epi – The Early Career Voice

The Social Determinants of Cardiovascular Health

March 20, 2019March 28, 2019 Bailey DeBarmore

Social epidemiology “proposes to identify societal characteristics that affect the pattern of disease and health distribution in a society and to understand its mechanisms.” [1]

At AHA EPI|Lifestyle Scientific Sessions this year, the conference theme was “Genes, Behavior, and Environment: Putting the Pieces Together,” as I discussed in my blog post in early March. [Read the post]

Both within and between the ideas of genes, behavior, and environment was the thread of health disparities and social epidemiology. Oral abstract sessions included Epidemiology of Major Cardiovascular Disease, where Dr. Ben King discussed the burden of CVD among homeless persons in Austin, Texas; Dr. Gail Daumit highlighted interventions to reduce CV risk factor burden among those with serious mental illness; and Dr. Catherine Tcheandjieu called for more inclusion of non-European descent populations in polygenic risk studies.

In the Social Determinants of Cardiometabolic Disease, social determinants of health (SDOH) came to the forefront, as would be expected. From Dr. Emily D’Agostino presenting results comparing use of different poverty measures, to Dr Marialaura Bonaccio highlighting the effect of cumulative socioeconomic disadvantage across the lifespan on heart failure hospitalizations, we in the audience learned not only how to measure and evaluate these measures of social determinants of health, but saw how they quantifiably and undeniably affect CV health and outcomes.

Caption: A key Healthy People 2020 goal is to “create social and physical environments that promote good health for all”. You can learn more [here]. Image Source: https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/social-determinants-of-health

In the Lifecourse Epidemiology session, presenters summarized and argued for the importance of diet quality, smoking prevention, access to green spaces, and healthy diet patterns beginning in childhood to attenuate CVD risk in adulthood. Research from the Lifestyle Council naturally focuses on healthy lifestyle behaviors that are typically found in more affluent groups and likely contribute to the widening health disparities in chronic disease we’ve observed over the past decade, at least. [2]

In Dr. Leslie Lytle’s frank discussion of the lack of NIH funding towards intervention studies [3] to address not only these disparities but the lag in CV Health overall, I’m reminded of the session at #AHA17 “Closing the Gap on Disparities: Practical Strategies and Implementation,” when Dr. Michelle Albert called for epidemiologists to move from describing associations to implementing and evaluating interventions. [Read the post]

I encourage you to think of your research in the framework of social determinants of health. You can learn more about SDOHs, access data sources, and learn how to put SDOH research in action at the CDC Social Determinants page.

References:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2723602/ Social epidemiology: Definition, history, and research examples.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus15.pdf Health, United States, 2015, With Special Feature on Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30458950 NIH Primary and Secondary Prevention Research in Humans During 2012-2017

Putting Together The Pieces of Genes, Behavior, and Environment

March 11, 2019March 4, 2022 Bailey DeBarmore

The theme of this year’s #EPILifestyle19 conference was “Genes, Behavior, Environment: Putting the Pieces Together.” The three speakers in the first session, Dr Eric Boerwinkle, Dr Leslie Lytle, and Dr Michael Jerrett presented a cohesive program truly reflecting putting the pieces together.

Dr Eric Boerwinkle genetic researcher, dean, and chair of public health at the UTHealth School of Public Health, kicked things off with a hearty welcome to Houston, and applauding the audience for braving the city during the annual Houston Rodeo. Dr. Boerwinkle’s talk was marked by sincerity and focused passion for precision health and precision prevention – terms to replace “precision medicine” – that mirrors the AHA’s focus on cardiovascular health over cardiovascular disease.

He highlighted that genetics, environment, and lifestyle behaviors can be envisioned in several ways, depending on perspective and discipline. A key challenge in producing science focused on fitting these pieces together is measurement. Variables are often measured separately and differently across disciplines, and no matter the metaphor, Boerwinkle encouraged the audience to step out of their silos and begin measuring key variables together. Dr Leslie Lytle of UNC Chapel Hill Gillings School of Public Health provided a concrete example with the ADOPT project for obesity treatment, which identified high-priority measures to measure across biology, behavior, psychosocial, and environmental processes.

Transitioning from genetics to lifestyle behaviors, Boerwinkle highlighted research finding that even in genetically high-risk patients, modifying environmental factors and lifestyle behaviors can lower risk.

Dr. Leslie Lytle, professor in the department of Health Behavior at UNC Chapel Hill, situated her talk in the puzzle piece landscape by contrasting the NIH’s position on the importance of intervention research with the dismal percent of funding dollars that actually go towards intervention research.

unsplash by yusuf evli

After emphasizing the importance of intervention research to address the lifestyle and behavioral challenges of poor cardiovascular health, particularly obesity, Dr. Lytle showed us what intervention research should look like and what it can accomplish. Combining environment-level interventions based on socioecological models with individual level education can effect change, like in in the CATCH intervention, which involved child-level education, positive social modeling, and healthy changes in physical activity and school meals.

