Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
New AI model predicts harmful videos before they go viral
Certain short-form videos on major social media platforms can trigger suicidal thoughts among vulnerable viewers, according to new research led by the University of Delaware's Jiaheng Xie. His team developed an AI model that can predict and flag these videos. In the study, published Nov. 17 in Information Systems Research, UD professor Jiaheng Xie and his co-authors showed how AI can assist with safety by predicting high-risk videos before they go viral by looking through both the content and what people write in the comments. • Distinguish what creators choose to post from what viewers think or feel after watching. • Separate known medical risk factors from emerging social media trends, such as viral heartbreak clips or challenges that may influence teens. • This system is especially novel because it predicts the high-risk videos before they reach large audiences. Xie is available for a Zoom interview to share how the model was developed and how it could potentially change the way platforms such as TikTok moderate.
Why TikTok Keeps You Scrolling: Baylor Research Explains the Science Behind Social Media Addiction
Why is it so hard to stop scrolling TikTok? A new study by Baylor University marketing professors and social media researchers James A. Roberts, Ph.D. and Meredith E. David, Ph.D., reveals that the answer lies not only in the app’s content, but in its design. Their research, published in the journal Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, is among the first to compare the technological affordances – the built-in design features that shape user behavior – of three leading short-form video (SFV) platforms: TikTok, Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts. The findings reveal that TikTok’s combination of ease of use, highly accurate recommendations and surprising content variety creates a powerful recipe for user engagement – and, in many cases, addiction. The power of effortless design In their study, Roberts and David had participants rate each platform on three key technological affordances: perceived effortlessness, recommendation accuracy and serendipity (the element of surprise) and answer questions measuring their levels of social media engagement and addictive use. The results were clear: TikTok scored significantly higher than Instagram Reels or YouTube Shorts across all categories. Users in the study said TikTok required the least effort to use, delivered the most relevant videos and surprised them most often with unexpected but enjoyable content. “It’s the combination of all three that keeps people scrolling,” David said. “But the prerequisite is effortlessness. Without that ease of use, the other two wouldn’t matter as much.” TikTok’s seamless experience – where videos begin playing automatically the moment the app opens – creates a sense of immersion unmatched by competitors. Other platforms require users to click or select a video before viewing begins, a subtle difference that nonetheless makes TikTok feel faster and more intuitive. Engagement becomes addiction The study found that TikTok’s technological affordances indirectly increase addiction by first increasing engagement. The more users engage, the more likely they are to lose track of time – a phenomenon known as time distortion. David said this design is no accident. “TikTok’s algorithm is intentionally created to be addictive,” she said. “Their own materials acknowledge that users can become hooked after less than half an hour on the app.” She noted that even users who recognize these patterns often underestimate how long they spend scrolling. “We all need to be more cognizant of our time on these platforms,” David said. “Check your phone’s screen-time data – you may be surprised.” Implications for users and policy Beyond individual awareness, the researchers point to the broader social impact of overuse – particularly for young people. Excessive time on short-form video apps can erode attention spans, foster expectations for instant gratification and displace face-to-face interaction. “These platforms are designed to hold our attention,” David said. “But the opportunity cost is huge. The more time we spend scrolling, the less time we have for the activities that build real connection and meaning.”
