Current Role at Stanford

Web & Communications Administration

All Publications

  • Views of the importance of psychiatric genetic research by potential volunteers from stakeholder groups JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH Roberts, L., Tsungmey, T., Kim, J., Hantke, M. 2018; 106: 69–73
  • Views of the importance of psychiatric genetic research by potential volunteers from stakeholder groups. Journal of psychiatric research Roberts, L. W., Tsungmey, T., Kim, J. P., Hantke, M. 2018; 106: 69–73


    Few studies have explored potential volunteers' attitudes toward genetic research. To address this gap in the literature, we developed an empirical project to document views held by individuals who may wish to enroll in genetic studies involving mental disorders. People living with mental illness, family members of people with mental illness, and community comparison volunteers were queried regarding their views on the importance of genetic research generally, in comparison with medical research, and in relation to 12 health conditions categorized in four types. T-tests and univariate and multivariate analysis of variance were used as appropriate. Participants expressed support for the importance of genetic research (mean = 9.43, scale = 1-10) and endorsed genetic research more highly compared with non-genetic medical research (mean = 9.43 vs. 8.69, P value = <0.001). The most highly endorsed genetic research was for cognitive disorders, followed by mental illness disorders, physical illness disorders, and addiction disorders (means = 8.88, 8.26, 8.16 and 7.55, respectively, P value = <0.001). Overall, this study provides evidence of strong endorsement of genetic research over non-genetic research by potential volunteers.

    View details for PubMedID 30292779

  • From Networking to Next-Working: How an Academic Department "Retreated" and Advanced at the Same Time ACADEMIC PSYCHIATRY Yager, J., Kenna, H., Hantke, M. 2015; 39 (2): 220-224


    Department-wide retreats conducted at periods of transition can enrich and benefit academic departments in several ways. Here, the authors describe the organization, conduct, and immediate outcomes of a department-wide retreat in a university department of psychiatry intended to (1) foster networking and communication among faculty who often work in "silos" and (2) invite the faculty to provide "internal consultations" regarding aspirational strategic goals and recommendations for short-term actionable tactics to address these goals. The retreat featured an evening networking and socializing poster session followed by a day-long event consisting of small group and large group interactive sessions. Participants were 120 faculty members including 44 new and younger faculty members who prepared and presented posters about themselves and their work. A variety of aspirational goals and specific recommendations for follow-up emerged from small groups were discussed in plenary sessions and were subsequently summarized and distributed to the faculty to be addressed by ongoing workgroups. Immediate informal feedback suggests that conducting and acting on recommendations ensuing from academic department retreats can foster at least a short-term sense of shared community and purpose, network faculty, identify commonly held values and aspirational goals, and potentially stimulate formation of innovative affinity groups and collaborations. Longer-term workgroup efforts and outcome assessments are required to assess the enduring results and value of such undertakings.

    View details for DOI 10.1007/s40596-014-0139-2

    View details for Web of Science ID 000351433800019

    View details for PubMedID 24789482

  • "Thinking About It for Somebody Else": Alzheimer's Disease Research and Proxy Decision Makers' Translation of Ethical Principles Into Practice AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY Dunn, L. B., Fisher, S. R., Hantke, M., Appelbaum, P. S., Dohan, D., Young, J. P., Roberts, L. W. 2013; 21 (4): 337-345


    Ethical guidelines suggest that, when enrolling patients with dementia in research, alterative decision makers (proxies) should base their decision on a "substituted judgment" of how the patient would have decided. If unable to make a substituted judgment, proxies are asked to decide on the basis of the patient's best interests. This mixed-methods study is the first to examine explicitly whether and to what degree proxies differentiate between these two approaches and what considerations influence their mode of decision making.Interview study regarding enrollment of relative in hypothetical clinical trial of an investigational drug for Alzheimer disease. Participants were randomized to respond to questions about one of four hypothetical clinical trials that differed by levels of described risk and potential benefit.Proxy decision makers (N = 40).Open-ended and rating-scaled items.Half of the proxies agreed with both of two rating-scaled items asking about different approaches to decision making-that is, agreeing that they would decide on the basis of how their relative would have decided and agreeing that they would decide on the basis of what they believed was in their relative's best interests. Narrative responses elaborated on themes within the following three major domains: Substituted judgment, best interests, and weighing substituted judgment and best interests. Substituted judgment was framed as honoring the patient's wishes and values. Best interests was described as a perceived duty to maintain quality of life and avoid burdens or risks. Weighing the two standards emerged as a challenging yet important, way of honoring wishes while maintaining quality of life. An unexpected theme was the attempt by alternative decision makers to discern their loved one's current versus premorbid research preferences.Tensions exist between abstract ethical principles regarding decision-making "standards" and their translation into research decisions.

    View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jagp.2012.11.014

    View details for Web of Science ID 000330355800004

    View details for PubMedID 23498380

    View details for PubMedCentralID PMC3381872

  • How to Prepare an IRB Application The Academic Medicine Handbook A Guide to Achievement and Fulfillment for Academic Faculty edited by Roberts, L. W. Springer. 2013
  • Care management for depression and osteoarthritis pain in older primary care patients: a pilot study INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY Unutzer, J., Hantke, M., Powers, D., Higa, L., Lin, E., Vannoy, S. D., Thielke, S., Fan, M. 2008; 23 (11): 1166-1171


    To establish the feasibility of and to generate preliminary evidence for the efficacy of a care management program addressing both physical and emotional pain associated with late-life depression and osteoarthritis.Treatment development pilot study in three university affiliated primary care clinics. Participants were patients 60 years or older with depression and osteoarthritis pain. The intervention entailed a nurse administered care management program supporting depression and arthritis treatment by primary care physicians. Outcomes include depression, pain severity and functional impairment from pain assessed at baseline and 6 months.Fourteen patients participated in the pilot program. Between baseline and 6 months, mean HSCL-20 depression scores dropped from 1.78 (SD 0.56) to 1.06 (SD 0.59), a standardized effect size of 1.27 (p = 0.004). Pain intensity scores dropped from 5.67 (SD 1.69) to 4.18 (SD 1.98), an effect size of 0.88 (p = 0.021) and pain interference scores dropped from 4.91 (SD 1.75) to 3.49 (SD 2.14), an effect size of 0.81 (p = 0.013). Patients also experienced improvements in self efficacy, in satisfaction with depression care, and in timed 8-m walk and transfer tests.The combined intervention was feasible and well-received by patients. Preliminary outcomes are promising and comparisons to an earlier trial of care management for depression alone suggest that the combined program may be equally effective for depression but more effective for pain.

    View details for DOI 10.1002/gps.2048

    View details for Web of Science ID 000260841300011

    View details for PubMedID 18489009