for the ability to leverage nuances in health outcomes into solutions for improved health care and wellbeing for all. This is especially true for all vulnerable or visibly neglected ethnic and minority groups. By increasing the data categories related to race, ethnicity, and culture we can better capture and increase visibility of the needs of Asian American and Pacific Islander communities. Through improved community engagement and data collection we can improve data quality and further research and care initiatives #datadisaggregation #AANHPI #healthequity #communityengagement

5

Counter-intuitive tip of the day for science or clinical folks: don’t assume that health or mental health companies value science more than other industries!!! I often mentor younger behavioral scientists or clinical psychologists moving into industry. I have worked in-house and consulted at many companies from startups to pharma to big tech to- you name it- across industries like healthcare, DTx, game design and publishing; board games and toys, AI, wealth advising, tech, streaming, wearables and beyond. So I have seen the many ways in which science is positioned, integrated, valued, or marginalized. While one would hope that certain industries like health and mental health (and their digital versions) would inherently value science and utilize data and science in their decision making, this is simply not the case. I have seen tremendous appreciation for and utilization of science in places one might not expect. I have also seen appalling disregard of science for political or business needs at places where it is truly unethical to do so. This has been a topic I have been discussing with a mentee recently who is job hunting. While it’s unfortunate, we must all remind ourselves that no matter the industry, we cannot assume that science is valued at any company. It takes a lot of due diligence and sometimes just experience to figure this out. I also have many friends in my circle here who have dealt with bullshit from companies who should know better. I’ve heard them talk about fighting the good fight but ultimately leaving because they could not change things- but they have no ability to speak out. I’m not sure how we change this… but I think we must. #behavioralscience #startups #digitalhealth #mentalhealth #dtx #behavioralhealth

55

9 Comments

My key takeaways from 3 days of learning with Lasa Health during the National Science Foundation (NSF) Innovation Corps kickoff: ✅ A strong #valueproposition is crucial for selling your #healthtech product. Your ideal target customer doesn’t really care about the technical details of your product: they want to hear about the outcomes they can achieve by using it. 😫 Your product’s value prop must address key customer pain points. Focus on critical problems that lack existing solutions: this will make your solution irresistible to prospective clients. 😵‍💫 Don’t marry your ideas or your tech. If your current solution doesn’t resonate with your ideal customers, be ready to pivot and adapt based on customer feedback. 👂🏾Never assume you know what your customer is thinking. No matter how well you think you know what they are going to say, they’ll often surprise you. Listen carefully and avoid making assumptions. (Fellow #clinicians: does any of that #business jargon sound oddly familiar to you? That’s because #healthcareproviders think like this all day, every day. We listen, pivot, and focus on outcomes.) #femtech founders, innovators, and teams: this is your reminder to stay laser-focused on the outcomes that matter to your future clients. If you build it, they won’t just come: you have to show them why you’ll make their work better, faster, stronger. 💪🏽 #clinicalconsultant #womenshealth #lgbtqhealth #startup #medicalinnovation #consulting #mentor ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hey there! I’m Dr. Caitlyn Tivy, a clinical consultant and medical writer for women’s and LGBTQ+ health companies. I help femtech and queer health organizations develop scientifically accurate information and products. Ready to take your femtech or queer health company to the next level? Let’s connect! ♀ 🏳️‍🌈

16

6 Comments

Frameworks for procurement, integration, monitoring, and evaluation of artificial intelligence tools in clinical settings Here is a great resource by Mark Sendak and team just published in PLOS Digital health: https://lnkd.in/eeM743wG The use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools has seen exponential growth in multiple industries, over the past few years. Despite this, the implementation of these tools in healthcare settings is lagging with less than 600 AI tools approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration. In this systematic review, the authors organize and synthesize data and themes from published literature regarding key aspects of AI tool implementation; namely procurement, integration, monitoring and evaluation and map the extracted themes on to the Plan-Do-Study-Act framework. They found that currently the majority of literature on AI implementation in healthcare settings focuses on the “Plan” and “Study” domains with considerably less emphasis on the “Do” and “Act” domains. This is perhaps the reason why experts currently cite the implementation of AI tools in healthcare settings as challenging. Furthermore, the current AI healthcare landscape has poor representation from low and lower-middle-income countries. To ensure, the healthcare industry is able to implement AI tool into clinical workforce, across a variety of settings globally, we call for diverse and inclusive collaborations, coupled with further research targeted on the under-investigated stages of AI implementation. I discuss aspects of this research in my Keynotes Demystifying and Destigmatising AI in healthcare (see https://lnkd.in/eQRVjtKV). #AIinhealthcare #SAMD #ArtificialIntellgence #digitalhealth #healthtech #implementation