Black Friday 2025: Earlier, Bigger and More Digital Than Ever
Black Friday is no longer just a day – it’s becoming an entire season. In 2025, shoppers are starting earlier, spending more and relying heavily on technology to find the best deals. With online shopping now the dominant force, an estimated 71% of consumers plan to browse and buy from their screens rather than stand in long lines. Baylor University consumer behavior expert James A. Roberts, Ph.D., said this year’s sales stretch well beyond Thanksgiving weekend. Top 5 Black Friday Trends from Dr. James A. Roberts Retailers have pushed promotions into early November – and in some cases, late October – creating what many now call “Black November.” And for the true procrastinators, “Desperate in December” is the new reality, with next-day delivery extending holiday shopping right up to the last minute. Even as shoppers plan to spend up to 10% more, they’re extremely price sensitive, Roberts said. Inflation, rising living costs and ongoing economic uncertainty – including concerns over tariffs – are prompting consumers to hunt for deeper discounts and compare prices more closely than ever. That caution is also fueling another trend: increased use of buy-now-pay-later plans. While convenient, Roberts urges shoppers to approach them carefully to avoid overspending. Technology also is accelerating the shift. AI tools and retail chatbots are helping customers track deals and make purchases, while influencers and social media ads continue to shape buying habits. Cost-conscious platforms like Temu and Shein are poised for another strong season. Clothing, electronics and home goods remain top categories, Roberts said, with gift cards still the go-to for last-minute buyers. Walmart, Target and Kohl’s are expected to be the most popular in-store destinations, while Amazon – unsurprisingly – continues to dominate Cyber Monday. Overall spending remains robust. Shoppers are expected to spend roughly $20 billion across online and in-store purchases, split almost evenly between the two. The best bargains will be toys discounted about 25 percent, phones and computers discounted around 30 percent and TVs discounted an average of 23 percent. The typical shopper will spend about $650 this holiday weekend. How to navigate the shopping frenzy Roberts offers some simple advice for navigating the frenzy: Set a budget, stick to it, choose thoughtful gifts and keep the season in perspective. After all, the most meaningful gifts are the ones that show how well you know the people you love. ABOUT JAMES A. ROBERTS, PH.D. James A. Roberts, Ph.D., is The Ben H. Williams Professor of Marketing at Baylor University’s Hankamer School of Business. A noted consumer behavior expert, he is among the Top 2% Most-Cited Researchers in a database compiled by Stanford University. In addition to journal citations, Roberts has often been called upon by national media outlets for his consumer expertise and latest research. He has appeared on the CBS Early Show, ABC World News Tonight, ABC Good Morning America, NBC’s TODAY Show and NPR’s Morning Edition, as well as in articles in The New York Times, USA TODAY, The Wall Street Journal, TIME and many others. Roberts’ research has focused on how individual consumer attitudes and behavior impact personal and collective well-being, including investigating the factors that drive ecologically and socially conscious consumer behavior, the impact of materialism and compulsive buying on well-being and the effect of smartphone and social media use on personal well-being. He is the author of “Shiny Objects: Why We Spend Money We Don’t Have in Search of Happiness We Can’t Buy” and “Too Much of a Good Thing: Are You Addicted to Your Smartphone?”
Acing AI interviews: Career expert on strategies for job seekers
AI-conducted interviews are becoming a standard step in the hiring process, but many job seekers still aren’t sure how to handle them. University of Delaware career expert Jill Gugino Panté says candidates should treat these algorithm-driven interviews with the same seriousness as traditional ones and details how this can be done. Panté, director of UD’s Lerner College Career Services Center, can discuss what today’s AI interview platforms really measure – from confidence and tone to eye contact and facial expressions – and how job seekers can stand out. She can also explain what recruiters are looking for in the AI-generated summaries that often determine who moves to the next round. Panté’s expert tips include: • Check equipment to make sure everything is working and the software is updated; turn off all notifications to avoid distractions and set up the space with good lighting, a neutral background. • Smile and maintain your energy, as some AI software will assess your tone and engagement. • Prepare as you would for any other interview - review the job description, research the organization, use the STAR method (Situation, Task, Action, Result) when providing examples. • Be sure to look at the camera and not the screen. It might feel awkward but that’s technically where the "eye contact" will be. • Some platforms will allow you to review your recording before submitting. Use this opportunity to take notes about your body language, pacing and clarity. To contact Panté directly and arrange an interview, visit her profile and click on the connect button. Interested journalists can also send an email to MediaRelations@udel.edu.
