Search

Aerobic biotreatment systems can treat multiple reduced inorganic contaminants in groundwater, including ammonia (NH(3)), arsenic (As), iron (Fe), and manganese (Mn). While individual systems treating multiple contaminants simultaneously have been characterized and several systems treating one contaminant have been compared, a comparison of systems treating co-occurring contaminants is lacking. This study assessed the treatment performance and microbial communities within 7 pilot- and full-scale groundwater biotreatment systems in the United States that treated waters with pH 5.6–7.8, 0.1–2.0 mg/L dissolved oxygen, 75–376 mg CaCO(3)/L alkalinity, < 0.03–3.79 mg NH(3)-N/L, < 4–31 μg As/L, < 0.01–9.37 mg Fe/L, 2–1220 μg Mn/L, and 0.1–5.6 mg/L total organic carbon (TOC). Different reactor configurations and media types were represented, allowing for a broad assessment of linkages between water quality and microbial communities via microscopy, biofilm quantification, and molecular methods. Influent NH(3), TOC, and pH contributed to differences in the microbial communities. Mn oxidase gene copy numbers were slightly negatively correlated with the influent Mn concentration, but no significant relationships between gene copy number and influent concentration were observed for the other contaminants. Extracellular enzyme activities, community composition, and carbon transformation pathways suggested heterotrophic bacteria may be important in nitrifying biofilters. Aerobic groundwater biofilters are complex, and improved understanding could lead to engineering enhancements.

PURPOSE Cancer care team attitudes towards distress screening are key to its success and sustainability. Previous qualitative research has interviewed staff mostly around the startup phase. We evaluate oncology teams' perspectives on psychosocial distress screening, including perceived strengths and challenges, in settings where it has been operational for years. METHODS We conducted, transcribed, and analyzed semi-structured interviews with 71 cancer care team members (e.g., MDs, RNs, MSWs) at 18 Commission on Cancer-accredited cancer programs including those serving underrepresented populations. RESULTS Strengths of distress screening identified by participants included identifying patient needs and testing provider assumptions. Staff indicated it improved patient-provider communication and other aspects of care. Challenges to distress screening included patient barriers (e.g., respondent burden) and lack of electronic system interoperability. Participants expressed the strengths of distress screening (n = 291) more than challenges (n = 86). Suggested improvements included use of technology to collect data, report results, and make referrals; complete screenings prior to appointments; longitudinal assessment; additional staff training; and improve resources to address patient needs. CONCLUSION Cancer care team members' perspectives on well-established distress screening programs largely replicate findings of previous studies focusing on the startup phase, but there are important differences: team members expressed more strengths than challenges, suggesting a positive attitude. While our sample described many challenges described previously, they did not indicate challenges with scoring and interpreting the distress screening questionnaire. The differences in attitudes expressed in response to mature versus startup implementations provide important insights to inform efforts to sustain and optimize distress screening.

Western Michigan University conducted a survey of high school students' attitudes toward college attendance. A questionnaire was mailed to the Director of Guidance in Michigan high schools with an enrollment of 1,000 or more. In all, 183 questionnaires were mailed and 85 were returned. They emphasized student attitudes toward college attendance and the job market, changes in vocational choice, and expected changes in patterns of college attendance. Results of the survey indicated an increased interest in 2-year trade and vocational programs, and increased awareness of job opportunities, and an expected slight downward enrollment trend in 4-year colleges corresponding to an expected upward enrollment pattern for community colleges. Further details of survey results and tables are included. (MJM)

Cancer care team attitudes towards distress screening are key to its success and sustainability. Previous qualitative research has interviewed staff mostly around the startup phase. We evaluate oncology teams' perspectives on psychosocial distress screening, including perceived strengths and challenges, in settings where it has been operational for years.We conducted, transcribed, and analyzed semi-structured interviews with 71 cancer care team members (e.g., MDs, RNs, MSWs) at 18 Commission on Cancer-accredited cancer programs including those serving underrepresented populations.Strengths of distress screening identified by participants included identifying patient needs and testing provider assumptions. Staff indicated it improved patient-provider communication and other aspects of care. Challenges to distress screening included patient barriers (e.g., respondent burden) and lack of electronic system interoperability. Participants expressed the strengths of distress screening (n = 291) more than challenges (n = 86). Suggested improvements included use of technology to collect data, report results, and make referrals; complete screenings prior to appointments; longitudinal assessment; additional staff training; and improve resources to address patient needs.Cancer care team members' perspectives on well-established distress screening programs largely replicate findings of previous studies focusing on the startup phase, but there are important differences: team members expressed more strengths than challenges, suggesting a positive attitude. While our sample described many challenges described previously, they did not indicate challenges with scoring and interpreting the distress screening questionnaire. The differences in attitudes expressed in response to mature versus startup implementations provide important insights to inform efforts to sustain and optimize distress screening.

Background Epidemiologic cohort studies have begun to leverage electronic research participant portals to facilitate data collection, integrate wearable technologies, lower costs, and engage participants. However, little is known about the acceptability of portal use by research participants. Objective The aim of this study is to conduct focus groups among a sample of Cancer Prevention Study-3 (CPS-3) participants to better understand their preferences and concerns about research portals. Methods CPS-3 participants were stratified based on sex, race and ethnicity, age, and cancer status, and randomly invited to participate. Focus groups used an exploratory case design with semistructured guides to prompt discussion. Using a constant comparison technique, transcripts were assigned codes to identify themes. Results Participants (31/59, 52% women; 52/59, 88% White/non-Latinx) were favorably disposed toward using a research participant portal to take surveys, communicate with the study staff, and upload data. Most participants indicated that a portal would be beneficial and convenient but expressed concerns over data safety. Participants stressed the importance of an easy-to-use and trustworthy portal that is compatible with mobile devices. Conclusions In addition to being beneficial to researchers, portals may also benefit participants as long as the portals are secure and simple. Participants believe that portals can provide convenient ways to report data and remain connected to the study.