Using longitudinal qualitative research to understand the experiences of minoritized people.

This paper demonstrates how Longitudinal Qualitative Research (LQR) is an innovative method to understand the lived experiences of members of minoritized groups when temporality is a structuring element of their experiences. Most qualitative research in psychology is cross-sectional, which limits our understanding of individuals whose experiences are context-dependent and linked to the temporal norms of specific social environments. LQR is unique for allowing researchers to compare change and stability over time and reveal how social challenges and barriers impact perspective shifts and long-term decision-making. To demonstrate the usefulness of LQR as an inclusive methodology, we discuss an ongoing study of career decision-making among a diverse cohort of biomedical scientists. We have used annual interviews to follow biomedical science trainees from the beginning of their PhD into the initial stages of their careers. We present case studies of minoritized scientists to illustrate the methods for long-term engagement used to elicit sensitive and critical information during their training. We show how LQR is a viable methodology for a variety of research questions and can be accomplished using large or small sample sizes and limited resources. Our primary goal is to show how LQR is useful to understand the experiences of minoritized individuals in contexts that have historically excluded them.

Interventions for the symptoms and signs resulting from jellyfish stings.

BACKGROUND: Jellyfish envenomation is common in many coastal regions and varies in severity depending upon the species. Stings cause a variety of symptoms and signs including pain, dermatological reactions, and, in some species, Irukandji syndrome (which may include abdominal/back/chest pain, tachycardia, hypertension, cardiac phenomena, and, rarely, death). Many treatments have been suggested for these symptoms, but their effectiveness is unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms associated with the use of any intervention, in both adults and children, for the treatment of jellyfish stings, as assessed by randomised and quasi-randomised trials. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science up to 27 October 2022. We searched clinical trials registers and the grey literature, and conducted forward-citation searching of relevant articles.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of any intervention given to treat stings from any species of jellyfish stings. Interventions were compared to another active intervention, placebo, or no treatment. If co-interventions were used, we included the study only if the co-intervention was used in each group.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.  MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies (six RCTs and three quasi-RCTs) involving a total of 574 participants. We found one ongoing study. Participants were either stung accidentally, or were healthy volunteers exposed to stings in a laboratory setting. Type of jellyfish could not be confirmed in beach settings and was determined by investigators using participant and local information. We categorised interventions into comparison groups: hot versus cold applications; topical applications. A third comparison of parenteral administration included no relevant outcome data: a single study (39 participants) evaluated intravenous magnesium sulfate after stings from jellyfish that cause Irukandji syndrome (Carukia). No studies assessed a fourth comparison group of pressure immobilisation bandages.  We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to very serious risk of bias, serious and very serious imprecision, and serious inconsistency in some results.  Application of heat versus application of cold Four studies involved accidental stings treated on the beach or in hospital. Jellyfish were described as bluebottles (Physalia; location: Australia), and box jellyfish that do not cause Irukandji syndrome (Hawaiian box jellyfish (Carybdea alata) and major box jellyfish (Chironex fleckeri, location: Australia)). Treatments were applied with hot packs or hot water (showers, baths, buckets, or hoses), or ice packs or cold packs.  The evidence for all outcomes was of very low certainty, thus we are unsure whether heat compared to cold leads to at least a clinically significant reduction in pain within six hours of stings from Physalia (risk ratio (RR) 2.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 3.56; 2 studies, 142 participants) or Carybdea alata and Chironex fleckeri (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 4.94; 2 studies, 71 participants). We are unsure whether there is a difference in adverse events due to treatment (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.19; 2 studies, 142 participants); these were minor adverse events reported for Physalia stings. We are also unsure whether either treatment leads to a clinically significant reduction in pain in the first hour (Physalia: RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.71 to 4.15; 1 study, 88 participants; Carybdea alata and Chironex fleckeri: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.89; 1 study, 42 participants) or cessation of pain at the end of treatment (Physalia: RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.27; 1 study, 54 participants; Carybdea alata and Chironex fleckeri: RR 3.54, 95% CI 0.82 to 15.31; 1 study, 29 participants). Evidence for retreatment with the same intervention was only available for Physalia, with similar uncertain findings (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.90; 1 study, 96 participants), as was the case for retreatment with the alternative hot or cold application after Physalia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.82; 1 study, 54 participants) and Chironex fleckeri stings (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.02 to 11.17; 1 study, 42 participants). Evidence for dermatological signs (itchiness or rash) was available only at 24 hours for Physalia stings (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.65; 2 studies, 98 participants).  Topical applications One study (62 participants) included accidental stings from Hawaiian box jellyfish (Carybdea alata) treated on the beach with fresh water, seawater, Sting Aid (a commercial product), or Adolph's (papain) meat tenderiser. In another study, healthy volunteers (97 participants) were stung with an Indonesian sea nettle (Chrysaora chinensis from Malaysia) in a laboratory setting and treated with isopropyl alcohol, ammonia, heated water, acetic acid, or sodium bicarbonate. Two other eligible studies (Carybdea alata and Physalia stings) did not measure the outcomes of this review.  The evidence for all outcomes was of very low certainty, thus we could not be certain whether or not topical applications provided at least a clinically significant reduction in pain (1 study, 62 participants with Carybdea alata stings, reported only as cessation of pain). For adverse events due to treatment, one study (Chrysaora chinensis stings) withdrew ammonia as a treatment following a first-degree burn in one participant. No studies evaluated clinically significant reduction in pain, retreatment with the same or the alternative treatment, or dermatological signs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Few studies contributed data to this review, and those that did contribute varied in types of treatment, settings, and range of jellyfish species. We are unsure of the effectiveness of any of the treatments evaluated in this review given the very low certainty of all the evidence. This updated review includes two new studies (with 139 additional participants). The findings are consistent with the previous review.