Op-Ed: Stablecoin 'rewards' are a risk to financial stability
Congress has long recognized that stablecoins should not function as unregulated bank deposits. The intent of the recently enacted GENIUS Act is clear: to prohibit stablecoin issuers from paying interest or yield to holders, maintaining a distinction between payment instruments and bank deposits which are not only used for payment purposes but also as a store value. Yet loopholes have already emerged. Some crypto exchanges and affiliated platforms now offer “rewards” to stablecoin holders that work much like interest, potentially undermining the stability of the traditional banking system and constraining credit in local communities. Terminology matters. Credit card rewards are funded by interchange fees and paid to encourage spending — you earn points for using your card. Stablecoin “rewards” are different. They’re funded by investing the reserves backing stablecoins, typically in Treasury bills or money market funds, and passing that interest income to holders. You earn returns for holding the stablecoin, not for using it. Economically, this is indistinguishable from a bank deposit paying interest. When a platform advertises “5% rewards” on stablecoin holdings, it’s generally backing those tokens with Treasuries yielding about 4.5%, then passing that yield to users. Whether labeled rewards, yield or dividends, the function is the same: interest on deposits. Banks perform a similar activity — taking deposits, investing in loans and paying depositors a return — but face far higher costs, including FDIC insurance, capital requirements and compliance obligations that stablecoin issuers largely avoid. This dynamic has a precedent. In the 1970s and early 1980s, Regulation Q capped bank deposit rates at 5.25% while inflation and Treasury yields soared above 15%. Money market funds filled the gap, offering market rates directly to consumers. Deposits fled smaller banks, which lost their funding base, while large money-center institutions gained reserves. The result was widespread disintermediation, the collapse of the savings and loan industry and the farm-credit crisis of the 1980s. Stablecoin “rewards” risk repeating that history. Just as money market funds exploited the gap between regulated deposit rates and market rates, stablecoin platforms exploit the difference between what banks can profitably pay and what lightly regulated issuers can offer by passing through Treasury yields with minimal overhead. Some ask why banks can’t just raise deposit rates. The answer lies in structure. Banks operate under a fundamentally different business model and cost framework. They pay FDIC premiums, maintain capital reserves and comply with extensive supervision — costs most stablecoin issuers don’t bear. Banks also use deposits to make loans, which requires holding capital against potential losses. Stablecoin issuers simply hold reserves in ultra-safe assets, allowing them to pass through nearly all the yield they earn. To match 5% “rewards,” banks would need to earn 6% to 7% on their loan portfolios — an unrealistic target in today’s environment, especially for smaller community banks. The consequence is not fair competition, but a structural disadvantage for regulated depository institutions. The Consumer Bankers Association warns this loophole could trigger a massive shift of deposits from community banks to global custodians. Citing Treasury Department estimates, the Association notes that as much as $6.6 trillion in deposits could migrate into stablecoins if yield programs remain permissible. Because the GENIUS Act’s prohibition applies narrowly to issuers, exchanges and intermediaries may still offer financial returns under alternate terminology. This opens the door to affiliate arrangements that replicate the essence of interest payments without legal accountability. Those reserves don’t stay in local economies. The largest stablecoin issuers hold funds at global custodians such as Bank of New York Mellon, in money market funds managed by firms like BlackRock or — if permitted — directly with the Federal Reserve. When a community-bank depositor moves $100,000 into stablecoins, that capital exits the local bank and concentrates at systemically important institutions. The community bank loses lending capacity; the megabank or the Fed gains reserves. The result is disintermediation with a concentrated risk profile reminiscent of the money-market fund crisis. The Progressive Policy Institute estimates that community banks — responsible for roughly 60% of small-business loans and 80% of agricultural lending nationwide — could be among the most affected. In Louisiana, where local banks finance small businesses and family farms, that risk is especially relevant. If deposits migrate to unregulated digital assets, community-bank lending could tighten, particularly in rural parishes and underserved communities. Research from the Brookings Institution reinforces the need for regulatory parity. The label “rewards” doesn’t change the fact that these payments are economically interest. Allowing intermediaries to generate yield without deposit insurance or prudential oversight could recreate vulnerabilities similar to those seen during the 2008 money market fund crisis. To preserve financial stability, policymakers should move to close the stablecoin-interest loophole. Clarifying that the prohibition on interest applies to all entities— not just issuers — would uphold Congress’ intent. Regulators such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, Commodities Futures Trading Commission and federal banking agencies could also treat “reward” programs as equivalent to deposit interest for supervisory purposes. Stablecoins offer genuine efficiencies in payments, but unchecked yield features risk turning them into unregulated banks. History shows what happens when regulatory arbitrage allows competitors to offer deposit-like products without oversight: deposit flight, institutional instability and capital flowing away from community lenders. Acting now could help sustain stability, protect depositors and preserve the credit channels that support community lending — especially in states like Louisiana, where community banks remain the backbone of Main Street.
