Workshop summary: National Institutes of Health (NIH) 2022 scientific workshop on gender and health.

In this manuscript, we summarize the goals, content, and impact of the Gender and Health: Impacts of Structural Sexism, Gender Norms, Relational Power Dynamics, and Gender Inequities workshop held by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Research on Women's Health (ORWH) in collaboration with 10 NIH Institutes, Centers, and Offices. Specifically, we outline the key points emerging from the workshop presentations, which are the focus of the collection of articles in this supplement. The overarching goals of the workshop were to convene NIH staff, the external scientific community, and the public to discuss methods, measurement, modifiable factors, interventions, and best practices in health research on gender as a social and cultural variable and to identify opportunities to advance research and foster collaborations on these key topics. Themes emerging from the workshop include the need for intersectional measures in research on gender and health, the role of multilevel interventions and analyses, and the importance of considering gender as a social and structural determinant of health. Careful, nuanced, and rigorous integration of gender in health research can contribute to knowledge about and interventions to change the social and structural forces that lead to disparate health outcomes and perpetuate inequities.

Advancing Health Equity in Neurologic Disorders and Stroke: Stakeholder Insights Into Health Disparities, Research Gaps, and Potential Interventions.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to analyze the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) Request for Information (RFI) input from the public-including health care providers, researchers, patients, patient advocates, caregivers, advocacy organizations, professional societies, and private and academic stakeholders with an interest in health disparities (HDs) in neurologic disease. RFI questions were structured to solicit input on what stakeholders believe are neurologic disease HD research priorities, drivers of health inequity, and potential interventions. Furthermore, these stakeholder insights were examined within the context of contemporary scientific literature and research frameworks on health equity and health disparities. BACKGROUND: The NINDS published a RFI from March 31 to July 15, 2020. The RFI analysis presented here is part of a larger strategic planning process aimed to guide future NINDS efforts in neurologic disorder health equity (HE) research and training. The public commented on facilitators of HDs, populations that experience HDs (HDPs), potential interventions, and research opportunities related to HDs in neurologic disease and/or care in the United States across the lifespan. Responses were analyzed using qualitative methodology. Frequently suggested interventions were thematically clustered using the interpretive phenomenological analysis methodology and are presented in this article to provide a stakeholder-identified roadmap for advancing HE. RESULTS: Respondents identified socioecological factors as driving HDs in 89% of determinants reported. Stakeholder-reported HD determinants and subsequent interventions could be classified into the following conceptual categories: HDP neurospecialty care access, innovative HDP engagement and research inclusion strategies, and development of a well-trained clinician-scientist HD workforce. Clustering of the feedback from patient and patient-adjacent respondents (i.e., caretakers and patient advocates) highlighted the prevalence of patient-provider interpersonal factors and limited resources driving access-to-care barriers among their sentiments. DISCUSSION: Respondent sentiments suggest prioritization of social determinants of health (SDOH) research, shifting away from the common target of biological and behavioral themes addressed in the existing body of HE research provided by the stakeholder. Overall, respondents suggest focusing research prioritization on access to care, engagement across the HE research and care landscape, and HE workforce development.

Predicting chronic postsurgical pain: current evidence and a novel program to develop predictive biomarker signatures.

ABSTRACT: Chronic pain affects more than 50 million Americans. Treatments remain inadequate, in large part, because the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the development of chronic pain remain poorly understood. Pain biomarkers could potentially identify and measure biological pathways and phenotypical expressions that are altered by pain, provide insight into biological treatment targets, and help identify at-risk patients who might benefit from early intervention. Biomarkers are used to diagnose, track, and treat other diseases, but no validated clinical biomarkers exist yet for chronic pain. To address this problem, the National Institutes of Health Common Fund launched the Acute to Chronic Pain Signatures (A2CPS) program to evaluate candidate biomarkers, develop them into biosignatures, and discover novel biomarkers for chronification of pain after surgery. This article discusses candidate biomarkers identified by A2CPS for evaluation, including genomic, proteomic, metabolomic, lipidomic, neuroimaging, psychophysical, psychological, and behavioral measures. Acute to Chronic Pain Signatures will provide the most comprehensive investigation of biomarkers for the transition to chronic postsurgical pain undertaken to date. Data and analytic resources generatedby A2CPS will be shared with the scientific community in hopes that other investigators will extract valuable insights beyond A2CPS's initial findings. This article will review the identified biomarkers and rationale for including them, the current state of the science on biomarkers of the transition from acute to chronic pain, gaps in the literature, and how A2CPS will address these gaps.