A national professional development program fills mentoring gaps for postdoctoral researchers.

The Postdoc Academy: Succeeding as a Postdoc was designed to build postdocs' skills in career transition, career planning, collaborative research, resilience, and self-reflection. This study examined self-reported changes in five skills as learners progressed through the course. Data were collected from participants who responded to both pre- and post-surveys and engaged with the course learning activities. Results from repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance revealed that all of the self-reported perceptions of skills improved significantly upon completion of the course. Hierarchical regressions revealed that underrepresented minority learners had greater gains in their development of skills in career planning, resilience, and self-reflection. Qualitative analysis of learners' responses to learning activities found that postdocs perceived networking and mentor support as contributing factors to their skill advancement while tensions among multiple obligations and concerns of uncertainties were significant challenges to applying those skills.

"In the back of my mind": A Longitudinal Multiple Case Study Analysis of Successful Black Women Biomedical Graduate Students Navigating Gendered Racism.

Black women in graduate school can experience stress due to blatant and subtle acts of gendered racism. However, we do not know how such stressors are navigated over time among those who successfully complete their PhDs. The current study used a Black feminist thought framework and narrative analysis to conduct a longitudinal exploration of how three successful Black women biomedical graduate students make sense of and respond to gendered racism they experienced and the coping strategies they employ as they persist. When interacting with others, the women experienced low expectations and doubts about being legitimate scientists. These experiences contributed to feelings of isolation, impacted their networking opportunities, and dampened their view of the desirability of an academic career postgraduation. Over time, their coping strategies for dealing with negative racial and gendered racial stereotypes and biases shifted from opting to "prove others wrong" or working harder, to leaning on their social networks for camaraderie and advice as well as choosing to not exert energy to form a response. Implications for mentoring and mentoring programs at the graduate level and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics programming are discussed.

Timing of submissions to The Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health: Associations with the COVID-19 pandemic and editorial decisions.

AIM: To determine if the timing of manuscript submissions to The Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health (JPCH) changed following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and to determine if the timing of manuscript submissions influenced editorial decisions. METHODS: A retrospective observational study of submissions to JPCH from 1 January 2015 to 1 August 2022 was performed. Regression models were used to explore the change over time. Editorial decisions were examined using a multinomial regression model with the three-category ordinal outcome of reject, revise and accept. All statistical models were fitted using a Bayesian approach and show 95% credible intervals (CI). RESULTS: The analyses included 11 499 manuscript submissions between 2015 and 2022. The mean number of manuscript submissions increased by 17 papers per month (CI 15-19), with a larger 4-month long increase after the COVID-19 pandemic was declared of 86 submissions per month (CI 67-103). There was no clear effect of the pandemic on weekend submissions, mean difference in probability 0.003 (CI -0.021 to 0.026). Throughout the study period, the peak submission time was later in the day and was shifted +37 min later post-March 2020 (CI +22 to +52 min). Throughout the study period, submissions out-of-hours and on weekends were less likely to get an editorial decision of 'accept' or 'revise': odds ratio weekend versus weekday 0.87 (CI 0.78-0.97). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic had a limited effect on the timing of manuscript submissions to JPCH. However, the timing of manuscript submission impacted the likelihood of a more positive editorial decision. While the time of manuscript submission is only one part of the research process, it is postulated that it may be associated with research quality.

A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures in paediatric endocrinology.