The Hidden Risks of Sports Betting
In a recent release from Cedarville University, Dr. Jared A. Pincin, Associate Professor of Economics, emerges as a prominent voice warning students about the hidden risks of sports betting. Pincin underscores that modern betting apps are intentionally designed to mimic mobile video games—fast, rewarding, and highly addictive—which makes them especially appealing to young adults and students. He emphasizes that while the appeal of quick wins is strong, the reality is that these platforms can erode both personal finances and educational opportunities. “The dark reality is that gambling is very addictive and can bankrupt people, strain marriages and destroy futures,” Dr. Pincin explains when describing the slippery slope that many young gamblers face. Grounded in his economic research and Christian ethics framework, Pincin adds another layer of concern: from a faith perspective, gambling exploits the desire for instant gain and distracts individuals from a more grounded trust in provision and purpose. He argues that with legalization expanding and betting apps readily available on smartphones, college students—not just athletes—are increasingly vulnerable to behaviors that can derail their academic trajectory and long-term goals. “Gambling preys on our desire for quick gain and distracts us from trusting God’s provision,” Dr. Pincin notes, bringing into focus the moral as well as the practical implications of sports gambling in a university setting. Dr. Jared Pincin's research interests explore the intersection of public choice economics with foreign aid as well as issues in sports economics. Pincin has published in popular publications such as The Hill, Real Clear Markets, Foxnews.com, and USA Today and scholarly journals such as Oxford Development Studies, Applied Economic Letters, and the Journal of Sport and Social Issues. View his profile here The release garnered a lot of attention - and substantial media coverage from outlets like ABC News and others. Gambling is emerging as a serious issue across America - and if you're a reporter looking to know more about this topic - then let us help. Cedarville's Jared Pincin is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Gig worker protection law boosted overall earnings but dropped hourly pay
A 2020 California law designed to protect gig workers by classifying them as regular employees, rather than contractors, ended up increasing their earnings by about 8%. However, their hourly pay dropped by 1.6% as companies offset the higher costs of benefits. Workers’ increased earnings came from working longer hours in order to qualify for and reap benefits like employer tax sharing. These findings come from a study led by Liangfei Qiu, Ph.D., a professor in the University of Florida’s Warrington College of Business, which examined nearly 400,000 monthly work records from about 41,000 freelancers on Upwork, one of the world’s largest online labor platforms. That trove of data let the researchers ask what actually happened when the law, known as AB5, took effect. Qiu’s is the first study to reveal how AB5 affected workers’ income and comes as other states consider passing similar laws. Liangfei Qiu is an expert in social technology, including social media and social networks, as well as artificial intelligence. View his profile here “It highlights some unintended consequences,” Qiu said. “If the labor market competition is similar to what we observe in California, then you might get lower hourly rates for gig economy workers and longer working hours.” “But it’s nuanced. In surveys, gig workers said they were willing to work longer hours because they had better benefits. The outcome depends on how involved someone is in the gig economy,” Qiu added. AB5 was designed to correct what labor advocates saw as widespread misclassification of a company’s essential employees as independent contractors, who don’t typically earn any benefits. This classification gives companies a cheaper workforce, and provides maximum flexibility for workers, but doesn’t allow workers to earn any sick leave, vacation or health insurance. Self-employed contractors must also pay the full share of Social Security and Medicare taxes, which works out to about 15% of gross income. Gig economy companies fought back against the AB5 regulations. A company-sponsored ballot referendum, Prop 22, exempted well-known giants like Uber, Lyft and DoorDash from the law later in 2020. And the California legislature provided further carve outs for professions like doctors, lawyers and photographers. The law still applies to contractors used by delivery companies like FedEx, UPS or Amazon, home-service companies like Angi or Rover as well as online freelance platforms like TaskRabbit. The study is forthcoming in the journal Information Systems Research. Qiu collaborated on the analysis with researchers at Baylor University, Santa Clara University and Stony Brook University. Looking to know more about the 'gig economy' and how it impacts the workforce? Connect with Liangfei Qiu today and click is icon now to arrange a time to talk.