21

I am honored and excited be a part of the 10th Annual BRAIN Initiative Conference! If you know me at all you know that commercialization and overcoming barriers to get groundbreaking technology to the people who need it most are what drive me. I look forward to learning from my fellow panelists and discussing my favorite topic. #studyBRAIN #NIH #SBIR

10

*carnival barker energy commence* ➡️ Come one, come all! ➡️ Step right up, step right up! ➡️ Don't be shy, there’s plenty of fun for everyone! ➡️ See the unbelievable, the unimaginable, right here! Should be a fascinating webinar and while there are no giant stuffies to be won (there should totally be a giant winnable bear), if you find me at #DIA next month and ask me about OM1 there will be some delicious fluffy cookies 😜. #ClinicalResearch #RealWorldResearch #RealWorldData #RWD #RealWorldEvidence #RWE #EHR #BigData #MachineLearning #ML #AIML #WomenInSTEM

4

🙏 Last year, Bjorn Westgard and I had the honor of co-leading a project on the topic of patient-centered digital care for chronic conditions, made possible through partnerships between HealthPartners Institute, Antonia Apolinario-Wilcoxon, Ed. D, our Community Advisory Council for Research and Evaluation, and the Eugene Washington Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Engagement Award program. 🤝 We brought together patients, community members, researchers, and health care workers through discussion groups, surveys, and two large multi-stakeholder virtual convenings. Together, we unpacked the meaning of patient-centered care in a digital era and defined a set of recommendations to researchers and health care systems about how to assess the patient-centeredness and equity impacts of digital care strategies. 📽 We also had the exciting opportunity to work with Free Country Media to produce a 17-minute short film about patient-centered digital care. The film features the stories and perspectives of five patients, community leaders and advocates, and health care workers about how digital strategies affect the most vulnerable patients. The film has been submitted to APHA’s Public Health Film Festival, held in Minneapolis this October as part of the annual meeting. 💻 You can now access the materials and film at bit.ly/hpi-digitalcare. 💪 Thank you to all who made this project possible. We are all designing the future! Let's keep pushing for a future of equity and patient-centered care. Learn about the Community Advisory Council here: https://lnkd.in/gakNi8wR #patientcenteredcare #patientcentereddigitalcare #digitalcare #equity #accessibility #digitalaccessibility #a11y #PCORI #engagement

21

4 Comments

It was a pleasure to listen to Judd Antin, Dave Hora, and Christiana Lackner discuss “The Future of UX”  with Erin May and Carol Guest on User Interviews’ Awkward Silences podcast. One portion of the conversation focused on aligning user experience research with organizational aims and constraints. Such conversations appear to be occurring a lot in the UX field today, or at least they are amplified as of late. I find this surprising. When I transitioned into “industry” from academic industry I heard a lot about biases against academics due to a perceived lack of business acumen and understanding of organizational aims, constraints, and limitations. That biased perception never resonated with me. I have always felt that organizational and other structural considerations are part and parcel to research. In fact, due in great part to my direct experiences in the dumpster fire that is higher education today, I have an awareness of such things. Indeed, I would say that most academics are acutely cognizant of the implications of higher-level structures, as they were forced to survive and thrive amidst the stormy seas of higher education. Given this, I'm left somewhat puzzled and with an impression that many UX researchers lack, or at least underappreciate, awareness of at least some of the structural and organizational realities of capitalism that underlie most, if not all, of the work they do. If this diagnosis is correct, one suggestion is that researchers read Marx (and other social theorists, but maybe start with Marx). My first reading of Capital, Volume One, which I did with the accompaniment of wonderfully insightful lectures by David Harvey, was world-shifting. Marx’s work helped me to develop an initial understanding of the machinations of capital, which in turn led to greater understandings of the constraints, limitations, motives, and contradictions that drive regimes of capital accumulation. Beginning to understand and come to terms with the ultimate realities of those machinations–and the realities that those mechanics produce–is fundamental to the research that  I do today, no matter what the more proximal contexts are. Marx’s work also inspired me to adopt a dialectical approach to research and critical analysis. Dialectical thinking involves tacking back and forth between different scales and modes of analysis to obtain a more holistic view of structures, organizations, and processes, as well as their interrelationships. The approach allows me to recognize the interplay between various factors and develop a deeper understanding of the broader contexts in which my work is situated. By embracing such an approach, I can uncover more meaningful insights and produce research outcomes that have more nuance in terms of value propositions, strategy, and decision-making.

3

1 Comment