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.

Formative Evaluation of a Student Symptom Decision Tree for COVID-19.

Objectives: In support of schools restarting during the COVID-19 pandemic, some schools partnered with local experts in academia, education, community, and public health to provide decision-support tools for determining what actions to take when presented with students at risk for spreading infection at school. Methods: The Student Symptom Decision Tree, developed in Orange County, California, is a flow chart consisting of branching logic and definitions to assist school personnel in making decisions regarding possible COVID-19 cases in schools which was repeatedly updated to reflect evolving evidence-based guidelines. A survey of 56 school personnel evaluated the frequency of use, acceptability, feasibility, appropriateness, usability, and helpfulness of the Decision Tree. Results: The tool was used at least 6 times a week by 66% of respondents. The Decision Tree was generally perceived as acceptable (91%), feasible (70%), appropriate (89%), usable (71%) and helpful (95%). Suggestions for improvement included reducing the complexity in content and formatting of the tool. Conclusions: The data suggest that school personnel found value in the Decision Tree, which was intended to assist them with making decisions in a challenging and rapidly evolving pandemic.