University Communications Needs a Bigger Role in the Research Conversation
While attending the Expert Finder Systems International Forum (EFS), several notable themes emerged for me over the 2-day event. It's clear that many universities are working hard to improve their reputation by demonstrating the real-world impact of their research to the public and to funders, but it's proving to be a challenging task - even for the largest R1 universities. Many of these challenges stem from how institutions have traditionally organized their research functions, management systems, and performance metrics. Engaging faculty researchers in this process remains a significant challenge, despite the need for rapid transformation. While this EFS conference was very well-organized and the speakers delivered a great deal of useful information, I appeared to be one of the few marketing and communications professionals in a room full of research leaders, administrative staff, librarians, and IT professionals. There's a certain irony to this, as I observe the same phenomenon at HigherEd marketing conferences, which often lack representation from research staff. My point is this. We can't build better platforms, policies, and processes that amplify the profile of research without breaking down silos. We need University Communications to be much more involved in this process. As Baruch Fischhoff, a renowned scholar at Carnegie Mellon University, notes: Bridging the gap between scientists and the public “requires an unnatural act: collaboration among experts from different communities” – but when done right, it benefits everyone. But first, let's dive in a little more into RIM's and Expert Finder Systems for context. What are Research Information Systems (RIMs) Research Information Management systems (aka Expert Finder Systems) are the digital backbone that tracks everything researchers do. Publications, grants, collaborations, patents, speaking engagements. Think of them as massive databases that universities use to catalog their intellectual output and demonstrate their research capacity. These systems matter. They inform faculty promotion decisions, support strategic planning and grant applications, and increasingly, they're what institutions point to when asked to justify their existence to funders, accreditors, and the public. But here's the problem: most RIM systems were designed by researchers, for researchers, during an era when academic reputation was the primary currency. The game has fundamentally changed, and our systems haven't caught up. Let's explore this further. Academic Research Impact: The New Pressure Cooker Research departments across the country are under intense pressure to demonstrate impact—fast. State legislators want to see economic benefits from university research. Federal agencies are demanding clearer public engagement metrics. Donors want stories, not statistics. And the general public? They're questioning whether their tax dollars are actually improving their lives. Yet some academics are still asking, “Why should I simplify my research? Doesn’t the public already trust that this is important?” In a word, no – at least, not like they used to. Communicators must navigate a landscape where public trust in science and academia is not a given. The data shows that there's a lot of work to be done. Trust in science has declined and it's also polarized:. According to a Nov. 2024 Pew Research study, 88% of Democrats vs. 66% of Republicans have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in scientists; overall views have not returned to pre-pandemic highs and many Americans are wary of scientists’ role in policymaking. While Public trust in higher education has declined, Americans see universities having a central role in innovation. While overall confidence in higher education has been falling over the past decade, a recent report by Gallup Research shows innovation scores highest as an area where higher education helps generate positive outcomes. Communication is seen as an area of relative weakness for scientists. Overall, 45% of U.S. adults describe research scientists as good communicators, according to a November 2024 Pew Research Study. Another critique many Americans hold is the sense that research scientists feel superior to others; 47% say this phrase describes them well. The traditional media ecosystem has faltered:. While many of these issues are largely due to research being caught in a tide of political polarization fueled by a significant rise in misinformation and disinformation on social media, traditional media have faced serious challenges. Newsrooms have shrunk, and specialized science journalists are a rare breed outside major outlets. Local newspapers – once a reliable venue for highlighting state university breakthroughs or healthcare innovations – have been severely impacted. The U.S. has lost over 3,300 newspapers since 2005, with closures continuing and more than 7,000 newspaper jobs vanished between 2022 and 2023 according to a Northwestern University Medill Report on Local News. Competition for coverage is fierce, and your story really needs to shine to grab a journalist's attention – or you need to find alternative ways to reach audiences directly. The Big Message These Trends are Sending We can’t just assume goodwill – universities have to earn trust through clear, relatable communication. Less money means more competition and more scrutiny on outcomes. That's why communications teams play a pivotal role here: by conveying the impact of research to the public and decision-makers, they help build the case for why cuts to science are harmful. Remember, despite partisan divides, a strong majority – 78% of Americans – still agree government investment in scientific research is worthwhile. We need to keep it that way. But there's still a lot of work to do. The Audience Mismatch Problem The public doesn't care about your Altmetrics score. The policymakers I meet don't get excited about journal impact factors. Donors want to fund solutions to problems they understand, not citations in journals they'll never read. Yet our expert systems are still designed around these traditional academic metrics because that's what the people building them understand. It's not their fault—but