Over the past few years, the “exposome” concept has only gained popularity, along with the “-omics” trend. Wrapping up the themed session with environmental factors, Dr Michael Jerrett of UCLA School of Public Health taught us about characterizing the exposome by incorporating hyper-spatiotemporal components into research to assign exposure. What are hyper-spatiotemporal components? These components measure where people go during the day, what the pollution level is there, what they are doing and how it affects their exposure (walking in a park, biking behind a diesel truck, sitting in a car).

unsplash by adrian williams

Jerrett highlighted several studies examining these concepts, comparing the inhaled pollutants when biking, walking, or commuting by car to work in various areas of a city. How can we measure these spatiotemporal components in a “ubicomp” (ubiquitous computing) environment? Jerrett broke down the inside of our smart phones, calling attention to the numerous sensors present in nearly every smart phone and the research possibilities to harness these.

3 Tips for Live Tweeting a Conference

February 7, 2019March 28, 2019 Bailey DeBarmore

What is Live Tweeting?

Live tweeting is when you tweet about an event while you’re there.

You can harness conference hashtags, like #EpiLifestyle19 for the upcoming Epi | Lifestyle Scientific Sessions in Houston, or this past year’s #AHA18 Scientific Sessions in Chicago, to group your tweets with others and help people follow along.

Live tweeting doesn’t mean typing out every word a speaker is saying.

Tweet the name of the presentation and the speaker, the energy of the room, or your big takeaway.

What’s the “so what?” behind the presentation? What did you find most interesting?

You also don’t have to tweet in the moment.

Write down some of your thoughts, and after the session, write up your summary tweet.

Why Live Tweet?

Tweeting short comments at a conference presentation or seminar let’s your followers tune in, like they’re sitting there with you.

In an article for PLOS Blogs, Atif Kukaswadia (@DrEpid) shares an impressive example from the 2011 2^nd National Obesity Summit in Montreal.

The conference had 800 attendees, and only a handful of people tweeted.

But those handful of people produced 500 tweets with the conference hashtag, and those 500 tweets reached 80,000 people.

80,000 people.

Can you imagine how many people we’d reach at a bigger AHA conference with meeting reporters live tweeting from nearly every session?

Not only does live tweeting make followers feel like they’re there, but it stimulates discussion as people comment, asking questions, offering their own thoughts, and connecting to other science resources.

In his article “The Challenges of Conference Blogging”, Daniel MacArthur reminded us of the purpose of presenting science at conferences.

Why do we do it?

To promote discussion about our science.

To expand our own influence for future job opportunities and collaborations.

Live tweeting at conferences achieves these things – with the added benefit of concise science communication that expands both the reach of the science but also the understanding.

Tips for Live Tweeting

Live tweeting doesn’t have to be a play-by-play of the talk. Don’t worry about tweeting every single word. Instead, think about what theme or finding resonates the most with you. Tweet about that!
Visuals make any tweet that much more engaging. Use high quality, free stock photos from unsplash.com or www.rawpixel.com along with your post, or search online for a corresponding paper or faculty webpage to link in. Many people snap a pic of the slides or the speaker on stage – just be sure to check with conference policies before posting photos.
Search for the speaker on Twitter so you can tag them with their handle (preceded by @). One of the best ways to do this is to use a search engine with their full name, and “Twitter”. If nothing comes up, try tagging their institution. Many schools of medicine, hospital departments, and universities have Twitter accounts. If you know you’ll be reporting on a session in advance, you can look up these handles beforehand.

For examples of live tweets, search previous conference hashtags on Twitter, like #AHA18, #EpiLifestyle18, #QCOR18, or your council’s Scientific Sessions hashtag.

To learn more about using social media for science communication, with more tips for tweeting and blogging, be sure to come to the Epi Early Career session on Friday March 8^th, 7 – 8:30 am in the Galleria Ballroom, Westin Galleria, Houston, TX at Epi | Lifestyles Scientific Sessions 2019.

3 Tips for Incorporating Coauthor Feedback

January 18, 2019March 28, 2019 Bailey DeBarmore

When we review a paper, we often forget how we feel in the role of author. Along the same lines, when we read over drafts coauthors’ send us, we forget how we act in the role of editor.

Suggested changes seem personal.

Tip #1: Get your head right

We often have coauthors at different institutions and finalize manuscripts via email. Receiving criticism, constructive or otherwise, is never pleasant but receiving criticism over email opens the situation up to miscommunication.

Why?

When we write or read an email, our current mood influences how we perceive it.

Incorporating coauthor feedback is a key step in the science writing process, and seeing it as an integral part of the final product and not a burden to be borne can help you orient yourself. Approach the process constructively and with an open mind.

“You cannot grow if you are not willing to change, to accept new perspectives on life or to change your habits.” – Steven Aitchison

Tip #2: Consider the type of feedback

So, you’ve taken a deep breath and opened up the document with coauthor feedback. Plan to make several sweeps through the document. If you have comments from several people in one document, consider isolating each author. If you’re using Microsoft Word, you can do this by going to the Review pane, selecting “Show Markup”,
and then “Specific People”.

As you read through feedback, I’d like you to think about them as 4 types of feedback.

