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.

Engaging Transgender People in NIH-Funded HIV/AIDS Clinical Trials Research.

In 2009, the National Institutes of Health recognized the need to expand knowledge of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) health and commissioned the Institute of Medicine to report on the health of these populations in the United States. The resulting Institute of Medicine publication called for more knowledge of the health of LGBT populations, as well as improved methodologies to reach them, more LGBT-focused research, and enhanced training programs and cultural competency of physicians and researchers. Several of the National Institutes of Health-funded HIV/AIDS clinical trials networks, including the Adolescent Medicine Trials Network for HIV/AIDS Interventions, HIV Prevention Trials Network, HIV Vaccine Trials Network, and Microbicide Trials Network, have focused attention on engaging transgender (TG) individuals in research. They have identified issues that transcend the nature of research (ie, treatment or prevention, adult or adolescent) and have adopted various approaches to effectively engage the TG community. Each network has recognized the importance of developing partnerships to build trust with and seek input from TG individuals on research plans and policies. They have established standing advisory groups and convened consultations for this purpose. To ensure that trial data are reflective of the participants they are seeking to enroll, they have reviewed and revised data collection forms to incorporate the 2-step method of collecting sex at birth and gender identity as 2 independent variables, and some have also revised research protocol templates and policies for concept development to ensure that they are appropriate for the inclusion of TG participants. The networks have also initiated trainings to enhance cultural sensitivity and developed a range of materials and resources for network and clinical research site staff. They continue to identify TG-specific research needs in an effort to be more responsive to and improve the health of TG individuals, particularly related to HIV/AIDS.

Community-researcher partnerships at NIAID HIV/AIDS clinical trials sites: insights for evaluation and enhancement.

BACKGROUND: Community engagement has been a cornerstone of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)'s HIV/AIDS clinical trials programs since 1990. Stakeholders now consider this critical to success, hence the impetus to develop evaluation approaches. OBJECTIVES: The purpose was to assess the extent to which community advisory boards (CABs) at HIV/AIDS trials sites are being integrated into research activities. METHODS: CABs and research staff (RS) at NIAID research sites were surveyed for how each viewed (a) the frequency of activities indicative of community involvement, (b) the means for identifying, prioritizing, and supporting CAB needs, and (c) mission and operational challenges. RESULTS: Overall, CABs and RS share similar views about the frequency of community involvement activities. Cluster analysis reveals three groups of sites based on activity frequency ratings, including a group notable for CAB-RS discordance. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing differences between community and researcher perceptions about the frequency of and challenges posed by specific engagement activities may prove useful in developing evaluation tools for assessing community engagement in collaborative research settings.