it's created a blind spot. "Impact isn't just journal articles anymore," one EFS conference panelist explained. "It's podcasts, blogs, media mentions, datasets, even the community partnerships we build." But walk into most research offices, and those broader impacts are either invisible in the system or buried under layers of academic jargon that external audiences can't penetrate. Expert systems have traditionally been primarily focused on academic audiences. They're brilliant at tracking h-Index scores, citation counts, and journal impact factors. But try to use them to show a state legislator how your agriculture research is helping local farmers, or explain to a donor how your engineering faculty is solving real-world problems? There's still work to do here. As one frustrated speaker put it: "These systems have become compliance-driven, inward-looking tools. They help administrators, but they don't help the public understand why research matters. The Science Translation Crisis Perhaps the most sobering observation came from another EFS Conference speaker who said it very plainly. "If we can't explain our work in plain language, we lose taxpayers. We lose the community. They don't see themselves in what we do." However, this feels more like a communication problem masquerading as a technology issue. We've built systems that speak fluent academic, but the audiences we need to reach speak human. When research descriptions are buried in jargon, when impact metrics are incomprehensible to lay audiences, when success stories require a PhD to understand—we're actively pushing away the very people we need to engage. The AI Disruption Very Few Saw Coming Yes, AI, like everywhere else, is fast making its mark on how research gets discovered. One impassioned speaker representing a university system described this new reality: "We are entering an age where no one needs to click on content. AI systems will summarize and cite without ever sending the traffic back." Think about what this means for a lot of faculty research. If it's not structured for both AI discovery and human interaction, your world-class faculty might as well be invisible. Increasingly, you will see that search traffic isn't coming back to your beautifully designed university pages—instead, it's being "synthesized" and served up in AI-generated summaries. I've provided a more detailed overview of how AI-generated summaries work in a previous post here. Keep in mind, this isn't a technical problem that IT can solve alone. It's a fundamental communications challenge about how we structure, present, and distribute information about our expertise. Faculty Fatigue is Real Meanwhile, many faculty are experiencing serious challenges managing busy schedules and mounting responsibilities. As another EFS panelist commented on the challenges of engaging faculty in reporting and communicating their research, saying, "Many faculty see this work as duplicative. It's another burden on top of what they already have. Without clear incentives, adoption will always lag." Faculty researchers are busy people. They will engage with these internal systems when they see direct benefits. Media inquiries, speaking opportunities, consulting gigs, policy advisory roles—the kind of external visibility that advances careers and amplifies research impact. And they require more support than many institutions can provide. Yet, many universities have just one or two people trying to manage thousands of profiles, with no clear strategy for demonstrating how tasks such as profile updates and helping approve media releases and stories translate into tangible opportunities. In short, we're asking faculty to feed a system that feels like it doesn't feed them back. Breaking Down the Silos Which brings me to my main takeaway: we need more marketing and communications professionals in these conversations. The expert systems community is focused on addressing many of the technical challenges—data integration, workflow optimization, and new metadata standards — as AI transforms how we conduct research. But they're wrestling with fundamental communication challenges about audience, messaging, and impact storytelling. That's the uncomfortable truth. The systems are evolving whether we participate or not. The public pressure for accountability isn't going away. Comms professionals can either help shape these systems to serve critical communications goals or watch our expertise get lost in translation. ⸻ Key Takeaways Get Closer to Your Research: This involves having a deeper understanding of the management systems you use across the campus. How is your content appearing to external audiences? —not just research administrators, but the journalists, policymakers, donors, and community members we're trying to reach. Don't Forget The Importance of Stories: Push for plain-language research descriptions without unnecessarily "dumbing down" the research. Show how the work your faculty is doing can create real-world benefits at a local community level. Also, demonstrate how it has the potential to address global issues, further enhancing your authority. And always be on the lookout for story angles that connect the research to relevant news, adding value for journalists. Structure Expert Content for AI Discoverability: Audit your content to see how it's showing up on key platforms such as Google Gemini, ChatGPT. Show faculty how keeping their information fresh and relevant translates to career opportunities they actually care about. Show Up at These Research Events: Perhaps most importantly, communications pros need to be part of these conversations. Next year's International Forum on Expert Finder Systems needs more communications professionals, marketing strategists, and storytelling experts in the room. The research leaders, administrators and IT professionals you will meet have a lot of challenges on their plate and want to do the right thing. They will appreciate your input. These systems are being rapidly redesigned - Whether you're part of the conversation or not. The question is: do we want to influence how they serve our institutions' communications goals, or do we want to inherit systems that work brilliantly for academic audiences but get a failing grade for helping us serve the public?
