Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams '95 M.S. took the trip of a lifetime in June, traveling to the International Space Station (ISS) on Boeing's Starliner spacecraft. Not long after their arrival to the ISS, however, the spacecraft began having mechanical issues. Since then, the pair have been left stranded in space with no return flight booked to come home. As the scientific world, public and international media watch, experts like Don Platt from Florida Tech are supporting ongoing media coverage until the two astronauts return to Earth. To return Starliner to Earth, the thrusters need to fire correctly at the right time to get the crew safely out of orbit. "Clearly, you need to have thrusters to be able to position your spacecraft, to move away from the space station, to get into the position to safely reenter the Earth's atmosphere," said Don Platt, associate professor of space systems at Florida Tech. "They claim just doing a rocket burn, they can probably make it home, but they don't know where'd they land," said Platt. The problem lies with the propulsion system inside the service module. "It sounds as if they've experienced a different amount of heating than expected with some of these thrusters, and had some affected things like valves that control the flow of propellant to the thrusters. So sometimes those valves will leak or not open all the way based on the amount of heat they are experiencing," said Platt. Platt explained that the valves for these thrusters are comparable to fuel injectors in a car. They simply open and close to feed the propellant into the combustion chamber − the end result being thrust (power). Part of the challenge for Boeing teams is that they can't exactly replicate what the spacecraft is experiencing in space. Platt said that heat is not just created from the thruster itself, but from the Sun. August 11 - Florida Today Don Platt, the director of Florida Tech’s Spaceport Education Center in Titusville and an associate professor of space systems, explained that Boeing is currently trying to figure out what went wrong with Starliner and to see if there is still a chance to use the thrusters. "There's probably very little they can do to fix them at this point," Platt said. "What they can do is they can look at what thrusters are working properly, and how can we then use those thrusters to efficiently get the vehicle back into the atmosphere and then to the surface of the Earth." While Starliner has been having extensive issues and now Boeing has some tough decisions to make about what's next, Platt said we need to remember that this was a test mission. "I think that we've had a lot of success in space over the last decade or so, and we've probably gotten used to things going perfectly," Platt said. "Although space is not that easy, and we can see problems, problems do pop up from time to time. Even back in the days of the shuttle program, there used to be issues with the orbiter, even on orbit, and they'd have to think about, 'can we keep flying this mission, or do we need to return to the Earth?'" August 13 - Central Florida Public Media For now, all we can do is watch and wait. But if you're a journalist following this ongoing story, then let us help with your coverage. Dr. Don Platt's work has involved developing, testing and flying different types of avionics, communications, rocket propulsion systems as well as astrobiology/biotechnology systems and human deep space exploration tools. Don is available to speak with media anytime. Simply click on the icon below to arrange an interview today.
‘You Can Do and Be Anything Coming From an HBCU’
A late July dinner was the finale to her second internship with ChristianaCare for Tania Paden. Her eight weeks at Christiana Hospital had left her feeling more confident in herself and excited to continue exploring direct patient care as she prepares to head back to Delaware State University in the fall. “I learned how to be more comfortable with direct patient care and communicate with the patients,” Paden said. “My favorite thing would have to be going to tour the different units and getting shadowing experiences throughout the hospital.” Paden is one of 10 Future of Health Scholarship Program recipients at ChristianaCare. Graduates from Delaware high schools attending Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) were each awarded a $12,500 annual scholarship and a paid summer internship in 2021 each year until they graduate. The program, a partnership between ChristianaCare and the HBCU Week Foundation, is designed to help support HBCU students as they pursue degrees in health care. Teachable moments and big opportunities Paden’s enthusiasm is shared by Natalie Torres, director of Inclusion & Diversity at ChristianaCare, who oversees the scholarship program. “This experience is so much more than offering the scholarship funding,” Torres said. “It’s the time, it’s those quiet moments in-between meetings and their experiences where the teachable moments really take place. “When they come to us, we really want to lock into their lived experiences, and not only make sure they can thrive at ChristianaCare, but in life.” With these scholarships and other community-based endeavors, ChristianaCare continues to work to build a diverse workforce and represent its communities. Forbes recently listed ChristianaCare as one of America’s Best Employers for Diversity for the fourth year in a row. Although she is a young intern herself, Aniyah Barnett, a rising biochemistry junior at Hampton University, jumped at the chance to help make new caregivers feel comfortable at ChristianaCare. She played a key role welcoming medical and dental residents to campus. “My favorite project was probably the new resident orientation,” Barnett said. “I spent time getting all the new residents together, making sure they have all the information they need, and getting to meet them!” A pathway to medicine For Ashley Christopher, Esq., founder and CEO of HBCU Week Foundation, these scholarships mean a lot. Ten years ago, Christopher had a stroke that left her feeling scared and alone as she lay in hospital. Her cardiologist, a Black woman, was the only one who made her feel heard, she told the students during their summer-end dinner. With IT experiences gained at ChristianaCare, Future of Health scholar Solomon Devard is thinking about continuing on that path to become a system administrator for a big corporation. “She was the only one who made me feel safe, secure and seen during a time where I was questioning life as I knew it,” Christopher said. “You can do and be anything coming from an HBCU. This scholarship gives students who want to go to HBCUs a pathway to the field of medicine for more people who look like me to tend to the care of patients.” The HBCU Week Foundation creates opportunities through coaching and scholarships for students who want to attend HBCUs. To support these efforts, ChristianaCare committed $500,000 to providing financial and networking support, and hands-on experiences for HBCU students. “These students are energized, they’re talented, and I’m so excited for the next step,” Christopher said. “I just feel so happy to be a part of that process.”