Clarifying content
Modifying style elements
Correcting grammar
Changing wording

Simplifying wording often leads to clarifying content. Modifying style elements, such as use of “First,…” “Second,…”, “…; however…”, or by changing passive to active voice, often modify writing style but may also increase or decrease writing clarity.

Kristin Sainini teaches the online Coursera course “Writing in the Sciences” and uses assignments like “Give a short word that means the same thing as “utilize””. Here’s a table of words that can be simplified.

Instead of…	Use…
Accordingly,	So
Address	Discuss
Afford the opportunity	Allow
Advantageous	Helpful
Due to the fact that	Due to, since
Determine	Decide, figure, find
Demonstrate	Show
Evident	Clear
Evidenced	Showed
In lieu of	Instead
In regard to	About, concerning
Magnitude	Size
Notwithstanding	In spite of, still
Numerous	Many
Preclude	Prevent
Provided that	If
Provides guidance for	Guides
Represents	Is
Similar to	Like
Subsequent	Next
Subsequently	Then
Sufficient	Enough
Therefore	So
Utilize	Use
Viable	Practical
Warrant	Call for

CAPTION: Not all of them involve fewer words. Some are just more common in spoken language, and so better understood. [Source]

Correcting grammar is often straight forward, but may be stylistic. Double check with a style guide or online grammar guru like Grammarly. If you’re both right, feel free to keep your own. Consistency throughout the manuscript – both in writing style and grammar choices – is important.

If they are suggesting a change in wording, think about why. Is it a simpler word? Is it more correct?

If you write with the same coauthors frequently, you may find certain people predominantly provide a certain type of feedback.

Then, think about the purpose of an edit. Why do you think the coauthor made that suggestion?

If the suggestion is a stylistic change that doesn’t clarify content or simplify wording, then it’s an edit that shifts your writing style towards their own. These are edits that, in my opinion, you are not “required” to make. But if you know your writing could benefit from some streamlining, look at what these edits are. Are they moving the main subject from the end to the beginning of the sentence? Adding transitions? Cutting out unnecessary words? These are changes you can make in your own writing style to improve communication.

However, keep in mind when you are providing feedback on someone else’s writing that these comments aren’t always helpful. Instead of trying to mold someone’s words into your own, assess writing for clarity and purpose.

If a coauthor changes a word that changes the meaning of a sentence – that’s a big problem. Definitely don’t change anything that results in a false statement, but acknowledge that if someone on the project didn’t understand what you were trying to say, a reader definitely won’t. That sentence needs to be clarified. Spend time on these edits to make sure what you’re trying to say is coming across.

Tip #3: Stand up for yourself

Hopefully you have a great group of mentors, and at least one is in your coauthor group.

Don’t hesitate to have a frank conversation with your mentor about manuscript editing. They have much more experience than you, and have encountered many different frustrating situations. Some of the best advice I’ve gotten is to “choose your battles”. Not only does that mean to let some things go, but think about what you’d like to stand up for.

Being able to edit someone’s writing without replacing their writing style is difficult. Not all coauthors, no matter how senior, are able to do so.

Recently, a colleague in my lab group asked for advice on how to handle conflicting coauthor feedback. My mentor brought up a good point: many times, in academia we don’t feel like we are “doing our job” if we don’t come up with a suggestion. As the “commenter”, we feel satisfied with ourselves for contributing. But as the recipient, we consider all feedback and suggestions as changes to make.

Having straight forward discussions about what changes benefit the paper as a whole not only improve your communication skills, but your independence.

What challenges have you encountered in this area?

5 Tips for Science Writing

January 7, 2019March 28, 2019 Bailey DeBarmore

Among the many responsibilities you have, writing is probably the one that gets pushed to the bottom of your to-do list again and again.

During the #EpiWritingChallenge last November, many public health researchers, trainees, scientists, and clinicians shared their biggest barriers to achieving their writing goals.

My next few posts will summarize some of the discussions and writing tips that emerged from the 20 day writing challenge. Each post will be dedicated to one topic: writing, editing, and incorporating coauthor feedback.

Tip 1: Make time and space for writing

If you’re like me, you’re juggling several research projects among other work duties, and while you think about working on your manuscripts often, it seems like you never get to them. Unless there is an abstract deadline, it seems like the writing process stretches on and on.

Many #EpiWritingChallenge participants set goals aimed at writing more often, with daily or weekly goals.

Hopefully you’ve heard of SMART goals, but if you haven’t, they stand for specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound.

First, if you want to change your writing habits, telling yourself to “write more” likely won’t cut it. It takes at least a month to form a new habit, and to maximize your success I suggest breaking down your overarching goal into manageable chunks (that are also SMART).

Second, reflect on when and where you write best. Are you a morning person or a night owl? Do you need complete silence or the bustle of a busy café? Thinking about these aspects of writing and how an ideal writing session can fit into your schedule will set you up for success. You might block off time on your work calendar as busy (to avoid meetings being scheduled during that time), and shut your office door. You might wake up an hour or two earlier to enjoy the quiet of your office as you type away. If you work best in a group, you might organize a Writing Accountability Group for even better accountability.

Tip 2: Focus on writing clearly

Writing clearly is something we all strive for (hopefully) but is harder than it sounds. As Ernest Hemingway said, “prose is architecture, not interior decoration.”