ChristianaCare’s Virtual Primary Care practice at the Center for Virtual Health has earned full accreditation from the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA), placing it among the first health systems in the nation to achieve this distinction. ChristianaCare was one of only 18 organizations invited to participate in NCQA’s inaugural pilot program in 2023 to develop the Virtual Care Accreditation. The recognition affirms ChristianaCare’s leadership role in shaping the future of health care and its commitment to delivering accessible, equitable and patient-centered care through innovative digital platforms. “This accreditation is a powerful validation of our vision to reimagine health care,” said Sarah Schenck, M.D., FACP, executive director of ChristianaCare’s Center for Virtual Health. “We’ve built a model that meets people where they are—at home, at work or on the go—with care that is personal, proactive and powered by love and excellence.” What Accreditation Means for Patients NCQA accreditation underscores that ChristianaCare’s Center for Virtual Health meets rigorous standards for: Clinical quality and safety: clear care protocols, escalation pathways and outcome monitoring. Access and equity: technology, language and disability-inclusive design that extends care to more people. Data privacy and security: strong safeguards to protect personal health information. ChristianaCare’s participation in NCQA’s pilot helped shape the benchmarks now used nationwide. The center delivers comprehensive virtual primary care through a multidisciplinary team that includes physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, behavioral health specialists, pharmacists and patient digital ambassadors. Virtual Care by the Numbers In 2024, ChristianaCare’s Center for Virtual Health provided more than 7,500 patient visits, reflecting both rapid growth and strong demand for its virtual-first model. Services are offered at no copay to ChristianaCare caregivers and their dependents, while availability continues to expand across Delaware and the region “At ChristianaCare, we believe virtual care isn’t just a convenience, it’s a catalyst for better health outcomes,” said Brad Sandella, D.O., MBA, medical director, Ambulatory Care for the Center for Virtual Health. “This accreditation affirms our commitment to innovation and excellence. We’re proud to be among the pioneers defining what high-quality virtual care looks like in America.” Beginning in 2026, ChristianaCare will expand its Virtual Primary Care practice, giving a broader consumer audience convenient access to primary care. At that time, the service will be covered by most insurance carriers and continue to feature dedicated providers in areas such as behavioral health and neurology. ChristianaCare will also continue working with NCQA and other partners to advance best practices nationwide.
Aston University researcher investigates safety risks of secondhand cosmetics sold online
As second-hand beauty products grow in popularity, so do questions about their safety. At Aston University, Dr Amreen Bashir, senior lecturer in biomedical science, is leading an academic investigation into the microbiological risks associated with pre-owned cosmetics being sold through online platforms like Vinted and Facebook Marketplace. The project, which has received ethical approval from the University’s Health and Life Sciences Ethics Committee, will assess the types of bacteria and potential contaminants found in used cosmetics – such as makeup and skincare – when they are resold and reused by new owners. “Second-hand beauty is trending for sustainability and affordability,” said Dr Bashir. “But very little research has explored what’s actually living in those products — and what kind of risk that might pose to everyday users.” Why this matters Pre-owned beauty items are often marketed as sustainable and cost-effective, but without careful handling they can harbour microorganisms – from bacteria to mould – that may cause infections, allergic reactions, or worse. Without knowing when a product was first opened or its expiry date, buyers could be unknowingly using unsafe cosmetics. Dr Bashir’s study will be among the first in the UK to analyse not just contamination, but also expiry timelines, and how low consumer awareness of these dates adds to the risk. The study will explore: • Types of microbiological contamination found in used products • Risks posed by product type (e.g., mascaras vs. powders) • Storage conditions and packaging integrity • Expiry dates and consumer awareness, for example: - Cosmetics have expiry timelines printed as either a date or a small jar symbol with a number (e.g., 6M, 12M, 24M, 36M), indicating months after opening. - Products can be contaminated long before the expiry date if not stored properly. - Dr Bashir’s previous research found that many makeup users didn’t know where to find the expiry date on the packaging and often kept products for years past their safe-use period. Potential to shape consumer safety and regulation With second-hand beauty sales on the rise, the findings could help shape public health messaging, consumer awareness campaigns, and online marketplace guidelines. Results could also support industry discussions on product labelling, returns, and hygiene standards. The project bridges the gap between digital consumer behaviour and health science, with implications for how individuals make purchasing decisions and how regulations adapt to a fast-changing beauty market. ⸻ Want to learn more or collaborate? Updates will be shared through academic publications and public-facing channels once data collection and sample testing are complete. Click on the icon below to connect with: Dr Amreen Bashir, senior lecturer in biomedical sciences Areas of expertise: Clinical microbiology, antimicrobial resistance, bacteria found in food, makeup products, food and water microbiology