Earlier this year, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) announced that it would move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), greatly reducing the restrictions on the drug. It represents a historic change in federal marijuana policy and a watershed moment for generations of activists that have sought legalization on a national level. While many advocates believe the shift bodes well for efforts to relax controls on other Schedule I drugs—including promising psychedelics like psilocybin, MDMA, and LSD– Vanderbilt Law professor Robert Mikos argues that the marijuana rescheduling decision will not pave the way for rescheduling any other drug. Mikos explains that the decision preserves the barriers that make it virtually impossible to remove drugs from Schedule I. He labels those barriers the “tyrannies of scheduling.” In his paper “Marijuana and the Tyrannies of Scheduling,” forthcoming in Fordham Law Review, Mikos lays out the core challenges posed by the existing scheduling process and offers a solution that would lead to “more rational scheduling decisions that better reflect the benefits and dangers of controlled substances, as Congress intended.” The Role of Currently Accepted Medical Use in Scheduling Decisions The CSA creates five Schedules (I-V). Scheduling dictates how a drug is regulated under the statute. Schedule I drugs are subject to the most restrictive controls, and those controls are steadily relaxed as one moves down the schedules. Congress made all the initial scheduling decisions when it passed the CSA in 1970, but it also empowered the DEA, working in conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to reschedule drugs based on new information acquired after the passage of the statute. Agency scheduling decisions are supposed to be based on three core characteristics of a drug: its abuse potential, its dependence liability, and whether it has a currently accepted medical use (CAMU). Unfortunately, these characteristics do not always suggest the same schedule for a drug. But as Mikos explains, the DEA has grossly simplified the scheduling process by suggesting that CAMU determinations should trump all other considerations. In particular, the agency has insisted that a drug with no CAMU must be placed on Schedule I, regardless of its abuse potential or dependence liability. According to Mikos, the DEA’s simplification of the scheduling process places tremendous weight on agency CAMU determinations and how the agency chooses to define this particular scheduling criteria. The Tyranny of Science In the past, the DEA insisted that the only way to demonstrate that a drug has a CAMU was by completing multiple controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating that a drug is effective at treating some medical indication, the same requirement for new drug approval under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. As Mikos has noted in his past work, completing such trials is “notoriously expensive and time-consuming,” requiring strict parameters and a large number of participants. The challenge is even more daunting for drugs already on Schedule I, because the CSA restricts research on such drugs. Due to regulatory restrictions, marijuana advocates have struggled to complete even a single RCT demonstrating marijuana’s medical efficacy. Indeed, in the past 50 years, only one Schedule I drug (Epidiolex) has ever been able to satisfy the DEA’s CAMU test, leading Mikos to label the agency’s science-focused approach the “Tyranny of Science.” The Tyranny of the Majority In 2023, however, HHS devised an alternative CAMU test that emphasizes practical experience over scientific research. “Because more than 30,000 health care practitioners (HCPs) had already recommended the drug to their patients in the thirty-eight states with medical marijuana laws,” Mikos explains, “the agency concluded there was enough clinical experience to demonstrate that marijuana has a CAMU and thus could be rescheduled.” But while this alternative test does not require completing RCTs – and thereby eliminates the Tyranny of Science – Mikos demonstrates that it is no less tyrannical than the DEA’s original CAMU test. According to Mikos, the alternative CAMU test simply “imposes a different form of tyranny: the Tyranny of the Majority.” He explains that to accumulate the clinical experience needed to satisfy the new test, advocates must convince popular majorities in a substantial number of states to legalize medical use of a drug. It took decades to build the public support necessary to do that for marijuana, and Mikos points out that no other Schedule I drug currently commands the same level of public support as marijuana. “Despite growing interest in the therapeutic value of [psychedelics, . . . less than a quarter of all Americans support legalizing psychedelics like psilocybin,” Mikos writes. “By comparison, 90% of Americans support legalizing medical marijuana.” What is more, even if large numbers of states were to legalize medical use of a substance like psilocybin or MDMA, advocates will also have to convince large numbers of patients, their health care practitioners (HCPs), and their suppliers to risk federal sanctions in order to accumulate the clinical experience HHS demands to satisfy the new CAMU test. “While marijuana was finally able to run the gauntlet, no other Schedule I is likely to replicate that feat anytime soon. Other promising Schedule I drugs like psilocybin, MDMA, and LSD are likely to remain trapped on that schedule for the foreseeable future,” the paper states. A New Way Forward Mikos argues that the agencies did not need to create a new CAMU test to reschedule marijuana. He suggests that the DEA has placed too much emphasis on CAMU in scheduling decisions. The DEA “has no authority, and no good reason, to hold (or place) a drug on Schedule I solely because the drug lacks a currently accepted medical use.” Indeed, Mikos suggests the agency’s emphasis on CAMU runs contrary to the text of the CSA and provides insufficient information about a drug’s benefits and risks to make sensible scheduling decisions. Rather than propose yet another, less tyrannical CAMU test, Mikos suggests that the DEA should instead take a more flexible approach to scheduling, one that considers all 3 criteria – a drug’s abuse potential, its dependence liability, and whether or not it has a currently accepted medical use (CAMU)—to determine where a drug belongs among the statute’s five schedules. “Although my approach would not make it any easier to demonstrate CAMU, it would reduce the dominant influence CAMU determinations now wield over scheduling decisions,” Mikos concludes. It would enable the agency to remove drugs like marijuana, psilocybin, or MDMA from Schedule I, even if they lack a currently accepted medical use, if their abuse potential and dependence liability so warrant. “As a result,” he notes, “my approach would foster more rational administrative scheduling decisions going forward.”
Saving Lives, One Device at a Time: Clinical Engineering
Behind every health care provider, or perhaps already in the palms of their hands, is a piece of equipment necessary to their patient’s health and survival. Modern medical treatment relies on complex equipment to keep patients alive and healthy during procedures and recovery. Take live-saving equipment such as telemetry monitors, MRI machines and ventilators as just a few examples. But what happens when all that equipment needs repair? Enter ChristianaCare’s clinical engineering technicians. This team of 35 employees — one of the largest clinical engineering teams in the nation — is responsible for overseeing the care, testing and repair of the roughly 50,000 pieces of medical equipment in use throughout the ChristianaCare system. The Clinical Engineering team is overseen by Director Blake Collins, MBA, CBET, CHTM, nationally recognized for excellence in the profession. He brings two decades of experience as a clinical engineer in the United States Navy, seven of which were served with the U.S. Marine Corps, to his role. His team has won numerous trade industry awards for its success as a “solutions provider” for the health system. "Think of health care as a triangle,” said Collins. “You have the patient, the provider and the equipment. You can’t have successful health care delivery without those three elements.” Begun in the 1970s as the hospital system’s “TV repair shop,” he joked, the Clinical Engineering department evolved dramatically after subsequent national developments in electrical safety testing and oversight for the care and functionality of medical equipment. ‘Everyone truly cares’ Today, the Clinical Engineering department maintains close to 50,000 pieces of medical equipment throughout the ChristianaCare system, including its three hospitals and all its imaging centers. “From thermometers to linear accelerators, MRIs, CTs — we manage all of it,” Collins said. Last year, the team completed 25,000 work orders, or roughly 2,100 per month. “We get to help people in so many different ways,” said John Learish, Clinical Engineering manager. Samantha Daws, Clinical Engineering supervisor, echoed the sentiment. “The Clinical Engineering Department within ChristianaCare is the most talented group of technicians I have ever had the privilege to work with,” she said. “Everyone truly cares about keeping the equipment working to ensure all caregivers have what is needed to provide quality health care to our community.” Saving lives, one device at a time What’s so important about what Clinical Engineering offers to ChristianaCare? In short: Anyone could need medical care at any time, and if medical equipment were out of commission or wrongly calibrated, lives would be at stake. Collins recalls a pivotal moment during his tenure in the Navy, when he needed an emergency appendectomy while stationed on board an aircraft carrier. “I was the only biomedical technician on the ship,” he said. “And the doctor doing the procedure asked me, jokingly, ‘Hey Collins, is this equipment going to work?’ “He was kidding, but it’s true that we never know when we or a loved one is going to end up under the equipment that we work on as engineers.” This experience gained new significance for Collins after successful open-heart surgery at ChristianaCare in 2022 — followed by his mother, who had the same procedure, also successfully, in 2023. “I had not one inkling or shadow of a doubt that the equipment was going to work fine,” he said. “You never know who will end up needing care. So we take it very, very seriously.” Icon in the field For his outstanding service as Director of Clinical Engineering at ChristianaCare, Collins was presented with the 2024 John D. Hughes Iconoclast Award from the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI), a career-marking honor in health care technology management. The award recognizes innovation and leadership in the field; for Collins, it shows how well the Clinical Engineering team works together to deliver safe medical equipment across the ChristianaCare system. “Blake has been a relentless advocate for ChristianaCare,” read his nomination. “He has implemented numerous initiatives and processes to improve his department … and work smarter through the use of technology and automation.” The next time you see a ChristianaCare provider pick up an instrument or turn on a machine, think about the Clinical Engineering team — and rest assured that your equipment is ready to go.
