The Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI) Consortium: A Blueprint for Inclusive Excellence

Promoting Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice in Grantmaking for Health Care Research: A Pragmatic Review and Framework

Funders of research have an opportunity to advance health equity and social justice by incorporating principles of diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ) in their approach to grantmaking. We conducted a pragmatic review to identify opportunities for grantmakers in the health care sector to integrate DEIJ in their funding activities. The resulting framework discusses recommendations within three phases as follows: (1) Organizational Context (i.e., initiate DEIJ efforts within the grantmaking organization, invest in community partnerships, and establish DEIJ goals), (2) Grantmaking Process (i.e., DEIJ-specific practices related to grant design, application, proposal review processes, and support for grantees), and (3) Assessment of Process and Outcomes (i.e., measurement, evaluation, and dissemination to maximize impact of DEIJ efforts). Throughout all grantmaking phases, it is critical to partner with and engage individuals and communities that have been historically marginalized in health care and research. In this article, we describe how adoption of framework practices can leverage grantmaking to advance DEIJ for communities, researchers, and projects.

The Role of Mock Reviewing Sessions in the National Research Mentoring Network Strategic Empowerment Tailored for Health Equity Investigators: A Randomized Controlled Study

The National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) Strategic Empowerment Tailored for Health Equity Investigators (SETH) study evaluates the value of adding Developmental Network to Coaching in the career advancement of diverse Early-Stage Investigators (ESIs). Focused NIH-formatted Mock Reviewing Sessions (MRS) prior to the submission of grants can significantly enhance the scientific merits of an ESI's grant application. We evaluated the most prevalent design, analysis-related factors, and the likelihood of grant submissions and awards associated with going through MRS, using descriptive statistics, Chi-square, and logistic regression methods. A total of 62 out of 234 applications went through the MRS. There were 69.4% that pursued R grants, 22.6% career development (K) awards, and 8.0% other grant mechanisms. Comparing applications that underwent MRS versus those that did not (N = 172), 67.7% vs. 38.4% were submitted for funding (i.e., unadjusted difference of 29.3%; OR = 4.8, 95% CI = (2.4, 9.8), p-value < 0.0001). This indicates that, relative to those who did not undergo MRS, ESIs who did, were 4.8 times as likely to submit an application for funding. Also, ESIs in earlier cohorts (1-2) (a period that coincided with the pre COVID-19 era) as compared to those who were recruited at later cohorts (3-4) (i.e., during the peak of COVID-19 period) were 3.8 times as likely to submit grants (p-value < 0.0001). The most prevalent issues that were identified included insufficient statistical design considerations and plans (75%), conceptual framework (28.3%), specific aims (11.7%), evidence of significance (3.3%), and innovation (3.3%). MRS potentially enhances grant submissions for extramural funding and offers constructive feedback allowing for modifications that enhance the scientific merits of research grants.

Individual and Institutional Factors Contribute to Research Capacity Building for Early-Stage Investigators from Groups Underrepresented in Biomedical Research: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis

BACKGROUND

Enhancement of diversity within the U.S. research workforce is a recognized need and priority at a national level. Existing comprehensive programs, such as the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) and Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI), have the dual focus of building institutional research capacity and promoting investigator self-efficacy through mentoring and training.

METHODS

A qualitative comparative analysis was used to identify the combination of factors that explain the success and failure to submit a grant proposal by investigators underrepresented in biomedical research from the RCMI and non-RCMI institutions. The records of 211 participants enrolled in the NRMN Strategic Empowerment Tailored for Health Equity Investigators (NRMN-SETH) program were reviewed, and data for 79 early-stage, underrepresented faculty investigators from RCMI (n = 23) and non-RCMI (n = 56) institutions were included.

RESULTS

Institutional membership (RCMI vs. non-RCMI) was used as a possible predictive factor and emerged as a contributing factor for all of the analyses. Access to local mentors was predictive of a successful grant submission for RCMI investigators, while underrepresented investigators at non-RCMI institutions who succeeded with submitting grants still lacked access to local mentors.

CONCLUSION

Institutional contexts contribute to the grant writing experiences of investigators underrepresented in biomedical research.

Nurturing Diverse Generations of the Medical Workforce for Success With Authenticity: An Association of Black Cardiologists' Roundtable

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the consequences of systemic racism in the United States with Black, Hispanic, and other racial and ethnic diverse populations dying at disproportionately higher rates than White Americans. Addressing the social and health disparities amplified by COVID-19 requires in part restructuring of the healthcare system, particularly the diversity of the healthcare workforce to better reflect that of the US population. In January 2021, the Association of Black Cardiologists hosted a virtual roundtable designed to discuss key issues pertaining to medical workforce diversity and to identify strategies aimed at improving racial and ethnic diversity in medical school, graduate medical education, faculty, and leadership positions. The Nurturing Diverse Generations of the Medical Workforce for Success with Authenticity roundtable brought together diverse stakeholders and champions of diversity and inclusion to discuss innovative ideas, solutions, and opportunities to address workforce diversification.

Engaging the Houston Community in Research: An Early Case Study of a Community Engagement Core in the University of Houston's HEALTH Center for Addictions Research and Cancer Prevention

Objective

The National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities-funded U54 Research Center at the University of Houston addresses disparate racial/ethnic health outcomes related to cancer and substance abuse. Of its 4 cores, the Community Engagement Core involves the impacted community in affiliated research. Strategies include implementing community advisory boards, assisting with study design and execution, maintaining a social media presence, and publishing health-related videos for the community. We examine the early effectiveness of these strategies.

Methods

Data collection included surveying investigators and community advisory board members and monitoring traffic to videos and social media posts.

Results

On a Likert scale survey of investigators (4 = "agree" and 5 = "strongly agree"), the mean rating for a prompt expressing satisfaction with services received was 4.67 (SD = 0.52; N = 6). On a Likert scale survey of community advisory board members, the mean rating for a prompt expressing belief that feedback was taken seriously was 5.00 (SD = 0.00; N = 9).

Conclusions

The Community Engagement Core is building trusting relationships between researchers and community members. We discuss lessons learned that may inform both our growth and others' efforts to implement community-engaged research.

The isolated choice effect: An underlying psychological mechanism influencing racial diversity in organizations

With the view toward improving the racial diversity in organizations, this work seeks to uncover the reasons why larger groups have an advantage in terms of job opportunities. Based on people’s preference for diversity in commodity selection, we propose a potential feature that may exist in human resource management and call it the isolated choice effect, which unconsciously affects the racial diversity of organizations. Specifically, when making selections in isolation (i.e., when they are responsible for selecting a single person at a time), people are less likely to choose the one whose race would increase group diversity than when making selections in collections (i.e., when they are responsible for selecting several people at a time). We set up eight experiments (n = 2,792) in which participants make hiring or firing decisions among choices that are more white people than black people. We find that participants in the isolated choice group are less likely to choose black people, the smaller group, than those in the collective choice group. Our results show a potentially important contributing factor to the underrepresentation of black people in many organizations because hires are often made in isolation while layoffs are often made in collections, which provides a starting point for improving racial diversity in organizations by avoiding the isolated choice effect.