Career Development Program for Underrepresented in Medicine Scholars in Academic Neurology: TRANSCENDS

Building an ethnically and racially diverse neurology workforce

As diversity among patient populations continues to grow, racial and ethnic diversity in the neurology workforce is increasingly essential to the delivery of culturally competent care and for enabling inclusive, generalizable clinical research. Unfortunately, diversity in the workforce is an area in which the field of neurology has historically lagged and faces formidable challenges, including an inadequate number of trainees entering the field, bias experienced by trainees and faculty from minoritized racial and ethnic backgrounds, and 'diversity tax', the disproportionate burden of service work placed on minoritized people in many professions. Although neurology departments, professional organizations and relevant industry partners have come to realize the importance of diversity to the field and have taken steps to promote careers in neurology for people from minoritized backgrounds, additional steps are needed. Such steps include the continued creation of diversity leadership roles in neurology departments and organizations, the creation of robust pipeline programmes, aggressive recruitment and retention efforts, the elevation of health equity research and engagement with minoritized communities. Overall, what is needed is a shift in culture in which diversity is adopted as a core value in the field.

A Learning Assessment to Increase Diversity in Academic Health Sciences

Importance

Strategies and innovations to advance racial and ethnic equity in recruitment, promotion, and retention at academic health science institutions are needed.

Objective

This learning assessment aims to isolate evidence-based strategies to advance racial equity in the academic health sciences, which have implications for policy and institution-level interventions.

Evidence Review

This learning assessment used a mixed-methods approach, including a quantitative survey, qualitative in-depth interviews, and a scoping literature review. Survey respondents were recruited from outreach lists that included researchers working with racial and ethnic minoritized populations. In-depth interviews were conducted among 60 university administrators, faculty/staff, scholars, students, and individuals affiliated with governmental, nongovernmental, and identity-based professional associations. A search of the literature in PsycINFO, MEDLINE, ERIC, Education Source, Academic Search Ultimate, and CINAHL was conducted for the scoping review. The scoping review included 366 primary articles of studies evaluating strategies to advance racial and ethnic equity at academic health science institutions.

Findings

The survey yielded analyzable results from 328 individuals, including faculty, students, administrators, or staff, and individuals not currently employed at or enrolled full time at a university or college. The interviews included 60 participants with a mean (SD) age of 49.3 (16.5) years, and 39 (65%) were female. The scoping review included 366 primary research articles that met inclusion criteria for analysis. Data were analyzed individually across the survey, interviews, and scoping review, and findings were triangulated. While each of the 3 assessments yielded unique findings, 13 common themes emerged across all project components. Results revealed strategies implemented and evaluated successfully, as well as challenges and barriers to advancing equity in the academic health sciences.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, 13 meaningful strategies emerged across the survey, in-depth interviews, and scoping review. Through triangulation of findings, recommendations of actionable steps were made.

Health Disparities Research Curricula and Training Development: Recommendations From a National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Workgroup

The national mandate to improve health equity in the United Sates is advancing. Racial and ethnic disparities in various aspects of health care have been clearly delineated, and sources of such disparities have been identified. However, implementing solution-focused interventions to eradicate such disparities, thereby achieving health equity in all US communities, has remained a daunting challenge, and no area more so, than with neurologic diseases. To assure success with bridging prominent disparities in neurologic outcomes, the pipeline of neurologic disparities researchers needs to be broadened, numbers of mid-career and senior disparities scientists sustained, partnerships with community stakeholders enhanced, incentivization of academic organizations pursued, education of all neurologic researchers conducted, and exemplary training of funding agency staff prioritized. To improve the current state of neurologic disparities, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke assembled a working group of its advisory council. (2020-2022) to examine the state of health disparity training and research. Through consensus building, we present identified gaps and recommendations to the current state of underrepresented groups in medicine in health disparity research and its training and curricula in the United States.

Academic Neurology and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Resilience, Hope, and Solutions

The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) viral pandemic dramatically affected human health, health care delivery, health care workers, and health care research worldwide. The field of academic neurology was no exception. In this 2022 Presidential Plenary, we discuss the challenges faced by neurologists and neuroscientists professionally and personally. We review the threats posed by the pandemic to neuroscience research activities, materials, productivity, and funding. We then discuss the impact of the pandemic on clinical trials for neurologic diseases. Restrictions to patient enrolment due to limited in-person access to laboratory testing, imaging, and study visits led to delay in both clinical trial enrolment and study completion but also to innovative new means to engage clinical trial participants remotely and to strategies to critically appraise the frequency and design of trial-related patient evaluations. Clinical care was also challenged by initial pandemic prioritization of urgent visit and inpatient care and the rapid pivot to telehealth for most other neurology care encounters. Front-line neurology care teams faced their fears of infection, with the first few months of the pandemic being characterized by uncertainty, inconsistent national health care strategies, limited personal protective equipment, and an alarming rate of human illness and death caused by COVID-19. The personal and societal toll of the pandemic is incalculable. Across research and clinical neurology providers, women and particularly those with young families juggled the impossible balance of career and family care as schools closed and children required home-based education. Shining through this dark time are lessons that should shape a brighter future for our field. We are resilient, and the advances in neuroscience and neurology care continue to advance improved neurologic outcomes. The National Institutes of Health devised multiple support strategies for researchers to help bridge the pandemic. Telehealth, clinical trial designs that are more participant-centric with remote monitoring, and flexible work schedules are strategies to rebalance overworked lives and improve our engagement with our patients. As we re-emerge, we have the chance to reframe our field.

The 2021 William Feinberg Award Lecture Seeking Glocal Solutions to Cerebrovascular Health Inequities

Global and local (“glocal”) disparities in stroke incidence, prevalence, care, and mortality are persistent, pervasive, and progressive. In particular, the disproportionate burden of stroke in people of African ancestry compared to most other racial/ethnic groups around the world has been long standing, is expected to worsen, and so far, has defied solution, largely because conventional risk factors likely account for less than half of the Black versus White disparity in stroke outcomes. While hypotheses such as a differential impact or inadequate evaluation of traditional risk factors by race have been suggested as potentially key factors contributing to lingering racial/ethnic stroke disparities, relatively understudied novel risk factors such as psychosocial stress, environmental pollution, and inflammation; and influences of the social determinants of health are gaining the most attention (and momentum). Moreover, it is increasingly recognized that while there is a lot still to understand, there needs to be a major shift from incessantly studying the problem, to developing interventions to resolve it. Resolution will likely require targeting multilevel factors, considering contemporaneous cross-national and cross-continental data collection, creating scalable care delivery models, jointly addressing care quality and community drivers of stroke occurrence, incorporating policy makers in planning/dissemination of successful interventions, and investing in robust transdisciplinary research training programs that address the interrelated issues of health equity and workforce diversity, and regional capacity building. To this end, our international multidisciplinary team has been involved in conducting several epidemiological studies and clinical trials in the area of stroke disparities, as well as executing career enhancing research training programs in the United States and Africa. This award lecture paper shares some of the lessons we have learnt from previous studies, presents objectives/design of ongoing initiatives, and discusses plans for the future.