Expert Insight: NFL Fandom: The Last Cultural Unifier?
In 2024, few cultural touchstones unify America. One of the remaining cultural unifiers is the NFL. It is almost guaranteed that the Super Bowl will be the most watched television program each year. Add Taylor Swift (another rare cultural unifier) attending to watch her boyfriend and an appealing halftime musical guest, and you can have over 120 million people watching the same program at the same time. Nothing else comes close. There is little doubt that the NFL is the undisputed champion of American sports. But how do the various NFL fandoms compare? Which team has the top fandom, and which struggles (struggle is relative here, as the lowest-ranked NFL fandom is still impressive)? This is an interesting question in a couple of ways. First, it reveals something important about the level of connection in different cities. Cities with stronger fan bases tend to have more of a shared identity. Boston residents share more love across their teams (Celtics, Red Sox, Bruins, Patriots) than folks from Tampa Bay. “Sports” cities are fundamentally different. It's also an interesting marketing analysis. Fandoms are people who share passion and love for what are essentially brands. Examining fandom can reveal something critical about how brands that inspire fandom are built. Comparing fan bases can also inflame passions. Sports fans are (often) the ultimate fans as they closely identify with their teams and feel each victory as a personal triumph and each loss as a defeat. Because fans’ identities are tied to their teams, ranking fan bases can feel like an attack. Saying Browns fans aren’t as good of fans as Ravens fans feels like an attack on Cleveland. The deeper perspective motivating this analysis is that fandom is about cultural passion, so what people are fans of largely dictates the tone and content of our societies. A society that loves baseball, country music, and trucks feels very different from one that favors soccer, opera, and Vespas. The fandom rankings are a snapshot in time of how fandom works in the NFL. And remember, the NFL is not just the top sports league in America but also the closest thing we have in 2024 to a shared societal passion. Analyzing Fandoms I have been ranking NFL and other fan bases for more than a decade. These fandom analyses are an example of brand equity analytics, and they use two types of data. The goal is to understand the relationship between market characteristics and fandom outcomes at the league level. We can then evaluate each team based on how it performs relative to league norms. The fandom or market outcome measures include things like data on prices, attendance, and social media following. These are measures of fan engagement. Prices provide a signal of how much market power a team has created. Attendance shows the enthusiasm of fans in the market to pay for tickets and take the time to travel and attend. Social media following reveals how many fans the team has in and out of their home market. Each metric has advantages and limitations. Social media following provides an indication of national fandom, but it also captures casual fans who would never pay for a ticket. The second aspect of the analysis focuses on market potential. NFL markets vary from New York, with a population of 20 million, to Green Bay, with a few hundred thousand. Income levels in San Francisco are far higher than in Jacksonville or Cleveland. I use a range of demographics, but income and population are the major factors. Again, the metrics are good but not perfect. For example, using MSA populations isn’t perfect because teams have different footprints. The Packers are more of a Wisconsin team than a Green Bay team. The teams in New York and LA share a market. Should they each get half of the metro area population? One factor that I do not control for is competition. In the southeast, NFL teams may compete with SEC teams. I have debated this issue (with myself) and have decided to neglect it. This year's analysis includes a significant change from last year. The significant change is that I am not controlling for team performance. Controlling for team performance is helpful because it isolates core or unchanging fandom. This approach has appeal, as we can argue that teams with more passionate fandoms will be more resilient against losing seasons. The downside of controlling for performance is that we get less of a measurement of the fandom's overall value. If a team like Kansas City is on an extended winning streak, then the Chiefs brand is very valuable at the moment. Controlling for winning makes the analysis more about the core, near-permanent passion of a fandom, while not controlling makes the results more relevant to current brand power. The analysis involves three steps. The first step creates measures of each team’s relative fandom outcomes and market potential. The second step develops a statistical model of the relationship between market potential and fandom outcomes. The third step compares each team's fandom outcomes with the statistical model's predictions. The third step is a comparison of actual results versus predicted – the key point is that the prediction is based on leaguewide data. As these analyses are always imperfect, the best way to consider the fandom rankings is as tiers. I like the idea of quadrants. Some brief comments on the members of each quadrant (Elite, Solid, Role Players, Benchwarmers). I will be discussing each fandom on social media. TikTok: @fanalyticspodcast Instagram: @fanalyticsmikelewis YouTube: @fanalyticsmike A bonus figure follow the Quad overviews. The Results Quadrant 1: The Elite The Dallas Cowboys lead the top group of teams, followed by the Packers, Eagles, Chiefs, 49ers, Raiders, Patriots, and Steelers. Sounds a lot like what the man on the street would list as the top NFL brands. The Cowboys and Packers leading the way is no surprise. The Cowboys are second in social following and the leaders in attendance. The Packers are an astonishing fandom story as the team is located in the definitive small market. The Eagles leading the Steelers is going to be troubling in Western Pennsylvania, but the Eagles have more pricing power and more social following. The 49ers are a solid NFL fandom with few weaknesses. The Patriots are in a new era, and it will be fascinating to see if they maintain their top-tier position as Brady and Belichick become memories. The Chiefs' presence in the top group is a change from past years and is due to the shift away from controlling for performance. The Chiefs have a great fandom, but the team’s success currently pumps them up. The Chiefs are in a brand-building phase as the team continues building its dynasty. The question for the Chiefs is where they end up long-term. I don't fully understand