Member department chairs from the Council of Graduate Departments of Psychology (COGDOP), who also happen to be child development researchers, will advise up and coming SRCD scholars about the daunting process of academic job-seeking. Although panelists’ administrative experiences draw from their roles in academic departments of psychology, their experiences generalize to the academy broadly. In this Q&A panel format, chairs representing institutions of various sizes (see Table 1) will answer questions about the search process and give advice based on several decades of combined experience negotiating research start-up packages and making jobs offers. The panel symposium should be of great interest to graduate students, post-doctoral fellows, and seasoned professionals considering re-entering the academic job market. During Part 1 of the session, panelists will speak 4 minutes each to describe their institutional contexts, their experiences in hiring, and to share short stories about candidates they found especially impressive. Part 1 of the session will conclude with a brief period of broad Q&A. In Part 2 of the session, we will break into more focused Q&A groups based on the special interests of “larger” and “smaller” institutions. At the conclusion of Part 2, groups will report out to one another about particularly relevant topics that arose during small group discussions. At the conclusion of the session, attendees will have a better understanding of the factors department chairs take into consideration when offering jobs and start-up packages to new hires.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Purpose Breastfeeding affords numerous benefits for mothers, infants, families, and communities. Rates of breastfeeding are disproportionately low in rural Appalachia. We will describe how use of the AAP CATCH Grant process aided in building a community breastfeeding coalition, conducting a breastfeeding support needs assessment, and developing interventions to promote and support breastfeeding in the region. Methods In 2005, members of a multidisciplinary regional breastfeeding coalition in Northeast Tennessee wrote and received an AAP CATCH Planning Grant. Funds supported regular meetings of the coalition, a needs assessment consisting of surveys and focus groups conducted with patients and healthcare providers in the region during 2007-2008, and dissemination of the group's findings and recommendations. Patient participants were recruited from three health departments and one Pediatric clinic in the region. Provider participants were recruited from three regional professional conferences. Surveys were entered into and analyzed using SPSS 17. Recordings of focus groups were transcribed and transcripts were reviewed to identify themes. Results 19 pregnant women in their second and third trimesters of pregnancy, 38 new mothers, and 58 healthcare providers completed a survey. Fifty five percent of new mothers reported ever having breastfed their baby. Thirty seven percent of healthcare providers identified Pediatrics, 21% Obstetrics and Gynecology, and 37% Family Medicine/Primary Care as their primary specialty. 52.6% and 81.6% of pregnant women and new mothers, respectively, reported that their healthcare provider had encouraged breastfeeding. Patients described that their healthcare providers discussed little about breastfeeding other than its benefits. Eighty-four percent of providers reported usually recommending exclusive breastfeeding during the first month of life. Only forty-eight percent of providers considered their advice on breastfeeding to be very important to mothers. Twenty-five percent of providers felt that exclusive breastfeeding for the first sixth months of life is unrealistic for many of their patients. The most commonly cited barrier by providers was that mothers had already decided not to breastfeed before they encountered them. Lack of time and lack of referral resources were other common barriers reported. Providers expressed the lowest levels of confidence in their own skills in evaluating latch, resolving problems of low milk production and breast tenderness, and knowing what referral services exist. Conclusion Patients in this sample described receiving little information about breastfeeding from their healthcare provider. Many health care providers in this region do not recognize the importance of their advice on breastfeeding and feel that breastfeeding is unrealistic for many of their patients. The use of study results by a community breastfeeding coalition to increase community awareness of the importance of breastfeeding promotion and support and to address provider concerns about barriers and educational needs will be discussed.

