Social determinants of health as a framework to identify and assess cross-sector funding opportunities.

OBJECTIVE: To present a content analysis and method for applying a social determinants of health (SDOH) analytical framework to legislation. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Secondary data include 215 sections of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) and related information from federal government websites (e.g., press releases, notices of funding announcements, and funding tables). STUDY DESIGN: Researchers conducted a qualitative content analysis of legislative text, recording all sections, appropriations, allocations, and administrators. Using an SDOH analytical framework defined by Healthy People 2030, researchers coded each section, appropriation, and allocation within the legislation. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Researchers reviewed all ARPA sections, appropriations, and allocations separately, resulting in 328 entries. Descriptive characteristics were calculated using Tableau and Microsoft Excel. Researchers coded each appropriation or allocation using definitions and key words presented in the SDOH analytical framework. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Applying an SDOH analytical framework to the legislation's funding amounts reveals an overlap of investment opportunities that cross-sector initiatives can leverage. This overlap is seen primarily in two ways: (1) specific allocations and appropriations that can be used to meet multiple SDOH goals and (2) federal administrators receiving money that can be categorized according to multiple SDOHs. For example, approximately 99% of tracked ARPA funds can be used to support one or more SDOHs. Thirty-five appropriations or allocations can support programs categorized for more than one SDOH category. Eight departments received funds that could be designated for two or more SDOHs. All five SDOH categories can potentially receive funding from 3 to 11 federal administrators. CONCLUSIONS: Using an SDOH analytical framework is an innovative approach to conceptualizing and synthesizing the contents of complex legislation. This approach demonstrates funding patterns across SDOH that can encourage cross-sector collaborations. Future content analysis of legislation can employ this SDOH framework to demonstrate cross-sector initiative funding opportunities.

Grant application outcomes for biomedical researchers who participated in the National Research Mentoring Network's Grant Writing Coaching Programs.

BACKGROUND: A diverse research workforce is essential for catalyzing biomedical advancements, but this workforce goal is hindered by persistent sex and racial/ethnic disparities among investigators receiving research grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In response, the NIH-funded National Research Mentoring Network implemented a Grant Writing Coaching Program (GCP) to provide diverse cohorts of early-career investigators across the United States with intensive coaching throughout the proposal development process. We evaluated the GCP's national reach and short-term impact on participants' proposal submissions and funding outcomes. METHODS: The GCP was delivered as six similar but distinct models. All models began with an in-person group session, followed by a series of coaching sessions over 4 to 12 months. Participants were surveyed at 6-, 12- and 18-months after program completion to assess proposal outcomes (submissions, awards). Self-reported data were verified and supplemented by searches of public repositories of awarded grants when available. Submission and award rates were derived from counts of participants who submitted or were awarded at least one grant proposal in a category (NIH, other federal, non-federal). RESULTS: From June 2015 through March 2019, 545 investigators (67% female, 61% under-represented racial/ethnic minority, URM) from 187 different institutions participated in the GCP. Among them, 324 (59% of participants) submitted at least one grant application and 134 (41% of submitters) received funding. A total of 164 grants were awarded, the majority being from the NIH (93, 56%). Of the 74 R01 (or similar) NIH research proposals submitted by GCP participants, 16 have been funded thus far (56% to URM, 75% to women). This 22% award rate exceeded the 2016-2018 NIH success rates for new R01s. CONCLUSION: Inter- and intra-institutional grant writing coaching groups are a feasible and effective approach to supporting the grant acquisition efforts of early-career biomedical investigators, including women and those from URM groups.

Advancing Health Equity through Organizational Mentoring Policies at Minority-Serving Institutions.

Objective: Morehouse School of Medicine, a collaborative partner in the National Research Mentoring Network, established the Mentoring Academy Institutional Planning Forum (MA Forum) to help minority-serving institutions (MSI) optimize research mentoring. In this commentary, we describe the policy workshop and review survey data from six MSIs to assess the current state of organizational policies and activities that advance research mentoring. Participants: Twenty-eight institutional leaders, representing six MSIs, participated in an MA Forum between May 20, 2016 and May 11, 2017. Methods: After describing the MA Forum's background, design and recruitment strategy, we present a synthesis of institutional summaries built from responses to a 45-item survey that explored existing mentoring infrastructure, policies, and activities at each institution. Results: There is a heavy reliance on extramural funds to facilitate research mentoring initiatives. Mentoring policies and activities were most often governed by individual programs rather than the institution. Thus, the research mentoring expertise was concentrated at the local level, which may prevent opportunities for future scalability and optimization. Conclusions: Given these findings, we offer recommendations to help MSIs establish a mentoring culture backed by institutional policy.