the Raiders' ranking. The Raiders are midrange in attendance and social following but do well because are reported to have the highest prices in the league. I suspect this is more an idiosyncrasy of the Las Vegas market than a reflection of significant passionate fandom. Quadrant 2: Solid Performers The Quadrant 2 teams are the Broncos, Giants, Panthers, Seahawks, Saints, Ravens, Texans, and Browns. These are the solid performers of NFL fandoms (brands). These are teams with above expected fandom outcomes for their relative market potentials. The Quadrant 2 clubs are all passionate fanbases (maybe one exception) despite very different histories. For example, the AFC North rival Ravens and Browns differ in both relative history and frequency of winning. Cleveland fandom involves significant character, while the Ravens are a “blue-collar” brand that has been a consistent winner. There are a lot of great stories in Quad 2. The Saints were once the Aints but are now a core part of New Orleans. The Broncos and Giants are great fandoms who are probably angry to be left out of Quad 1. The Panthers' position is unexpected and may be due to some inflated social media numbers. This is the challenge when an analysis is based only on data. When data gets a little weird, like an inflated social media follower count dating back to Cam Newton's days, the results can also get a little weird. This is a teachable moment—do not analyze and interpret data without knowing the context (the data-generating processes). Quadrant 3: Role Players Quadrant 3 fandoms are teams whose fandom outcomes are slightly below average league performance (for similar markets). The Quadrant 3 teams include (in order) the Bills, Falcons, Buccaneers, Jets, Vikings, Bears, Dolphins, and Bengals. There are some interesting teams in Quad 3. The Bills have a great and notorious fandom. Jumping through flaming tables in subzero weather should get you into the top half of the rankings? The big-market Jets and the small-market Bengals have two of the most fascinating QBs in the league. Both clubs could be poised to get to Quad 2 with a Super Bowl or two. Da’Bears may be one of the most disappointing results. A team with an SNL skit devoted to their fandom in a market like Chicago shouldn’t be in Quad 3. Other quick comments: The Falcons need to win a title. Florida is tough for professional teams. The Vikings should play outside. Quadrant 4: Hopium These are the NFL's weakest fandoms, with the key phrase being “the NFL’s.” The Quad 4 teams, in order, are the Lions, Rams, Jaguars, Colts, Titans, Commanders, Chargers, and Cardinals. It’s a lot of teams who have not won regularly and have many moves and name changes. The Lions are poised for a move upward and maybe a sleeping giant of a fandom. They have the most watchable coach in the league and the most surprising celebrity fan. An interesting side story in Quad 4 is the battle for Los Angeles between the Rams (formerly of Saint Louis) and the Chargers (previously San Diego). They play in the same market, but the Rams have won more. But will Herbert lead the Chargers past the Rams? Quad 4 illustrates an important lesson: consistency. The Rams moved from St. Louis and then back to LA. The Chargers went from San Diego to LA. The Colts left Baltimore in the middle of the night. The Titans were the Oilers and moved from Houston to Nashville. The Cardinals were the other NFL team Saint Louis lost. The Commanders should have stopped with their previous name. The Fandom Outcomes / Market Potential Matrix The following figure is a bit of bonus material that may provide some insight into the inner workings of the analysis. The figure below shows the performance of each team on the Fandom Outcome and the Market Potential Indexes. The upper left region features teams with less lucrative markets but above-average fandoms, like the Packers, Steelers, and Chiefs. The lower right region is the teams with below-average fandom outcomes despite high potential markets, like the Commanders, Chargers, and Rams. This pictorial representation is also interesting as it shows teams with similar positions. These similarities can be somewhat surprising. For example, the Lions and Dolphins have very similar profiles despite the differences between Detroit and Miami. Mike Lewis is an expert in the areas of analytics and marketing. This approach makes Professor Lewis a unique expert on fandom as his work addresses the complete process from success on the field to success at the box office and the campaign trail. Michael is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today. Interested in following Future Fandom! Subscribe for free to receive new posts.
Stephen Pearlman, M.D., Honored for Excellence in Neonatology Education
Stephen Pearlman, M.D., MSHQS, will receive the 2024 Avroy Fanaroff Neonatal Education Award at the American Academy of Pediatrics’ annual meeting in September. This honor, presented by the AAP’s section on Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, recognizes an educator who makes outstanding contributions in neonatal-perinatal medicine for health care students, professionals or the public. Pearlman, an expert in neonatology, intensive care and pediatrics, is clinical effectiveness officer for acute care at ChristianaCare. He is also professor of pediatrics at Sidney Kimmel College of Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University. “Stephen is deeply committed to excellence in neonatal education and the highest quality care,” said Kert Anzilotti, M.D.,MBA, system chief medical officer at ChristianaCare. “As a faculty member, physician and leader, he continues to make a lasting impact at ChristianaCare and beyond with his pioneering initiatives in quality improvement and safety in health care.” A faculty member for almost 40 years, Pearlman has served ChristianaCare in clinical, educational and administrative roles. Among them, he was chair of the Pediatric and Neonatal Safety Committee, director of Neonatal Quality Improvement, associate director of Neonatology and director of Pediatric Medical Education. Pearlman has led initiatives that have been spotlighted by the federal government as exemplars of how to improve safety at health systems. He developed an innovative quality-improvement curriculum for neonatal fellows, which the Organization of Neonatal-Perinatal Training Program Directors adopted. “I’m passionate about educating clinicians about ways to improve the quality of patient care, so it’s humbling to receive this recognition,” Pearlman said. “I am honored to have been selected as a recipient of this award.” Pearlman is also an associate editor of Quality Improvement for the Journal of Perinatology and an executive committee member of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Perinatal Section.