Two rules of thumb are 1) write shorter sentences and 2) choose simpler words if it doesn’t change the meaning.

Dallas Murphy, a book author and writing workshop instructor, gave a great example of typical scientific writing transformed into clear scientific writing, in “How to write a first-class paper” published on the Nature blog last year.

ORIGINAL: “Though not inclusive, this paper provides a useful review of the well-known methods of physical oceanography using as examples various research that illustrates the methodological challenges that give rise to successful solutions to the difficulties inherent in oceanographic research.”

This writing is defensive and scared to make confident statements. The language is ornate, and lists caveats, fending off criticism that hasn’t yet been made.

REWRITE: “We review methods of oceanographic research with examples that reveal specific challenges and solutions.”

Much better!

You might even explore voice-to-text apps for clear writing. We often express ideas more clearly in speech than in writing. In that same Nature article, Stacy Konkiel of Altmetric encouraged readers to make their point “in non-specialist language” if possible. “If you write in a way that is accessible to non-specialists, you…open yourself up to citations by experts in other fields and make your writing available to laypeople.”

Tip 3: Keep a “great writing” folder

What we read strongly influences how we write. In other words, “you write what you read”. Keeping up with the literature is a whole other blog post in itself, but reading other science writing not only expands your content knowledge but your writing abilities.

Whenever you come across a paper that makes you think “wow, that is great writing” tuck it away in a “Great Writing Folder”. When you sit down to write, marinate your brain in that concise science writing before putting pen to paper.

Tip 4: Create an elevator pitch for your paper

We typically talk about elevator pitches in relation to networking and job interviews. In fact, at last year’s AHA EPI | Lifestyles Scientific Sessions, one of the Connection Corners was focused on crafting an effective elevator pitch. Just as you summarize the key parts of what you do and why, and what you research, you can adapt that to a specific paper or project.

Create different ways of explaining your project in terms of what you did and why. Keep that list nearby when you write to help you stay on point and stay clear throughout your paper. Every main point should be coming back to that elevator pitch. That list is great to review at the beginning of each writing session to get you in the right mindset, too.

Tip 5: Prioritize topic sentences

Topic sentences are just as important now, in your science writing, as they were in your high school English class. Make sure you have topic sentences for each section of your manuscript. If you create an outline beforehand, those main ideas should morph into your topic sentence. After the topic sentence, every bit of that paragraph should connect back or move the argument forward. If it doesn’t contribute, cut it or move it.

In the tips for editing post we’ll be talking about using a Reverse Outline, a method with topic sentences as its backbone, to strengthen your argument.

In sum, science writing is a complex task for us to tackle. Whether a clinician-scientist, full-time researcher, trainee, or professor, it’s something on all of our to-do lists.

What is your biggest writing challenge?

Connecting At Conferences: Networking At Its Best

April 13, 2018March 28, 2019 Bailey DeBarmore

This March in New Orleans, the Council on Epidemiology and Prevention with the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health hosted the 2018 EPI Lifestyle Scientific Sessions. A great part of the early career programming this year were the Connection Corners. Small roundtable discussions led by two established investigators drew early career attendees to learn about grant writing, crafting effective elevator speeches, and improving their curriculum vitae (CV). I was lucky enough to listen in (while snapping photos and live tweeting the conversation) and have some highlights to share.

Drs Brooke Aggarawal and Mercedes Carnethon talk with early career investigators about crafting your elevator speech at AHA Epi Lifestyles 2018 in New Orleans.
Drs Brooke Aggarawal and Mercedes Carnethon talk with early career investigators about crafting your elevator speech at AHA Epi Lifestyles 2018 in New Orleans.

Practice your Elevator Speech

Dr. Brooke Aggarawal and Dr. Mercedes Carnethon

An elevator speech is a 30-second “pitch” or summary named for when you find yourself in an elevator with a stranger, and they ask “What do you do?” Of course, you could encounter that question in many scenarios that necessitate an engaging, brief, and understandable response.
Dr. Brooke Aggarawal and Dr. Mercedes Carnethon had a variety of advice on how to develop your pitch, as well as some unique ideas. Dr. Carnethon’s biggest takeaway was to have several elevator speeches – one for each research topic, as well as one for various scenarios.

Brainstorm situations you may need an elevator speech
- Family gatherings and dinners
- Social gatherings with new friends
- New colleagues at a conference
- On an interview
- In an elevator
Outline your research topics – maybe you study cardiovascular disease, but with a focus on sleep, or diabetes, or congenital abnormalities. You probably have a project or two that goes along with each of those topics.

The first step is to write down your speech and then simplify the details into one message per pitch. That means all the details and objectives and methods you might explain to your mentor or at a poster presentation won’t have a place in this elevator speech.

Dr. Brooke Aggarawal had some great advice. Avoid using jargon and be concise while still answering the question “So what?”. And the answer to “So what?” will be different depending on who you’re talking to.

When simplifying your project into a single method, you may try to:

Develop analogies that paint a picture for your listener
Open and/or close with a question that piques their interest

And lastly, practice practice practice! Especially if you’re preparing for an interview, this answer to “tell us about yourself” should roll of the tongue and demonstrate your passion for your research.