CONTEXT: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are useful tools in paediatric endocrinology to gauge health status in children, especially since they are often unable to clearly communicate it themselves. We aimed to systematically search and appraise all available PROMs relevant to paediatric endocrinology and provide a curated resource for health professionals to utilise. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We identified PROMs in paediatric endocrinology by systematically searching the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature on May 20, 2022. Additional studies were located through hand searching and content area expert contributions. We assessed the quality of each PROM using the COSMIN risk of bias checklist. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We identified 5003 papers in the initial search. After applying exclusion criteria we included seven PROMs in the review. Six PROMs were specific to Type I Diabetes and one to Hypothyroidism. We gave all studies an overall COSMIN score of 'inadequate' due to poorly detailed PROM development. CONCLUSION: The scope and quality of PROMs in paediatric endocrinology is limited. Further research and development of PROM tools are required in paediatric endocrinology to allow for improved patient care.

Variations of a group coaching intervention to support early-career biomedical researchers in Grant proposal development: a pragmatic, four-arm, group-randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Funded grant proposals provide biomedical researchers with the resources needed to build their research programs, support trainees, and advance public health. Studies using National Institutes of Health (NIH) data have found that investigators from underrepresented groups in the biomedical workforce are awarded NIH research grants at disproportionately lower rates. Grant writing training initiatives are available, but there is a dearth of rigorous research to determine the effectiveness of such interventions and to discern their essential features. METHODS: This 2 × 2, unblinded, group-randomized study compares the effectiveness of variations of an NIH-focused, grant writing, group coaching intervention for biomedical postdoctoral fellows and early-career faculty. The key study outcomes are proposal submission rates and funding rates. Participants, drawn from across the United States, are enrolled as dyads with a self-selected scientific advisor in their content area, then placed into coaching groups led by senior NIH-funded investigators who are trained in the intervention's coaching practices. Target enrollment is 72 coaching groups of 4-5 dyads each. Groups are randomized to one of four intervention arms that differ on two factors: [1] duration of coaching support (regular dose = 5 months of group coaching, versus extended dose = regular dose plus an additional 18 months of one-on-one coaching); and [2] mode of engaging scientific advisors with the regular dose group coaching process (unstructured versus structured engagement). Intervention variations were informed by programs previously offered by the NIH National Research Mentoring Network. Participant data are collected via written surveys (baseline and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after start of the regular dose) and semi-structured interviews (end of regular dose and 24 months). Quantitative analyses will be intention-to-treat, using a 2-sided test of equality of the effects of each factor. An inductive, constant comparison analysis of interview transcripts will be used to identify contextual factors -- associated with individual participants, their engagement with the coaching intervention, and their institutional setting - that influence intervention effectiveness. DISCUSSION: Results of this study will provide an empirical basis for a readily translatable coaching approach to supporting the essential grant writing activities of faculty, fellows, and other research trainees, including those from underrepresented groups.

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.

Scientific societies fostering inclusivity through speaker diversity in annual meeting programming: a call to action.

Scientific societies aiming to foster inclusion of scientists from underrepresented (UR) backgrounds among their membership often delegate primary responsibility for this goal to a diversity-focused committee. The National Science Foundation has funded the creation of the Alliance to Catalyze Change for Equity in STEM Success (ACCESS), a meta-organization bringing together representatives from several such STEM society committees to serve as a hub for a growing community of practice. Our goal is to coordinate efforts to advance inclusive practices by sharing experiences and making synergistic discoveries about what works. ACCESS has analyzed the approaches by which member societies have sought to ensure inclusivity through selection of annual meeting speakers. Here we discuss how inclusive speaker selection fosters better scientific environments for all and identify challenges and promising practices for societies striving to maximize inclusivity of speakers in their scientific programming.

Fake news and fake research: Why meta-research matters more than ever.

Research is in a crisis of credibility, and this is to the peril of all paediatricians. Billions of dollars are being wasted each year because research is not planned, badly conducted or poorly reported, and this is on a background of rapidly reducing research budgets. How can paediatricians, families and patients make informed treatment choices if the evidence base is absent or not trustworthy? This article discusses why meta-research now matters more than ever, how it can help solve this crisis of credibility and how this should lead to more efficient and effective clinical care. The field of meta-research or research-on-research is the ultimate big picture approach to identifying and solving issues of bias, error, misconduct and waste in research. Meta-researchers value authenticity over aesthetics and quality over quantity. The utility of meta-research does not rely on accusations or critical assessments of individual research, but through highlighting where and how the scientific method and research standards across all fields can be improved. Meta-researchers study, analyse and critique the research pathway, focusing on elements such as methods (how to conduct), evaluation (how to test), reporting (how to communicate), reproducibility (how to verify) and incentives (how to reward). In the current climate it is now more critical than ever that we make use of meta-research and prioritise high-quality high-impact research, ultimately leading to improved patient outcomes.