Teacher mindfulness doesn't begin on the first day of classes in the late summer or early fall. It is an invaluable skill that can be practiced and perfected all throughout the year, especially when teachers are on summer break. Leigh McLean is an an associate research professor in the School of Education and Center for Research in Educational and Social Policy at the University of Delaware. In her program of research, she investigates how teachers’ emotions and emotion-related experiences including well-being impact their effectiveness. Her work particularly focuses on how teachers’ emotions impact their instructional practices, and the role that early-career teachers’ emotions play as they transition into the career. She holds expertise in quantitative, mixed-methods, and longitudinal study design and implementation, multileveled data analysis, and classroom observation. Below she gives a few tips on how teachers can begin preparing themselves – and by extension their future students – for all the ups and downs of the upcoming school year. Engage in restorative rest this summer. One of the ways to prepare for the upcoming school year is to get restorative rest. It's important to let your brain disengage for a short time, but it's also beneficial to set aside time, before the school year begins, to think about the past school year. What went well? What might you want to do differently?? What techniques are you hoping to improve in the coming school year? As we as a society still reel from the COVID-19 pandemic, meaningfully reflect on the past four years and ask yourself what you've see with your students. What might they need to succeed this upcoming year? How can you facilitate an environment where students are getting supports for the unique challenges that the pandemic created? Incorporate mindfulness into your daily habit. A mindfulness practice is a daily regime of awareness, contemplation, and processing of all the things going on both within and outside of you. Mindfulness is a key skill when it comes to the larger goal of emotional understanding and regulation, and it has been shown to be a particularly helpful practice for teachers. However, you cannot expect to dive into mindfulness on day one of a new school year, it take practice. A great place to start is to pay attention to your emotions and work on emotional awareness in the weeks leading up to the school year. Shift your thinking fromo "emotions are noise that get in the way" to "My emotions are important signals that I have to pay attention to." This type of shift can be difficult to do for the first time in the heat of teaching so summer is a great time to practice these techniques. As educators, teachers experience the full range of human emotions every day, and they are usually the only adults in the room. While this might at the outset seem intimidating, teachers have the unique opportunity to use their emotions intentionally as cues for their students to pick up on. Dr. Jon Cooper, Director of Behavioral Health for the Colonial School District in New Castle, Delaware noted: "We want teachers to be the emotional thermostat, not the thermometer," and "We want them to intentionally set the emotional tone of the classroom." During the summer, think about how to set classroom norms and expectations to be responsive to your emotions and those of your students in a way that will create a more mindful classroom all around. This could look like including a classroom norm stating that aAll emotions are ok, even the bad ones. It could also look like acknowledging in your classroom management approaches that there is a difference between emotions and behaviors; so while all emotions are ok, not all behaviors that come from those emotions are ok. Take yourself through a school day and anticipate the needs of your students. One major mindfulness practice is taking yourself through a typical school day and identifying parts where students are most likely to have difficulties. Do students have challenging moments during small groups? Is there a lot of math anxiety going on in your class? Try structuring your day, approach, even your expressions so that you set yourself and your students up for success during these moments that are more likely to be challenging. Utilize mindfulness websites and apps. There are websites and apps teachers can use to further incorporate mindfulness into their daily lives, including: The Center for Healthy Minds UCLA's Free Mindfulness App For more tips... McLean is available for interviews and can expound on the ways teachers can set themselves – and their students – up for success. Click on her profile to connect.
The Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator for Political Economy and Regulation (VPA) is leading the way in research and policy recommendations on the governance of artificial intelligence. At the Third Annual Networks, Platforms & Utilities conference hosted by the VPA in June, the groundbreaking initiative was commended by FTC Chair Lina Khan for its impact on her work with the agency. As part of Discovery Vanderbilt, Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator for Political Economy and Regulation is a groundbreaking initiative to bolster innovative research and education at Vanderbilt. The mission of VPA is to swiftly develop and advance cutting-edge research, education and policy proposals at a pace that aligns with the urgency of today’s challenges. The VPA encompasses several projects, including one dedicated to revitalizing the study of the law and political economy of networks platforms, and utilities (NPUs) in transportation, communications, energy and banking. “Many of our country’s most pressing economic and social challenges are directly tied to how we govern network, platform, and utility industries, including airline flight cancellations, social media regulation, banking failures and electric grid crashes,” said Ganesh Sitaraman, the New York Alumni Chancellor’s Chair in Law at Vanderbilt Law School and director of VPA. VPA’s Project on Networks, Platforms and Utilities has developed a series of papers and policy proposals to improve the governance of these sectors. Among this work are a set of proposals to policymakers for regulating air travel, a plan for stabilizing and regulating the banking sector, and 40 recommendations to promote competition throughout the American economy. With growing interest in AI, VPA has turned its eye to how policymakers can address the harms that come from concentration in the AI technology stack. VPA’s papers have developed an antimonopoly approach to regulating AI, addressed public capacity for AI, and offered proposals on federal procurement of AI resources. VPA’s work in this field has gotten increasing attention. VPA director Ganesh Sitaraman participated in one of the U.S. Senate’s AI Fora in 2023. And during the Third Annual Networks, Platforms & Utilities conference hosted by the VPA in June, FTC Chair Lina Khan specifically noted VPA’s impact on the agency. “I think the work that VPA has been doing on AI has been so enormously useful,” said Khan. “It’s really striking how it took 15 years before the NPU toolkit was even discussed alongside the Web 2.0 giants. So, the fact that from the very get-go this kind of framework is being applied in the context of AI policy discussions really marks that forward movement.” During the June conference, participants—which included 64 attendees from 15 different countries— discussed how their jurisdictions of study approach the regulation of network, platform and utility industries. This year’s conference was structured around eight panels, one on general themes and seven featuring a specific NPU sector: railroads, electricity, banking & finance, airlines, social infrastructure, tech platforms and telecommunications. “Vanderbilt is a leader in research on these topics, and we were very excited to welcome scholars from around the world to Nashville and to Vanderbilt, in order to explore these issues from a comparative and global perspective,” said Sitaraman. In the coming months, the conference organizers intend to compile the papers presented at the conference into an edited volume. To learn more, visit the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator website.