Drs.Christopher Imes and John Wilkins talk to early career investigators about “Boosting Your CV” at AHA Epi Lifestyle 2018 Connection corner.

Boosting Your CV

Dr. Christopher Imes and Dr. John Wilkins

This Connection Corner was all about how to get your message across quickly and concisely in your curriculum vitae. Just like with resumes, your CV is typically skimmed by the reader, and despite the traditional format, there are some steps you can take to stand out.

Dr. John Wilkins pointed out that you should utilize the librarians – experts in information sciences – at your institution to summarize your “research impact”. They can do searches that summarize your publications, citations, etc. that you can include in a biosketch intro that precedes your CV. Plus, a biosketch is the ultimate way to make sure the first thing the reader sees is the message you want them to!

The laptops came out and Dr. Imes and Dr. Wilkins read and provided feedback on CVs for early investigators at various levels – PhDs, post-docs, and early career professors. The last point they drove home was that while it may seem inconsequential, pristine formatting and grammar is imperative in your final draft. Typos and bad spelling leave a bad impression that can move your CV to the “no” pile before they even finish reading it.

Drs. Norrina Allen and Deepak Gupta field questions at AHA EPI Lifestyle 2018 about grant writing.

Specific Aims

Dr. Norrina Allen and Dr. Deepak Gupta

The group around the table at the grant writing Connection Corner was an accomplished one! With 4 K-awards submitted or about to be between them, they had plenty of questions for Dr. Norrina Allen from Northwestern and Dr. Deepak Gupta from Vanderbilt.

The two main points of the discussion were to craft your career development plan in a way that conveys responsibility, innovation, and prospect to the grant readers, as well as:

Mentoring questions were a big part of this discussion. One person asked, “Should your K-award mentor be someone you’ve worked with before, or someone in the field you’re aiming to get new training in?” Drs. Allen and Gupta answered – definitely someone you have a connection with. They explained that the primary mentor on your K-award is for the career development, while the training goals you set will be met with the network of content and methods experts you put together. Similarly, they noted that the aims for your K grant should match the training domains you want to achieve.

Drs. Allen and Gupta emphasized that for career development grants, it’s important to be specific in your career trajectory section about how that grant is a stepping stone for your future goals. They mentioned being particularly impressed when grant writers state how that K-award (for example) will set them up to submit an R01 on topic “<enter Title>” in year # of their career development award. While you don’t need that R01 grant written up in your head, having an idea of the title and the timeline shows planning and promise.

Lastly, the classic question: How many aims should you have? The answer, like many things, is that it depends. Too many aims, or aims that are too diverse, will water down the focus of your overall proposal. The aims you craft need to be achievable during the time period, concise and straight forward, and should not be interdependent on one another, whether the success of one depends on the success of another.

If you couldn’t be there in person, I hope these pearls of wisdom were the next best thing! What’s on your to do list for career development this month?

Bailey DeBarmore is a cardiovascular epidemiology PhD student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Her research focuses on diabetes, stroke, and heart failure. She tweets @BaileyDeBarmore and blogs at baileydebarmore.com. Find her on LinkedIn and Facebook.

Shift Your Perspective To Get The Most Out Of Mentoring

April 6, 2018July 11, 2019 Bailey DeBarmore

The AHA Epidemiology and Prevention and Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health Scientific Sessions is quite different from AHA Scientific Sessions. Smaller in size and more focused, with few concurrent sessions and ample coffee breaks, I enjoyed attending the numerous Early Career sessions. They varied in topic and format: “Connection Corners” were short round-table discussions twice a day with focused conversations on ‘beefing up your CV’, the grant writing process, developing a catchy elevator speech, and leveraging non-NIH funding. Both the EPI-Prevention and Lifestyle councils had lunchtime panels at the end of their annual business lunches, and had the audience asking questions about avoiding burnout in academia and global collaboration in cardiovascular research.

To end the week, the Early Career Council outdid themselves with the early morning ‘fire-side’ chat with Drs. Emelia Benjamin, MD ScM from Boston University School of Medicine, Norrina Allen, PhD from Northwestern Medicine, Jean-Pierre Després, PhD from Laval University in Quebec, Chiadi Ndumele, MD MHS from Johns Hopkins Medicine, and Lenny Lopez, MD MDiv MPH from UC San Francisco.

Drs. Emelia Benjamin, Jean-Pierre Depres, Chiadi Ndumele, Lenny Lopez, and Norrina Allen (left to right) provide eye-opening mentoring advice to early career investigators at the EPI Lifestyles Scientific Sessions 2018 in New Orleans, LA
Drs. Emelia Benjamin, Jean-Pierre Depres, Chiadi Ndumele, Lenny Lopez, and Norrina Allen (left to right) provide eye-opening mentoring advice to early career investigators at the EPI Lifestyles Scientific Sessions 2018 in New Orleans, LA.

If you missed this morning session, no worries! I have you covered. The panel conversation, led by Dr. Emelia Benjamin, started with finding your niche as an early career investigator, and developed into a great discussion on building a mentoring team and planning your own path.