How to Include Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patient-reported outcome measures are increasingly important measures of patient experience, which can increase research robustness, maximise economic value and improve patient outcomes. This review outlines the benefits, challenges and practicalities of incorporating patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials. RECENT FINDINGS: Patient-reported outcome measures are often the best way of measuring patient symptoms and quality of life. Patient-reported outcome measures can help reduce observer bias, engage patients in the research process, and inform health service resource planning. A range of tools exist to help facilitate clinicians and researchers in selecting and utilising patient reported outcome measures. Key issues to consider when selecting an appropriate tool include the development, format and psychometric properties of the patient-reported outcome measures. The use of patient-reported outcome measures allow us to better understand the patient experience and their values. A range of tools exist to help facilitate the use of patient-reported outcome measures. This article outlines how we can incorporate patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials.

Culturally aware mentorship: Lasting impacts of a novel intervention on academic administrators and faculty.

National efforts to address the diversity dilemma in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) often emphasize increasing numbers of historically underrepresented (HU) students and faculty, but fall short in instituting concrete changes for inclusion and belonging. Therefore, increasing the pool of senior faculty who wish to become guides and advocates for emerging scientists from HU populations is an essential step toward creating new pathways for their career advancement. As a step toward achieving this goal, we created a novel eight-hour intervention on Culturally Aware Mentoring (CAM), a program of the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) targeted to faculty and administrators. A previous report of surveys at the end of the CAM sessions revealed substantial awareness and knowledge gains, with participants expressing intentions to use and implement new skills they had learned. In this paper, we provide the results of our thematic analysis of qualitative interviews with academic administrators and faculty, 18-24 months after participation in CAM. Interviews were designed to determine: 1) What changes in self-perceptions and interactions occurred as a result of participation in CAM? 2) What specific components of CAM are associated with changes in individual beliefs and practices? 3) How did participants actively make changes after the CAM workshop? 4) What barriers or challenges do participants encounter after the CAM intervention? The results demonstrate the lasting influences of CAM on participants' awareness of cultural differences, their assumptions about and approaches toward interactions with colleagues and students, and their efforts to change their behaviors to promote inclusive practices in their mentoring and teaching of HU students in STEM. Our findings provide evidence that CAM can be incorporated into existing mentor training programs designed to improve the confidence and capacity of senior research faculty mentors to make culturally-informed, scholar-centered decisions to more deliberately recognize and respond to cultural differences within their mentoring and collegial relationships.

The ASPET Mentoring Network: Enhancing Diversity and Inclusion through Career Coaching Groups within a Scientific Society.

Over the past decades, two persisting priorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) training have been: 1) increasing the knowledge of and access to careers beyond academic scientist; and 2) increasing the diversity of the STEM workforce. Previous studies show that a uniquely constructed career coaching group provides strong support and progress for both priorities. This report extends this design into a more sustainable model that is positioned within the professional context of rising young scientists. This new model is based in the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (ASPET)-the ASPET Mentoring Network. Groups of PhD students and postdocs were assigned to an ASPET professional (academic or other career) member (the coach) with an initial meeting held the day before the society's annual meeting. The coaching groups interacted during the meeting and then virtually for a year. Extensive survey and interview evaluation data gathered from the first three cohorts (12 coaching groups) in 2016- 2018 provided strong evidence of the perceived and real benefits of the network. This new version of career coaching groups is both feasible and linked to career success due to its close association with a scientific society, peers, and coaches who share scientific identities and aspirations.

Assessing guideline adherence in the management of type 1 diabetes mellitus in Australian children: a population-based sample survey.

INTRODUCTION: To estimate adherence to clinical practice guidelines in selected settings at a population level for Australian children with type 1 diabetes mellitus. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Medical records of children with type 1 diabetes mellitus aged 0-15 years in 2012-2013 were targeted for sampling across inpatient, emergency department and community visits with specialist pediatricians in regional and metropolitan areas and tertiary pediatric hospitals in three states where approximately 60% of Australian children reside. Clinical recommendations extracted from two clinical practice guidelines were used to audit adherence. Results were aggregated across types of care (diagnosis, routine care, emergency care). RESULTS: Surveyors conducted 6346 indicator assessments from an audit of 539 healthcare visits by 251 children. Average adherence across all indicators was estimated at 79.9% (95% CI 69.5 to 88.0). Children with type 1 diabetes mellitus have higher rates of behavioral and psychological disorders, but only a third of children (37.9%; 95% CI 11.7 to 70.7) with suboptimal glycemic control (eg, hemoglobin A1c >10% or 86 mmol/mol) were screened for psychological disorders using a validated tool; this was the only indicator with <50% estimated adherence. Adherence by care type was: 86.1% for diagnosis (95% CI 76.7 to 92.7); 78.8% for routine care (95% CI 65.4 to 88.9) and 83.9% for emergency care (95% CI 78.4 to 88.5). CONCLUSIONS: Most indicators for care of children with type 1 diabetes mellitus were adhered to. However, there remains room to improve adherence to guidelines for optimization of practice consistency and minimization of future disease burden.