#Expert Insight: Political Fandom
The 2024 Presidential campaign has been a roller coaster ride this summer. The upheavals are so fast and unprecedented that the reaction to each event often seems too muted. An assassination attempt and sudden pre-convention withdrawal? In a past generation, these events would be decisive, but in 2024, they seem like just the latest blip in the news cycle. The polls never seem to move more than a couple of points. In such an oddly volatile but also stable environment, our best bet to understanding what is going to transpire during the last 100 days of the election cycle is to look at data that gets to the heart of how voters view the candidates. My choice of fundamental data or essential metric is candidate fandom. Fandom is an unusual metric in politics, but it should be more common. Fandom is about passion for and loyalty to a cultural entity, be it a team, singer, university, or even politician. In fact, MAGA Trump supporters and Bernie Bros share many characteristics with Swifties and Lakers fans. Fans of all these things show up, spend, wear branded apparel, and fiercely defend the object of their fandom. The politicians who inspire fandom, such as AOC, Donald Trump, Barack Obama, and Marjorie Taylor Green, enjoy many advantages and are the celebrities of the political world. Fandom is critical in politics because fans are loyal, engaged, and resilient. Fans are not casual potential voters who may change preferences and are unlikely to make an effort to stand in line to vote. Fans are the voters who will show up rain or shine and who can’t be swayed. In 2024, a fan will interpret a conviction of their candidate as political “lawfare” rather than evidence of criminality. Also, in 2024, a fan will make excuses for signs of aging that would result in children taking a senior’s car keys. The flip side of fandom, anti-fandom, is also a powerful political force. Indeed, politics may be the cultural context in which anti-fandom has the most impact. Taylor Swift may have haters, but these anti-Swifties are not buying tickets to see Katy Perry in protest. But in politics, hatred of a candidate might be as powerful a tool for generating a vote as fandom. Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign was notoriously bad at drawing crowds, suggesting he inspired little passion. In contrast, Trump’s rallies looked like rabid sports crowds complete with matching hats. However, the hatred and fear of Donald Trump inspired sufficient anti-fandom to make Biden competitive. Of course, fandom doesn’t entirely decide elections. In most elections, there isn’t all that much fandom or passion. Beyond the presidency and senatorial contests, most candidates are barely known, and identity factors (race, gender, party affiliation) and candidate awareness are the determining factors. Even in presidential elections, get-out-the-vote efforts (ballot harvesting) and election regulations (voter suppression) combined with effective marketing to the few percent of swing (low information) voters are often the determining factors. Looking toward the future, fandom may be an increasingly salient political metric for multiple reasons. First, the last two decades have witnessed many candidates raised quickly from obscurity with somehow Hollywood-worthy origin stories (Barack Obama, AOC, JD Vance, etc.). In the modern media environment, candidates’ reputations (brands) are increasingly the product of marketing narratives rather than a lifetime of real-world accomplishments. In this new world of politics, fandom will be a critical metric. Second, with the increasing diversity of the American electorate, voting will be increasingly based on identity rather than ideology. Identity-based voting segments are likely to be driven by fandom (and anti-fandom) rather than policy. We see a form of this in 2024, as high inflation has barely made a dent in voters’ preferences for the two parties. A fragmented electorate comprised of racial and gender segments whose preferences are driven by fandom and anti-fandom will lead to increasingly negative campaigns featuring ads highlighting the threat of the non-preferred party’s candidates. When voters are focused on identity, negative advertising becomes the ideal method to use fear to create anti-fandom (hate) to motivate turnout. Kamala Harris versus Donald Trump Barring further disruptions, the matchup is set for the 2024 presidential contest (as of this writing, we do not know the Democratic VP). We do know the matchup between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris is a contest between polarizing figures. Donald Trump is a movement candidate who has redefined the Republican party. He inspires passionate fandom from his followers and amazing antipathy from major media and cultural outlets. Harris is also polarizing. In the immediate aftermath of Biden’s withdrawal, Harris received massive media and donor support. However, Harris has not demonstrated any significant national voter appeal, and her time as VP has generated ample blooper real material. My approach to assessing the race is to examine each candidate's fandom and anti-fandom. Fandom is the candidate’s core, resilient support, while anti-fandom is about antipathy. Fandom and anti-fandom are especially powerful metrics for a candidate because they are relatively fixed after a candidate gains high awareness. Once an individual identifies with the candidate (e.g., they are on the same team), an attack on the candidate is an attack on the individual. This means attack ads do not work because fans feel they are being attacked. Anti-fans are also important because they constrain a candidate’s support. A Trump anti-fan is unpersuadable by efforts from the Trump campaign because their identity is steeped in opposition to him. Fans and anti-fans are trapped in a cycle of confirmation bias where all information is processed to fit their fandom. I use data from the Next Generation Fandom Survey to assess candidate fandom and anti-fandom. The Next Generation Fandom Survey involves a nationwide sample of the U.S. population regarding fandom for sports and other cultural entities. In the 2024 edition, political figures such as Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and RFK Jr were included. The survey captured responses from 2053 subjects split evenly across the four primary generations (Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Baby Boomers), and the sample is representative in terms of racial background. The survey does not focus on likely or registered voters, so the results reflect overall societal sentiments rather than the electorate's opinions. The critical survey question asks subjects to rate how much of a fan they are of a celebrity on a 1 to 7 scale. In the following discussion, individuals who rated their fandom a 6 or 7 on the 7-point scale are categorized as Fans, while those who rate their fandom a 1 or 2 are classified as Anti-Fans. Table 1 shows the Fandom and Anti-Fandom rates for the entire sample. Donald Trump has a 27% fandom rate compared to Harris's 21%. The fandom rate is crucial because it identifies the candidate's core support. It also indicates something important about the candidate’s potential likability. In terms of anti-fandom, Harris has a slightly higher Anti-Fandom rate. Anti-Fandom is also critical as it shows the percentage of people who hate a candidate. The data suggests that Americans find Harris to be more dislikable than Trump. Notably, the anti-fandom rates are significantly higher than the fandom rates. The American public has significant disdain for politicians. The high anti-fandom rates are both the product of past negative advertising and the cause of future negative campaign strategies. Table 1: Candidate Fandom and Anti-Fandom Table 2 reports fandom rates based of the two gender segments. Trump has a 7%-point advantage with men and a surprising 4% advantage with women. This is a stunning result as Trump is generally regarded as having weakness with female voters. However, this weakness shows up in the anti-fandom rates. In the male segment, Trump has a 5%-point advantage in anti-fandom (fewer anti-fans), but a 3% disadvantage in the female segment. This reveals that Trump is polarizing to women, and almost half of women find Trump to be highly dislikable. This finding is why the Harris campaign is likely to use advertising that casts Trump as misogynistic or a threat to women to motivate turnout by female voters. Table 2: Candidate Fandom by Gender Table 3 shows the fandom rates for the two younger demographic segments: Gen Z and Millennials. This Table also shows Trump’s relative performance versus Biden (in parentheses in the last column). Trump enjoys higher fandom and lower anti-fandom than Harris in both the Gen Z and Millennial segments. In terms of fandom, Trump is plus 6% in Gen Z and plus 11% with Millennials. Critically, Harris outperforms Biden. The Gen Z anti-fandom gap between Trump and Biden favored Trump by 6% points. However, this gap shrinks to just 1% point when Harris is the comparison. The data suggests that Harris is stronger with Gen Z than Biden. Table 3: Candidate Fandom in Younger Generations Table 4 reports the fandom rates based on a racial segmentation scheme. Specifically, the sample is divided into White and Non-White categories. This is a crude segmentation, but it illustrates some essential points. Trump enjoys a significant 14% positive fandom advantage in the White demographic. He also enjoys a 10-point edge in (lower) anti-fandom. The pattern essentially reverses in the Non-White segment, as Harris has a 10-point advantage in fandom and a 17-point edge in anti-fandom. Trump’s anti-fandom in the Non-White segment is critical to the campaign. Nearly half of this segment has antipathy or hate