Using Sli.do to anonymously ask questions allowed for an unbiased view of what the audience was thinking. And overwhelmingly were questions along the lines of:

What do you do if your mentor selects a niche for you that doesn’t excite you?
How do you separate your niche from your mentor?
What can you do to fix a fall-out with your mentor?

I found these questions concerning! To me, they reflect a mentee perspective that 1) once you’re assigned a mentor, you’re stuck with them; 2) your mentor is the be-all-end-all guide in your career path; and 3) you must do everything your mentor tells you.

My first response to this perspective is: we’ve got to shift this mindset! If your relationship with your mentor is that of a duckling and mother goose, something has got to change. A mentor that “assigns” a research niche to you is either a Tormentor or is responding to your lack of initiative. If the former, you should find a new mentor. Your institution will have a number of resources including a faculty affairs office or an ombudsman and possibly a mentoring program that will help you find a mentor that best fits with your needs.

If the latter, you’ve got some work to do! But the career panel provided some great advice on how to get started. (So do Vineet Chopra, MD MSc, Vineet M. Arora, MD MAPP, and Sanjay Saint, MD MPH in an article titled “Will you be my mentor?” published in JAMA last year).

Make the most of your time

Mentors have a number of responsibilities and how they have made their own career path and achieve work life balance is a great indicator if you will be a good fit. Do you aspire to a career like theirs? Do you admire their work-life balance? They might make a great life or career mentor for you.

Just as you expect your mentor to give you their full attention when discussing your goals, you must respect their time as well! That means giving thought to your research goals, planning the steps to get there, and using their expertise and experience to provide direction and improve your process.

Set up a meeting with your mentor and prepare an agenda beforehand. Know the topics you’d like to cover, whether their input on goals and milestones, plans for research projects, or ideas to brainstorm on. Preparing an agenda shows respect for both of your times and keeps you on track for a productive meeting. Jot down action items and follow-up after the meeting.

Judy T. Zerzan, MD MPH and coauthors discuss “managing up” and how to take responsibility for your half of the mentor-mentee relationship in “Making the Most of Mentors: A Guide for Mentees.”

Earlier this year, Dr. David Werho wrote about sponsorship versus mentoring in his 2-part article “When Mentoring Isn’t Enough”. Read Part 1 and Part 2 to learn about why dependability pays off, how to diversify and be the protégé you want, and why it’s worth it to do your homework.’

One is the Loneliest Number

Another solution to mentor woes is creating a mentor network. Over and over, the panel expounded on the advantages of having both a primary mentor and a mentoring group. This structure is explicit in career development grants, where the primary mentor supports your career development initiatives, and the content and methods experts support your training goals. Content and methods mentors in your network can also help you explore different areas in your field as you work to identify your research niche.

A mentor network means different researchers with different backgrounds and different perspectives. Bouncing your research ideas off them results in contrasting views, some that will jive more with you, and some that will make you think. Instead of being molded into a “mini”-me mentee, a mentor network helps you build the scaffolding upon which you’ll grow into your own independent researcher.

I’ll touch more on this idea later, but here’s a great read from Yan Shen, Richard D. Cotton, and Kathy Kram for the MIT Sloan Management Review. Even if you are post-tenure, you still benefit from a strong mentoring network! Read more from Kerry Ann Rockquemore in “Posttenure Mentoring Networks.”

Identifying a Niche

The pre-established theme of the Friday morning early career session was how to “Identify Your Niche”. While much of the discussion centered around mentoring and its supportive role in finding your niche, there was also focused advice on how to find your way.

The panel emphasized that as an early career investigator, it’s imperative to utilize this time to identify and achieve the additional training you see as important to your overall career goals. While this may be in the form of a post-doctoral position or a K-award, it can also be informal in the research projects you pursue and the skills you acquire.

Dr. Emelia Benjamin, who provides mentoring support to early career faculty at Boston University, gave us 2 homework assignments to help us plan our way.

First, reflect on where you’ve been and where you’re going. A 1-page personal statement makes a powerful addition to your CV, and the journey to this final product will help you learn to tell your story as a connected arc, rather than a zig-zag path jumping from topic to topic. The evolution of your research niche from project to project is hardly evident in your publication list, but through narration and self-reflection you can illustrate your approach to the scientific process and summarize where you might go next. Not only will you provide a picture of your research goals and personality to anyone reading your CV, but you will likely have a few “Aha!” moments discovering connections between projects you hadn’t seen before.

Second, diagram your mentoring network. It’s important to visualize this – are all of your mentors above you? Below you? Horizontal to you? Peers? Are they in the same division, institution, or all distance? A mixture is key, but the components of that mixture depends on your research and career goals. Dr. Chiadi Ndumele from Johns Hopkins Medicine shared his take on 5 valuable types of mentors to have:

Methodological mentors are those you go to for questions and feedback about approach.
Content or clinical mentors are those you go to about patient care of content expertise.
Life mentors are those whose work-life balance is one you admire.
Career mentors help you step back and see the big picture, particularly the asks you should say no to.
A brainstorm mentor plays devils advocate and is a great sounding board to bounce ideas off of that also bounces back.

