Participants
Richard Beaulaurier Crystal Blyler Jean Campbell Patrick Corrigan Jaime Delgado Janine
Elkanich Susan Essock Stephen Fischer Louetta Hix Matt Johnsen Anika Keens-Douglas Sarah
Lickey Sandy Lint Danyelle Mannix Betsy McDonel Carol Mussey Jo-Anne O'Connor Ruth Ralph
Joe Rogers Sally Rogers Mark Salzer Carol Silverman Greg Teague Sharon Togut Daphne
Walker-Thoth Brian Yates Tom Summerfelt
Communications Problem
Carol Silverman is not receiving information being sent out through the COSP admin list
serv.
Review of Service Utilization & Program Activity - Brian Yates
Brian proposed adoption of the service utilization items (#1-20) with a few minor word
changes. Janine second the motion. It passed with no objections with the understanding
that the exact recall period throughout the CP may change.
Susan proposed that the SC accept the proposed program activity items with the
understanding that any study site can choose to have the respondent name the program they
participated in and that the site will do the coding. There were no objections.
Logistics Subcommittee Report -- Sally Rogers
Sally explained that at the first SC face-to-face meeting, sites had agreed to move to
0, 6, and 12 month collection points. This posed a problem for Florida, California,
Connecticut, and Tennessee. Consultation was sought from Carol Siegel about whether or not
to have common points or multiple points. She suggested common points. Sally consulted
with two statisticians at her center who also recommended common points.
Sally opened a discussion about common data waves. It was decided on the next Logistics
Subcommittee Thursday, May 13 at 3 p.m. ET that consideration be given to a 0, 4, 8 month
interval or a 0, 4, 8, 12 month interval and that Carol Siegel be invited to be part of
that call. In the meantime, people can consider what will work at their sites.
The sites present on the teleconference discussed the following issues related to their
site participation in common collection points:
California - it is important that this site have an earlier collection schedule because
it tends to see very major effect very rapidly.
Connecticut - will have a collection point at 4 months, but it is willing to add the
6-month interval.
Tennessee - will capture baseline prior to the intervention at 1 and 11/2 months and
then at 4 and 10 months.
TN is willing to work around common data collection time frames. 0, 4, 8, and 12 month
strategy is preferred because our intervention lasts approximately 4 months and because of
human recall issues. However, by conducting baseline interviews 1-2 months before the
intervention begins would allow us to line up with a 0, 6, 12 month approach .
Maine - can be flexible, but is not sure it budgeted for 4 interviews in one year.
(Jean pointed out that the interview cycle will run over two budget periods.)
Illinois - wants to capture information 3 times in Year 1 so either proposal will work
for this site.
Pennsylvania - 4 interviews will be okay, but it wants to collect data after the
12-month point. The 4-month point is a little early for this site. It budgeted for 3
collections. Someone mentioned that looking beyond 12 months would enable the COSP to
capture cost savings.
After some discussion about the Logistics Subcommittee Group's heavy work load, Ruth
moved that the work stay within the Logistics Subcommittee instead of being farmed out to
another work group and that if subgroups are needed that they be subgroups of the
Logistics Subcommittee and that weekly Logistics Subcommittee teleconferences be held. The
motion was seconded by Carol. There were no objections.
Ruth then moved that Matt Johnsen or Joe Sonnefeld serve as co-chair along with Daphne
of the Logistics Subcommittee Group. The motion was seconded and passed with no
objections.
Review of Religious/Spirituality Questions - Sarah Lickey
Sarah proposed that the religious/spirituality questions currently in the CP be
replaced with those recommended by the Cultural Competency & Diversity Task Force that
were posted on the website. These questions were taken from an existing scale. Crystal
seconded the motion. A lengthy discussion ensued when Joe Rogers indicated that he didn't
think this was germane to our research. Joe objected strongly to the motion. A vote was
taken. Thirteen voted in favor of the motion and 1 voted against it. The motion passed.
Review of Health Questions - Sally Rogers reporting for Brian McCorkle
Brian conducted a pilot to see if the two questions in the CP correlated with the SF
12. The correlation was not high enough. Sally moved that the two questions in the CP be
removed and replaced with the SF 12 or the longer SF 36. There were no objections. The
motion passed.
Sally then moved to include the SF 36 if the SC thought health, emotional status, and
functioning questions were important enough to warrant the addition of more questions. A
lengthy discussion ensued. Key points were (1) questions about whether or not the SF 12 or
SF 36 had been validated on the homeless population. Carol Silverman suggested that those
questions that are not appropriate for homeless individuals be skipped when administered
to homeless individuals, (2) the SF 12 is not interchangeable with the SF 36, (3) the
scales were developed for the general population but have been administered to people who
are mentally ill, and (4) more information may be needed on internal validity and
subscales on the SF 12. The motion to include the SF 36 in the CP did not pass. There were
10 votes against the motion, 1 vote in favor of the motion, and 3 abstentions.
Sally the moved to include the SF 12 in the CP. The motion was seconded and passed with
1 vote against it from Joe Rogers. Joe voiced his strong objection and left the
teleconference. Several SC members said that Joe's comments felt like attacks. Betsy and
Jean will follow up with Joe.
Review of Symptoms and Symptoms Distress Scales - Mark Salzer
Mark moved that the work group return this topic for larger discussion call involving
all SC voting members. Janine seconded. Betsy stated that the SC voted to include
symptoms, but there wasn't strong consensus. This has made the task of the work group
difficult, and we need to confirm or disconfirm the original vote that was taken. She
suggested having a call before Friday's regularly scheduled SC teleconference. The motion
passed with no objections. The teleconference will take place Wednesday, May 12th at 3:30
p.m. ET and will last for one hour. Tom suggested that SC members review the pros and cons
document that was prepared and posted on the list serv.
Ruth indicated that she withdrew her recommendation to CAP for inclusion of Basis 32.
She suggested that if it is decided that symptoms will be measured, an instrument needs to
be identified.
Mark proposed that since no one has submitted life distress or distress in other areas
scales that it not be included in the CP and that sites interested in this area work on it
outside of the CP. The motion was seconded and passed with no objections. Tom asked that
the Coordinating Center compile a list of the topics sites might be interested in
collaborating on in clusters, such as poverty, distress, substance abuse and put it on the
list serv.
CP Time line
Jean pointed out that each time we don't vote on the CP, it pushes the time line back.
We are now one month behind. Jean said this is fine and she has no problem changing the
time line, but that she brings it up as part of her responsibility as moderator.
Other Issues
There is a demographic question that needs to be addressed and one last question on
health that will be rolled over to the next regularly scheduled SC teleconference Friday,
May 14th at 2 p.m. ET.
Adjournment
5400
Arsenal Street