for Trump. This high anti-fandom suggests an opportunity for the Harris campaign to emphasize racial angles in their attacks on Trump. Table 4: Candidate Fandom by Race In addition to fandom and anti-fandom rates across demographic categories, insights can be gleaned by looking at segmentation variables that reflect cultural values or personality. Table 5 shows fandom and anti-fandom rates for Trump and Harris for segments defined by fandom for Taylor Swift (Swifties) and Baseball. The Swifties skew towards Harris. The implication is that young women engaged in popular culture have more positive fandom for Harris and more negativity toward Trump. This is unsurprising given the content of the popular culture and Swift’s personal liberalism. The Swiftie segment shows a much stronger skew for Harris than all but the Non-White segment. Examining the data at a cultural level is vital as it indicates that it isn’t necessarily youth or gender where Harris has an advantage but a combination of youth, gender, and a specific type of cultural engagement. The table also includes fandom rates for baseball fans. In the Baseball Fan segment, Trump enjoys an 8% point fandom advantage and a 7% anti-fandom advantage (lower anti-fandom). Like the case of the Swifties, the fandom rates of Baseball Fans reveal something about Trump’s core support. Baseball is a very traditional game with an older fan base, and traditionalism is probably the core value of Trump fans. Trump’s negative advertising is likely to focus on the threats to traditional values (i.e., Harris is a San Francisco liberal). Table 5: Candidate Fandom and Cultural Segments Commentary and Prediction Fandom is a powerful metric for predicting political success, but like most data points, it doesn’t tell the whole story. Fandom is a measure of unwavering core support while anti-fandom measures the group that will never support and is likely to show up to vote against a candidate. Examining fandom rates across multiple segments reveals that Harris’ core support is concentrated in specific cultural and racial segments. The analysis also suggests that Trump's core support is broader than is usually acknowledged and that his main problem is significant anti-fandom with women and minorities. Harris’ problem is a lack of love, while Trump’s is too much hate. Notably, I am not paying too much attention to the current wave of excitement and enthusiasm surrounding Harris. The recent enthusiasm is likely more a manifestation of the Democratic base’s hopes and a relentless media onslaught than an actual increase in passion for Harris. Maybe there will be a permanent shift upward in Harris’s fandom, but I don’t see any logic for why this would occur. Harris isn’t suddenly more likable or aspirational than she was last month. The argument that the American people are becoming more acquainted with her is dubious, given that she has been the Vice President or a major presidential candidate for almost five years. What are the implications for the upcoming election? Voting is not only about fandom or hate, so we must consider some additional factors. For instance, many potential voters lack passion and knowledge and are more prone to vote based on identity rather than ideology. If a region or demographic segment consistently votes for a party 75% of the time, that’s voting more based on fixed identities than current societal conditions. The American electorate has many of these types of fixed-preference voter segments. Furthermore, as the American electorate becomes more diverse, identity-based voting seems to be making presidential contests more predictable. The baseline seems to be that the Democratic candidate will win the popular vote by a few percentage points, and the Electoral College will come down to a few states, such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Examining past electoral maps shows far more shifting of states across elections. Now, all but a handful of states are regarded as non-competitive. The Figure below shows the presidential popular vote margins for the last 50 years. It shows a trend towards smaller margins for the winning candidate, which is at least partly due to growing ethnic diversity and more fixed (at least in the near and medium terms) identity-based voting. Over the last 13 cycles, the margin of victory has dropped by about 1% every four years. Demographic change has also locked in a high baseline level of support for Democratic candidates. The last time a Republican won the popular vote was in 2004, with George Bush as the incumbent. Figure 1: Presidential Vote Margin 1972 to 2020 In addition to shrinking election margins, demographic change promises to change future campaign tones. The increasing relevance of fandom and anti-fandom, combined with the growing diversity of the electorate, will make 2024 an extremely negative campaign. The 2024 election will be determined by identity-based demographic trends and negative (anti-fandom) marketing campaigns. Demographics are destiny, and America is changing rapidly in ways that make it increasingly difficult for the Republicans to win the popular vote. It doesn’t matter if the Democrat is Harris, Newsom, Clinton, or Whitmer while the Republican is Rubio, Haley, Cruz, or Burgum. The baseline is probably 52% to 48%, D to R. Candidate fandom and anti-fandom probably shift the vote 2 or 3 percent in either direction. The correlation of demographic traits with voting behaviors creates incentives for campaign strategies that focus on identity. Republicans are eager to shift some percentage of Black or Hispanic voters to their cause because it simultaneously reduces the Democrats' base and grows Republican totals. In contrast, Democrats need to motivate marginal voters in the female, Black, and Hispanic segments to turn out. Fear-based appeals are the most effective tool for both parties' goals. Negative messaging is also prevalent because of the general view of politicians. Politicians tend to inspire more antipathy (anti-fandom) than admiration (fandom). The fandom data shows this, as both candidates have far more anti-fans than fans (this holds with other politicians) . The modern election calculus is, therefore, focused on aggressive negative ads that inspire marginal voters to take the initiative to vote against a hated candidate. Passion drives behavior, and it's far easier to drive fear and hatred of a candidate than to inspire passion and admiration. Considering the fandom data and the current electorate, I have two predictions. First, we will witness an incredibly nasty race. Harris’s best bet is to demonize Trump to motivate the anti-Trump voters to turn out. The American culture of 2024 includes constant repetition that many Democratic voting constituencies are marginalized and threatened. These segments are best motivated by using messages that cast the Republicans as the danger or oppressor. Women will fear losing reproductive rights, and African Americans will be primed with threats to voting rights. Trump will also employ negative messaging, but Trump’s adoption of a negative campaign comes from a slightly different motivation. Trump’s core support consists of conservatives who are frustrated by a lack of cultural power and representation. This group is looking for someone who will fight for their values. This desire for a “fighting advocate” explains much of Trump’s appeal, as his supporters are enthusiastic about his “mean tweets and nicknames.” There will also be fear-based advertising as Harris will be positioned as wanting to defund police and open the border. Second, Trump wins in a close contest. Comparing Trump’s and Harris’ fandom and anti-fandom suggests the Harris campaign faces an uphill challenge. Despite the current blitz of enthusiasm for Harris as a replacement for a failing Joe Biden, her “brand” has not shown an ability to stimulate passion, and her dislike levels exceed Trump's. It seems unlikely that she will be able to inspire fans. While Trump has a significant fanbase and weaknesses in terms of strong anti-fandom levels in minority and cultural segments, he probably beat Clinton in 2016 because her anti-fandom was equivalent to his. In contrast, he lost to Biden because Biden had less anti-fandom (in 2020). Kamala Harris seems more like Clinton than Biden, so look for a similar outcome as in 2016. The bottom-line prediction: An exceptionally negative campaign, with Trump’s greater baseline fandom and Harris’s charisma deficit leading to a narrow Trump victory. As in 2016,Trump wins the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. Addendum: Future Fandom Lesson The structure of the American electorate and the propensity of people to vote based on identity rather than ideology mean that negative campaigns are the standard in the near future. The essential observation is that demographic trends create an electorate that is more a collection of identity segments than a homogeneous population that varies in ideology. An increasingly diverse electorate likely means increasingly negative presidential campaigns as negative or fear-based appeals are especially effective when elections focus on threats to identity groups. The tragedy of this situation is that the negative messages of campaigns amplify racial division and acrimony. When the next election occurs, the electorate is even more polarized, and negative or fear-based appeals are again the most effective. Mike Lewis is an expert in the areas of analytics and marketing. This approach makes Professor Lewis a unique expert on fandom as his work addresses the complete process from success on the field to success at the box office and the campaign trail. Michael is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today. Interested in following Future Fandom! Subscribe for free to receive new posts.