Dr. Emelia Benjamin utilizes the theories from Kathy Kram, Monica Higgins, and David Thomas on “Creating Developmental Networks” and “Reconceptualizing Mentoring” with her early career faculty at BU. Take a cue from her, and use this worksheet, Define your Developmental Network, to identify the gaps in your mentoring network, and take the first step to filling them.

On My Way To NoLa – AHA EPI | Lifestyle Specialty Conference

March 19, 2018March 23, 2023 Anberitha Matthews, PhD

The AHA EPI | Lifestyle Specialty Conference will be smaller and more specific than any conference that I have attended. My conference experience has consisted of, for the most part, international meetings that are held in large venues such as Experimental Biology (EB) in the San Diego Conference Center. This center boast 525,701 gross ft2 on the ground level and 90,000 ft2 of column-free space in the Sails Pavilion on Upper Level. EB uses this vast conference space to house over 14,000 researchers, 400 oral sessions that are hosted by 6 societies and 35 guest societies. To attend an event of this size can prove to be too exhaustive to experience everything that is being offered. I have opted to attend the AHA EPI | Lifestyles specialty conference because it is smaller and focused on Health Promotion: Risk Prediction to Risk Prevention.

Since Bailey DeBarmore went into great detail outlining the schedule for the meeting, I will not expound on that any further. Although I have more of a molecular biology/biomedical background that focus on oxidative stress in the microvasculature, I was surprised to see this meeting offered topics that would enhance not only my knowledge of health promotion, but also contribute to my scientific research. The section Hypertension: Guidelines and Prevention, Rapid Fire Oral Presentations consist of several researchers/clinicians that will present their work in 10 minute burst, giving the vibe of “speed dating”. This is an interesting way to present topics, but it is also challenging! From my experience, there is so much to say and so little time to say it. Which, is true. The topics are so specific, one is required to have background knowledge of the topic to understand the speakers’ findings. It is also a good way for the listener to gain a vast amount of information in a short time.

Additionally, I am excited about several of the sessions that will be held at AHA EPI |Lifestyle Specialty Conference. My career trajectory has taken me through proteomics, genomics, and metabolomics as mechanistic tools to elucidate the onset of inflammation, and subsequently, cardiovascular disease. The intersection between theoretical prediction of a disease to the onset of the disease, and ultimately the prevention of the disease by reducing the risk is the obvious pathway of ameliorating chronic diseases. The topic of interest to me, due to the time constraints, are as follows:

Session 2 – Hypertension Guidelines and Prevention. Now that the new guidelines are beginning to be accepted among the clinical/scientific communities, it will be interesting to learn more about the methods being initiated to accomplish these new levels.
Session 5 – Cardiovascular Biomarkers I expect will introduce more detail about the markers clinicians use for early identification of cardiovascular disease and what can be done to truncate its occurrence.
Session 6 – Hot off the Press – there are several new articles that have been released this year. Among them, Schoenthaler et al addressed social needs of hypertensive patients.
         a. For decades there has been arguments as to whether one should have a low fat or low carbohydrate diet to lose a weight. This study by Gardner et al, will add to what we know about the impact diet have on weight loss in overweight adults using genotype patterns and/or insulin secretions as the associated factors.
         b. The study by Powell-Wiley et al, suggest there is a correlation between crime and physical activity and obesity among African American women. Since we know there are many variables that plays a role in obesity and physical activity, I am interested to learn more about their study and what variables were tested to come to the conclusions that they have drawn.
         c. Fuchs et al explored the use of low-dose diuretics to optimize prehypertensive values as a means of lowering blood pressure.
         d. Banck et al discussed racial disparities among young adulthood modifiable risk factors in the incidence of type 2 diabetes during middle adulthood as a modifiable risk factor.
Session 10 – I have learned about 3 of the omics and the more I learn the more that seem to be identified. The Omics section, I will imagine, will cover the well-known, proteomics, genomics and metabolomics; however, some that are exciting, due to them being novel to me, are the Trans-Omics and Phenomics.
Session 11 – The William B. Kannel MD Memorial Lectureship in Preventative Cardiology
Session 12 – The debate will cover some of the Pros and Cons of medical cost. The main argument when it comes to cardiovascular care is the rising cost of medical treatment. This session will cover some of the cost associated with cardiovascular disease treatment, and I hope, some ways that they can be overcome by prevention.
It is my desire, during this AHA EPI | Lifestyles conference to disseminate information that will assist in empowering clinicians, researchers, and the general population of methods that can be taken to promote health and a healthy lifestyle. Hope to see you there in person or online to share thoughts on the lessons learned during this conference.

Anberitha Matthews, PhD is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis TN. She is living a dream by researching vascular injury as it pertains to oxidative stress, volunteers with the Mississippi State University Alumni Association, serves as Chapter President and does consulting work with regard to scientific editing.

AHA EPI | Lifestyle 2018 – Health Promotion: Risk Prediction To Risk Prevention

March 5, 2018March 28, 2019 Bailey DeBarmore

“Epidemiology is the study of the causes and distributions of diseases in human populations so that we may identify ways to prevent and control disease.”