Safe haven or risky hazard? Bitcoin during the Covid-19 bear market.

The Covid-19 bear market presents the first acute market losses since active trading of Bitcoin began. This market downturn provides a timely test of the frequently expounded safe haven properties of Bitcoin. In this paper, we show that Bitcoin does not act as a safe haven, instead decreasing in price in lockstep with the S&P 500 as the crisis develops. When held alongside the S&P 500, even a small allocation to Bitcoin substantially increases portfolio downside risk. Our empirical findings cast doubt on the ability of Bitcoin to provide shelter from turbulence in traditional markets.

The National Longitudinal Study of Young Life Scientists: Career differentiation among a diverse group of biomedical PhD students.

Young biomedical PhD scientists are needed in a wide variety of careers. Many recent efforts have been focused on revising training approaches to help them choose and prepare for different careers. However, very little is known about how biomedical PhD students decide on and "differentiate" into careers, which limits the development of new training models. This knowledge gap also severely limits efforts to increase the representation of women and some racial/ethnic groups in academic research careers. Previous studies have used cross-sectional surveys of career interests and ratings, and have not been designed to identify career intentions. They also are limited by single-time data and response bias, having typically asked participants to recount decisions made years in the past. This report draws on annual, in-depth interviews with 147 biomedical PhD students from the start of the PhD to graduation. Qualitative content analysis methods were used to fully understand scientific development and career intentions over time. Longitudinal analysis reveals a striking level of fluidity and complexity in career intentions over time. Contrary to previous studies and the dominant narrative, data do not show generalized shifts away from academic careers. In addition to those who are consistent in this intention from the start, nearly as many students shift toward research academic careers as away from them, and only modest differences exist by gender and race/ethnicity. Thus, the dominant narrative misses the high fraction of individuals who acquire or sustain their intention to purse an academic research career during training. Efforts to increase diversity in academia must capitalize on and support those who are still considering and evolve toward an academic career. Efforts to revise research training should incorporate knowledge of the tremendous fluidity in when and how career differentiation occurs.

The Academic Career Readiness Assessment: Clarifying Hiring and Training Expectations for Future Biomedical Life Sciences Faculty.

We describe here the development and validation of the Academic Career Readiness Assessment (ACRA) rubric, an instrument that was designed to provide more equity in mentoring, transparency in hiring, and accountability in training of aspiring faculty in the biomedical life sciences. We report here the results of interviews with faculty at 20 U.S. institutions that resulted in the identification of 14 qualifications and levels of achievement required for obtaining a faculty position at three groups of institutions: research intensive (R), teaching only (T), and research and teaching focused (RT). T institutions hire candidates based on teaching experience and pedagogical practices and ability to serve diverse student populations. RT institutions hire faculty on both research- and teaching-related qualifications, as well as on the ability to support students in the laboratory. R institutions hire candidates mainly on their research achievements and potential. We discuss how these hiring practices may limit the diversification of the life science academic pathway.

Scientific Societies Fostering Inclusive Scientific Environments through Travel Awards: Current Practices and Recommendations.

Diversity-focused committees continue to play essential roles in the efforts of professional scientific societies to foster inclusion and facilitate the professional development of underrepresented minority (URM) young scientists in their respective scientific disciplines. Until recently, the efforts of these committees have remained independent and disconnected from one another. Funding from the National Science Foundation has allowed several of these committees to come together and form the Alliance to Catalyze Change for Equity in STEM Success, herein referred to as ACCESS. The overall goal of this meta-organization is to create a community in which diversity-focused committees can interact, synergize, share their collective experiences, and have a unified voice on behalf of URM trainees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines. In this Essay, we compare and contrast the broad approaches that scientific societies in ACCESS use to implement and assess their travel award programs for URM trainees. We also report a set of recommendations, including both short- and long-term outcomes assessment in populations of interest and specialized programmatic activities coupled to travel award programs.