Mentoring Underrepresented Minority Physician-Scientists to Success.

As the nation seeks to recruit and retain physician-scientists, gaps remain in understanding and addressing mitigatable challenges to the success of faculty from underrepresented minority (URM) backgrounds. The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists program, implemented in 2015 at 10 academic medical centers in the United States, seeks to retain physician-scientists at risk of leaving science because of periods of extraordinary family caregiving needs, hardships that URM faculty-especially those who identify as female-are more likely to experience. At the annual Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists program directors conference in 2018, program directors-21% of whom identify as URM individuals and 13% as male-addressed issues that affect URM physician-scientists in particular. Key issues that threaten the retention of URM physician-scientists were identified through focused literature reviews; institutional environmental scans; and structured small- and large-group discussions with program directors, staff, and participants. These issues include bias and discrimination, personal wealth differential, the minority tax (i.e., service burdens placed on URM faculty who represent URM perspectives on committees and at conferences), lack of mentorship training, intersectionality and isolation, concerns about confirming stereotypes, and institutional-level factors. The authors present recommendations for how to create an environment in which URM physician-scientists can expect equitable opportunities to thrive, as institutions demonstrate proactive allyship and remove structural barriers to success. Recommendations include providing universal training to reduce interpersonal bias and discrimination, addressing the consequences of the personal wealth gap through financial counseling and benefits, measuring the service faculty members provide to the institution as advocates for URM faculty issues and compensating them appropriately, supporting URM faculty who wish to engage in national leadership programs, and sustaining institutional policies that address structural and interpersonal barriers to inclusive excellence.

Profiling Clinical Research Activity at an Academic Medical Center by Using Institutional Databases: Content Analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is important to monitor the scope of clinical research of all types, to involve participants of all ages and subgroups in studies that are appropriate to their condition, and to ensure equal access and broad validity of the findings. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a review of clinical research performed at New York University with the following objectives: (1) to determine the utility of institutional administrative data to characterize clinical research activity; (2) to assess the inclusion of special populations; and (3) to determine if the type, initiation, and completion of the study differed by age. METHODS: Data for all studies that were institutional review board-approved between January 1, 2014, and November 2, 2016, were obtained from the research navigator system, which was launched in November 2013. One module provided details about the study protocol, and another module provided the characteristics of individual participants. Research studies were classified as observational or interventional. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the characteristics of clinical studies across the lifespan, by type, and over time. RESULTS: A total of 22%-24% of studies included children (minimum age <18 years) and 4%-5% focused exclusively on pediatrics. Similarly, 64%-72% of studies included older patients (maximum age >65 years) but only 5%-12% focused exclusively on geriatrics. Approximately 85% of the studies included both male and female participants. Of the remaining studies, those open only to girls or women were approximately 3 times as common as those confined to boys or men. A total of 56%-58% of projects focused on nonvulnerable patients. Among the special populations studied, children (12%-15%) were the most common. Noninterventional trial types included research on human data sets (24%), observational research (22%), survey research (16%), and biospecimen research (8%). The percentage of projects designed to test an intervention in a vulnerable population increased from 17% in 2014 to 21% in 2015. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric participants were the special population that was most often studied based on the number of registered projects that included children and adolescents. However, they were much less likely to be successfully enrolled in research studies compared with adults older than 65 years. Only 20% of the studies were interventional, and 20%-35% of participants in this category were from vulnerable populations. More studies are exclusively devoted to women's health issues compared with men's health issues.

Designing and implementing INTREPID, an intensive program in translational research methodologies for new investigators.

Senior housestaff and junior faculty are often expected to perform clinical research, yet may not always have the requisite knowledge and skills to do so successfully. Formal degree programs provide such knowledge, but require a significant commitment of time and money. Short-term training programs (days to weeks) provide alternative ways to accrue essential information and acquire fundamental methodological skills. Unfortunately, published information about short-term programs is sparse. To encourage discussion and exchange of ideas regarding such programs, we here share our experience developing and implementing INtensive Training in Research Statistics, Ethics, and Protocol Informatics and Design (INTREPID), a 24-day immersion training program in clinical research methodologies. Designing, planning, and offering INTREPID was feasible, and required significant faculty commitment, support personnel and infrastructure, as well as committed trainees.

The CTSA Consortium's Catalog of Assets for Translational and Clinical Health Research (CATCHR).

The 61 CTSA Consortium sites are home to valuable programs and infrastructure supporting translational science and all are charged with ensuring that such investments translate quickly to improved clinical care. Catalog of Assets for Translational and Clinical Health Research (CATCHR) is the Consortium's effort to collect and make available information on programs and resources to maximize efficiency and facilitate collaborations. By capturing information on a broad range of assets supporting the entire clinical and translational research spectrum, CATCHR aims to provide the necessary infrastructure and processes to establish and maintain an open-access, searchable database of consortium resources to support multisite clinical and translational research studies. Data are collected using rigorous, defined methods, with the resulting information made visible through an integrated, searchable Web-based tool. Additional easy-to-use Web tools assist resource owners in validating and updating resource information over time. In this paper, we discuss the design and scope of the project, data collection methods, current results, and future plans for development and sustainability. With increasing pressure on research programs to avoid redundancy, CATCHR aims to make available information on programs and core facilities to maximize efficient use of resources.

Cognitive function in people with chronic illness: inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome.

Recent research has shown that people with chronic illnesses often experience cognitive deficits, such deficits may be specific to a particular type of illness, reflecting the disease process itself, or they may be deficits that are common across a number of chronic illnesses. Our study investigated whether people with an organic disease (Inflammatory Bowel Disease) show cognitive dysfunction relative to the control group and people with a functional illness (Irritable Bowel Syndrome), and if so, to elucidate the mechanisms by which such dysfunction occurs. A quasi-experimental design using three groups of participants provided scores on IQ, memory, and cognitive flexibility. Differences in absolute scores were slight. However, a noticeable interaction effect was found between group and IQ: The illness groups showed a deficit in verbal IQ relative to both their own performance IQ and to that of the control group's verbal IQ. This verbal deficit cannot be explained by depression, cognitive load, or medication.