Exploring Professional Development for New Investigators Underrepresented in the Federally Funded Biomedical Research Workforce.

Objective: The National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) is a strategic partnership whose goals include remedying documented disparities by race and ethnicity in the awarding of National Institutes of Health research grants. Our objectives were to offer a profile of early-career investigators who applied to NRMN's Grantsmanship Coaching Programs (GCP) and test for differences in the research productivity, professional obligations, research resources, and motivations of applicants from underrepresented groups (URGs) compared with applicants from well-represented groups (WRGs). We also evaluated how employment at a minority serving institution (MSI) influenced access to research resources and professional obligations. Participants: 880 investigators who submitted online applications to join an NRMN GCP between August 1, 2015 and February 1, 2018. Methods: We used two-sample tests of proportions and logistic regression to explore differences in applicants' characteristics and local research environment by group (URG vs WRG) and institution type (MSI vs Other). Results: URG and WRG applicants did not differ in grant application submission history. However, URG applicants had published fewer articles than WRG peers (9.8 vs 15.3, P<.001) and fewer articles as first/last author (4.4 vs 6.9, P<.001). URG applicants reported less access to core facilities to conduct research (74% vs 81%, P<.05). Investigators at MSIs reported less access to collaborators (P<.01) and departmental colleagues with federal funding (P<.001) and spent less time on conducting research (P<.001). URGs were more motivated to seek professional development support to expand their peer networks (P<.05) and advance their careers (P<.001). Conclusions: Our findings identified several points of intervention to help applicants from URGs to improve their future chances of obtaining competitive funding.

Early career biomedical grantsmanship self-efficacy: validation of an abbreviated self-assessment tool.

A hallmark of success for early career biomedical researchers is the acquisition of research funding. There are marked disparities among principal investigators who submit grants and the likelihood of receiving national funding. The National Research Mentoring Network was funded by the National Institutes of Health to diversify the biomedical research workforce and included grantsmanship training for early career researchers. Self-efficacy in developing research grant applications is significantly improved over time with training and experience. We created a 19-item self-efficacy assessment inventory. Our aims were to confirm the internal consistency of a three-factor solution for grantsmanship confidence and to test the likelihood that self-efficacy influences grant proposal submission timing. We gathered data from 190 diverse biomedical trainees who completed NRMN grantsmanship training between August 2015 and June 2017. Findings revealed high internal consistency for items in each of three factors. There was a statistically significant association between self-efficacy mean scores and grant submission timing predicting that, for every one-point increase in the mean score, the odds of submitting a grant 6 months post-training increased by 69%. An abbreviated inventory of grantsmanship skills self-efficacy is a promising tool for monitoring changes over time in early career researchers and for promoting tailored grantsmanship interventions.

Using a Virtual Community (the Health Equity Learning Collaboratory) to Support Early-Stage Investigators Pursuing Grant Funding.

Junior investigators often have limited access to networks of scientific experts and resources that facilitate competitive grant submissions. Since environments in which scientists are trained are critically important for long-term success, we built and tested a virtual environment for early-stage investigators (ESIs) working on grant proposals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the virtual community's influence on grant submission patterns among participants from underrepresented groups. As part of a grant writing coaching model, junior investigators were recruited into a professional development program designed to develop competitive grantsmanship skills. Designed by the Research Resources and Outreach Core (RROC) of the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN), the Health Equity Learning Collaboratory (EQ-Collaboratory) provided a virtual community for social support, accountability, constructive feedback, and access to peer networks to help investigators overcome barriers to grant submission. This study assessed differences in outcomes for participants who completed the training within the EQ-Collaboratory compared to those who did not. The analyzed data revealed a statistically significant difference in the average time to submission for participants enrolled in the EQ-Collaboratory. EQ-Collaboratory ESIs submitted proposals 148.6 days earlier, (p < 0.0001). The results suggest that a supportive virtual environment can help investigators more quickly overcome barriers to grant submission.