Veronica Chandler’s north Wilmington home is her sanctuary, and it shows. From the soft instrumental music to the scent of lavender to the comfy seats that invite visitors to put up their feet, the message is clear – rest, relax, recharge. Original artwork by Veronica Chandler In this space, Chandler celebrates her rediscovered self, and it’s a journey she shares with all who visit. Part of the cozy feeling in her home comes from the artwork that lines the walls – mostly her own paintings and drawings created over the last six years as she navigates the challenges and triumphs of motherhood and discovers new ways to care for herself and those she loves. After experiencing anxiety, panic attacks and profound depression following the birth of her daughter in 2018, Chandler sought help at the ChristianaCare Center for Women’s Emotional Wellness, where a combination of medication and therapy helped her feel healthier and reconnected. She also returned to a former passion – art. “When I started painting, I found a way of silencing my brain, of calming it down. Being able to just focus on one thing on its own let my body regulate my nervous system,” she said. “I didn’t know what was happening to me. I just felt amazing.” More than ‘baby blues’ Perinatal mood and anxiety disorders are among the most common complications that occur in pregnancy or in the first year after delivery, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Although many parents experience feelings of anxiety, fatigue and sadness in the first days with a new baby, postpartum depression can occur several months after childbirth. Symptoms are often more severe and can include extreme stress. Despite increased awareness efforts in recent years, perinatal mood and anxiety disorders – including postpartum depression, which occurs in up to 20% of all births – remain underdiagnosed, untreated or undertreated, even though the health impact extends beyond the person giving birth, said Malina Spirito, Psy.D., MEd, director of the Center for Women’s Emotional Wellness. The center opened in 2013 to help patients and their loved ones understand the challenges associated with perinatal mood and anxiety disorders. Since then, the program has tripled the number of clinicians and expanded services to include inpatient and outpatient consultations, ongoing psychotherapy and psychiatric medication management. “Just because we know something is common does not mean we have to put up with it, especially because the effects will be lasting if we don’t address them,” Spirito said. “Perinatal mood disorders have an impact on the overall health of a family. When a mom feels better, the relationships they have with the people around them are better as well.” Breaking the ‘super mom’ stereotype Looking back, Chandler recognizes her struggles with sleeping and anxiety following the birth of her first child may have been signs of postpartum depression. The symptoms went away only to return after her daughter was born two years later. Veronica Chandler sought help from the ChristianaCare Center for Women’s Emotional Wellness for postpartum depression. Caring for herself helped her rediscover her love of creating art. Although overjoyed by her growing family, Chandler deeply missed her mother, who lived in her native Ecuador. Added to those challenges were longer stays in the hospital for Chandler, who had a Caesarean section birth, and for her daughter, who had some minor health issues. In the weeks after giving birth, Chandler battled dizziness caused by anemia. Though exhausted by caring for a newborn, she couldn’t sleep. She constantly felt on edge, and her skin itched without relief. Worried when her symptoms didn’t abate after three months, Chandler’s husband broached the idea of postpartum depression. For Chandler, it was a relief another person noticed something was wrong, but she was scared to think about what might be needed to get better. “I think we’re programmed by our cultures and by our beliefs to think that we need to be ‘super moms’ and give everything we have,” said Chandler, who grew up in Ecuador and moved to the United States after marrying her husband. “I was in such a fog that I didn’t know I could still shine and be happy and content. The default for so many moms is to pour until there’s nothing left.” ‘Rediscovering who I was’ Chandler sought help at the Center for Women’s Emotional Wellness and soon began taking an anti-depressant as part of her treatment. She also saw a therapist to talk about the feelings she was experiencing. “Therapy was such a big part of this whole journey of rediscovering who I was. When you talk and someone listens, you figure things out,” Chandler said. While on a trip to Arizona with a cousin, Chandler discovered kachina dolls, a Native American art form often used to provide guidance to young people and instill the connection between nature and the spirit. The intricately designed images further fueled Chandler’s reignited passion for art. That passion helped Chandler manage the additional challenges brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic when her anxiety and depression resurfaced. Using painting, sculpture and other media, she has examined her own feelings relating to motherhood, family and society. Her work has been featured internationally in Vogue and closer to home in local art galleries. “Some people like to cook, and some people like to write. Art is my creative outlet that allowed me to come back to who I am,” she said. “We all have to release that creativity in some way.” Entering care sooner While the Center for Women’s Emotional Wellness has always focused on pregnant and postpartum patients, it has grown to address mental health needs related to preconception health, including artificial reproductive technology such as in vitro fertilization, Spirito said. The center also sees patients grieving a pregnancy or neonatal loss. More people are thinking about their mental health before they give birth, said Malina Spirito, Psy.D., MEd, director of the ChristianaCare Center for Women’s Emotional Wellness. “One of the most notable observations I’ve seen over the years is that birthing people are entering care sooner. It isn’t uncommon for women to seek out consultation prior to getting pregnant about how to manage their mood disorder should they become pregnant,” said Megan O’Hara, LCSW, a behavioral health therapist with the Center for Women’s Emotional Wellness. “Patients are educating themselves now and expecting their providers to consider their mental health as well as their physical health when getting care.” Women’s mental health care also has become more accessible, said Cynthia Guy, LMSW, MSCC, a women’s health behavioral consultant with the Center for Women’s Emotional Wellness. Behavioral health services are available in every ChristianaCare women’s health practice, including virtual and in-person care. “I can be the bridge connecting the patient with the resources they need to help them manage symptoms and what they are going through,” Guy said. Filling the cup As a result of her own experiences, Chandler teaches classes to help other mothers create their own art as a means of expression. It’s a small way of helping them to fill their own cup. The woman who once hid in her own closet to hide her feelings speaks openly about mental health with the hope people will lose their preconceived ideas about depression and anxiety. “I am so thankful for the journey and the many people I’ve met that have postpartum depression,” she said. “When we talk about what makes the best moms, I think the best mom is a healthy mom who is in balance and harmony.”