The family, being the first immediate surroundings of children, plays an important part in forming children's’ habits. The presence of at least one overweight parent triples the likelihood that a child will be overweight. Parents influence a child’s weight by modelling healthy behaviour and controlling food availability, feeding practices, and physical activity opportunities. For instance, higher parental TV viewing is associated with an increased risk of high levels of TV viewing for children, which in turn is positively correlated with adiposity. Women who live in rural areas and mothers in particular may be less likely to be physically active compared with other women. The current study uses data from ReadNPlay for a Bright Future, a primary care initiative with community linkages promoting healthy active living in families with young children being piloted in Appalachian Northeast Tennessee. Clinical counselling is being centred around novel tools provided to parents and discussed during each well child visit from birth through 18 months, the ReadNPlay Baby Book and Healthy Active Living Tips booklet. Provider training in brief motivational interviewing and behavioural counselling, use of social media, project posters placed in community settings, and participation incentives (e.g., free children’s books) are being used to promote healthy active living behaviours. The purpose of the current research is to describe baseline maternal reports of TV/screen time, fruit, vegetable, and sugar sweetened beverage (SSB) intake, and exercise and perceived barriers to exercise for this project. Forty mothers with infants aged 9-12 months (younger) and forty mothers with infants aged 13-24 months (older) attending well child visits at a paediatric clinic in Northeast Tennessee completed anonymous surveys. The participants of the study were primarily Caucasian families of lower socio-economic status, with 71% of participants receiving WIC. Over 80% of mothers of both younger and older infants reported that they wished that they could get more exercise. The most significant barriers to getting exercise in both samples were 1) Not having enough time to exercise and 2) The mother would rather spend the time with the child(ren) than exercise. The mean consumption of servings of fruit &/or vegetables was 3 servings per day for both samples; the previously reported average among US women is 3.5 servings per day. The mean consumption of SSB was 18 oz per day for mothers of younger babies & 22 oz per day for mothers of the older babies, amounting to approximately 250 calories per day, greater than the American Heart Association’s recommendation of a maximum daily intake of added sugars of 100 calories per day for women. This research adds to limited data on healthy active living behaviours of new mothers. Future work will examine how data may be used to drive and track improvements in counselling to promote healthy active living in new mothers and families with young children.

Objectives. To describe the sociodemographic differences among Mexican American children (first, second, and third generation), non-Hispanic black children, and non-Hispanic white children; to compare the health status and health care needs of Mexican American children (first, second, and third generation) with those of non-Hispanic black children and non-Hispanic white children; and to determine whether first-generation Mexican American children have poorer health care access and utilization than do non-Hispanic white children, after controlling for health insurance status and socioeconomic status. Methods. The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey was used to create a sample of 4372 Mexican American children (divided into 3 generational groups), 4138 non-Hispanic black children, and 4594 non-Hispanic white children, 2 months to 16 years of age. We compared parent/caregiver reports of health status and needs (perceived health of the child and reported illnesses), health care access (usual source of health care and specific provider), and health care utilization (contact with a physician within the past year, use of prescription medications, physician visit because of earache/infection, and hearing and vision screenings) for different subgroups within the sample. Results. More than two thirds of first-generation Mexican American children were poor and uninsured and had parents with low educational attainment. More than one fourth of first-generation children were perceived as having poor or fair health, despite experiencing similar or better rates of illnesses, compared with other children. Almost one half of first-generation Mexican American children had not seen a doctor in the past year, compared with one fourth or less for other groups. Health care needs among first-generation Mexican American children were lower, on the basis of reported illnesses, but perceived health status was worse than for all other groups. After controlling for health insurance coverage and socioeconomic status, first-generation Mexican American children and non-Hispanic black children were less likely than non-Hispanic white children to have a usual source of care, to have a specific provider, or to have seen or talked with a physician in the past year. Conclusions. Of the 3 groups of children, Mexican American children had the least health care access and utilization, even after controlling for socioeconomic status and health insurance status. Our findings showed that Mexican American children had much lower levels of access and utilization than previously reported for Hispanic children on the whole. As a subgroup, first-generation Mexican American children fared substantially worse than second- or third-generation children. The discrepancy between poor perceived health status and lower rates of reported illnesses in the first-generation group leads to questions regarding generalized application of the “epidemiologic paradox.” Given the overall growth of the Hispanic population in the United States and the relative growth of individual immigrant subgroups, the identification of subgroups in need is essential for the development of effective research and policy. Furthermore, taking generational status into account is likely to be revealing with respect to disparities in access to and utilization of pediatric services.

No description available.

Reliance on emergency departments (EDs) by economically disadvantaged people for initial cancer diagnosis in place of primary care and early diagnosis and treatment is 1 obvious plausible explanation for cancer disparities. Claims data from a safety net hospital for the years 2009–2010 were merged with hospital tumor registry data to compare hospitalizations for ED-associated initial cancer diagnoses to non–ED associated initial diagnoses. The proportion of initial cancer diagnoses associated with hospital admissions through the ED was relatively high (32%) for all safety net hospital patients, but disproportionately higher for African Americans and residents of the impoverished urban core. Use of the ED for initial diagnosis was associated with a 75% higher risk of stage 4 versus stage 1 cancer diagnosis, and a 176% higher risk of dying during the 2-year study period. Findings from this study of ED use within a safety net hospital documented profound disparities in cancer care and outcomes with major implications for monitoring disparities, Affordable Care Act impact, and safety net hospital utilization.