The funders' perspective: Lessons learned from the National Institutes of Health Diversity Program Consortium evaluation.

Advancing diversity in the biomedical research workforce is critical to the ability of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to achieve its mission. The NIH Diversity Program Consortium is a unique, 10-year program that builds upon longstanding training and research capacity-building activities to promote workforce diversity. It was designed to rigorously evaluate approaches to enhancing diversity in the biomedical research workforce at the student, faculty, and institutional level. In this chapter we describe (a) the program's origins, (b) the consortium-wide evaluation, including plans, measures, challenges, and solutions, and (c) how lessons learned from this program are being leveraged to strengthen NIH research-training and capacity-building activities and evaluation efforts.

Increasing Clinician-Scientist Workforce Diversity through the National Institute of General Medical Sciences' Medical Scientist Training Program.

The National Institute of General Medical Sciences Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) has been successful in producing clinician-scientists, with a majority of graduates pursuing research-related careers. However, there are a number of areas of continuing concern for the program. In particular, women and individuals from certain racial and ethnic backgrounds remain persistently underrepresented in MSTPs relative to the average college-aged U.S. population and to students receiving life sciences bachelor's degrees. The authors, who include leaders of NIGMS, identify a number of challenges and opportunities for enhancing diversity, equity and inclusion in the MSTPs and suggest strategies for addressing them.

Evidence-based interventions implemented in low-and middle-income countries for sickle cell disease management: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Despite ~90% of sickle cell disease (SCD) occurring in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), the vast majority of people are not receiving evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to reduce SCD-related adverse outcomes and mortality, and data on implementation research outcomes (IROs) and SCD is limited. This study aims to synthesize available data on EBIs for SCD and assess IROs. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of RCTs reporting on EBIs for SCD management implemented in LMICs. We identified articles from PubMed/Medline, Global Health, PubMed Central, Embase, Web of Science medical subject heading (MeSH and Emtree) and keywords, published from inception through February 23, 2020, and conducted an updated search through December 24, 2020. We provide intervention characteristics for each study, EBI impact on SCD, and evidence of reporting on IROs. MAIN RESULTS: 29 RCTs were analyzed. EBIs identified included disease modifying agents, supportive care agents/analgesics, anti-malarials, systemic treatments, patient/ provider education, and nutritional supplements. Studies using disease modifying agents, nutritional supplements, and anti-malarials reported improvements in pain crisis, hospitalization, children's growth and reduction in severity and prevalence of malaria. Two studies reported on the sustainability of supplementary arginine, citrulline, and daily chloroquine and hydroxyurea for SCD patients. Only 13 studies (44.8%) provided descriptions that captured at least three of the eight IROs. There was limited reporting of acceptability, feasibility, fidelity, cost and sustainability. CONCLUSION: EBIs are effective for SCD management in LMICs; however, measurement of IROs is scarce. Future research should focus on penetration of EBIs to inform evidence-based practice and sustainability in the context of LMICs. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This review is registered in PROSPERO #CRD42020167289.