(JM Last, A Dictionary of Epidemiology)

In a 2013 commentary, Sandro Galea reminds us of the definition of epidemiology [above] and notes that it “neatly communicates 2 central actions for the field:

we identify causes so that
we may intervene….

However, in practice, academic epidemiology now spends most of its time concerned with identifying the causes and distributions of disease in human populations and far less of its time and imagination asking how we might improve population health…”

In a seminal paper in 1985, Geoffrey Rose showed that populations are not the sum of their individuals, highlighting the difference between epidemiology for public health and individual-based medicine. In a recent paper, Dr. Rogawski and coauthors speak to this, pointing out that individual level risk factors identified in population based studies “do not always inform public health interventions since targeting of interventions occurs when individuals present to the healthcare system,” or “medical epidemiology.”

AHA EPI | Lifestyle Scientific Sessions – March 20-23, 2018 (New Orleans, Louisiana)

Later this month, AHA Epidemiology and Lifestyle Councils travel to New Orleans for the annual specialty conference. The theme? Health Promotion: Risk Prediction to Risk Prevention. The 4-day conference will feature 11 sessions, 3 poster sessions, 6 Early Career events, and more. Last year in Portland, Oregon, the conference focused on “Location, Location, Location: Improving Individual and Community Health,” and in 2015 in Baltimore, Maryland “From Precision Medicine to a Culture of Health.” The past 3 years parallel the surge of interest in consequentialist epidemiology, with noted efforts into precision medicine through mHealth interventions as well as theoretical interventions of moving population-wide blood pressure by 1 mmHg.

Drs. Daniel Rodríguez, Wayne Rosamond, and Robert Ross answer questions at Opening Sessions, AHA EPI I Lifestyles 2017 in Portland, Oregon.

Drs. Darwin Labarthe, David Goff, and Donald Lloyd-Jones catch up before opening session in Portland, OR at AHA EPI | Lifestyle 2017. Make sure to get your Life’s Simple Seven pin at your next AHA conference!

Over this past year, I’ve become more active in the American Heart Association than I have in any other member organization and it’s all due to being an Early Career Blogger. After attending Early Career events at AHA Scientific Sessions in November 2017 – from luncheons to networking to panel sessions – I keep my eyes peeled for similar events at all conferences I attend. The focus for Early Career Events at EPI | Lifestyle this year will be on international collaboration in cardiovascular epidemiology through a “speed dating” format session on Thursday, and a roundtable luncheon on Friday. In addition, the Lifestyle Council will host a 3 Minute Thesis (3MT) Competition at their early career lunch, and early Friday morning is “Lost or Found? Identifying your Niche in Academic Research.”

Don’t Miss Out!

Between the coffee breaks, be sure to catch these notable epidemiologists and scientists who will be speaking throughout the week in New Orleans. I think their research and background paint the perfect picture for a conference focused on health promotion.

I’ve included their Twitter handle when I can – so be sure to tweet them your questions, and tag #EPILifestyle18 so we can follow, too!

Health Promotion: Risk Prediction to Risk Prediction, Opening Remarks (Session 1)

Alfredo Morabia, MD, PhD, MPH, MSc is a professor of clinical epidemiology at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. His research spans from history of epidemiology and health ethics to urban health projects, such as health of first responders following 9/11. Tweet him @AlfredoMorabia.

Angela Odoms-Young, PhD is an associate professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago and a fellow of the Institute of Health Research and Policy, which aims to advance health practice and policy through collaborative research. Her current research projects at the Illinois Prevention Research Center include policy research and evaluation on environmental change related to nutrition and obesity. Tweet her @OdomsYoung .

Mintu Turakhia, MD, MAS, FAHA is an associate professor of cardiovascular medicine at the Palo Alto VA and Executive Director of Stanford University’s new Center for Digital Health. His research focuses on heart rhythm disorders through outcomes research and clinical practice. Tweet him @LeftBundle.

Hypertension: Guidelines and Prevention, Rapid Fire Oral Presentations (Session 2)

Paul Whelton, MD MSc will recap the new Hypertension Guidelines unveiled at #AHA17 and orient them within the guise of population health and disease prevention.

David Kritchevsky Memorial Lecture (Session 5)

Barry M. Popkin, PhD established the Division of Nutrition Epidemiology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as well as the NIH funded UNC interdisciplinary Obesity Center. He developed the Nutrition Transition theory and studies these dynamic shifts in dietary intake and physical activity around obesity on a national and global scale.

Richard D. Remington Methodology Lecture (Session 9)

Joel Kaufman, MD, MPH is a physician epidemiologist and interim dean at the School of Public Health at the University of Washington. His research focuses on environmental factors in cardiovascular and respiratory disease, and is a PI on MESA Air.

William B. Kannel MD Memorial Lectureship in Preventative Cardiology

Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, ScM, FAHA is a professor at the Boston University School of Medicine and longtime researcher on the Framingham Heart Study. She focuses on the intersection of genetic, epidemiology, and prognosis of cardiovascular conditions and biomarkers, particularly atrial fibrillation. Tweet her @EmeliaBenjamin.