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.
1 November 2011 in Journal Of Health Care For The Poor and Underserved
Background: Intensive BP lowering in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) produced acute decreases in kidney function and higher risk for AKI. We evaluated the effect of intensive BP lowering on long-term changes in kidney function using trial and outpatient electronic health record (EHR) creatinine values. Methods: SPRINT data were linked with EHR data from 49 (of 102) study sites. The primary outcome was the total slope of decline in eGFR for the intervention phase and the post-trial slope of decline during the observation phase using trial and outpatient EHR values. Secondary outcomes included a ≥30% decline in eGFR to <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 and a ≥50% decline in eGFR or kidney failure among participants with baseline eGFR ≥60 and <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2, respectively. Results: EHR creatinine values were available for a median of 8.3 years for 3041 participants. The total slope of decline in eGFR during the intervention phase was −0.67 ml/min per 1.73 m2 per year (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.79 to −0.56) in the standard treatment group and −0.96 ml/min per 1.73 m2 per year (95% CI, −1.08 to −0.85) in the intensive treatment group (P < 0.001). The slopes were not significantly different during the observation phase: −1.02 ml/min per 1.73 m2 per year (95% CI, −1.24 to −0.81) in the standard group and −0.85 ml/min per 1.73 m2 per year (95% CI, −1.07 to −0.64) in the intensive group. Among participants without CKD at baseline, intensive treatment was associated with higher risk of a ≥30% decline in eGFR during the intervention (hazard ratio, 3.27; 95% CI, 2.43 to 4.40), but not during the postintervention observation phase. In those with CKD at baseline, intensive treatment was associated with a higher hazard of eGFR decline only during the intervention phase (hazard ratio, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.03 to 3.70). Conclusions: Intensive BP lowering was associated with a steeper total slope of decline in eGFR and higher risk for kidney events during the intervention phase of the trial, but not during the postintervention observation phase.
19 December 2023 in Journal of the American Heart Association
The United States witnessed a nearly 4‐fold increase in personal health care expenditures between 1980 and 2010. Despite innovations and obvious benefits to health, participants enrolled in clinical trials still do not accurately represent the racial and ethnic composition of patients nationally or globally. This lack of diversity in cohorts limits the generalizability and significance of results among all populations and has deep repercussions for patient equity. To advance diversity in clinical trials, robust evidence for the most effective strategies for recruitment of diverse participants is needed. A major limitation of previous literature on clinical trial diversity is the lack of control or comparator groups for different strategies. To date, interventions have focused primarily on (1) community‐based interventions, (2) institutional practices, and (3) digital health systems. This review article outlines prior intervention strategies across these 3 categories and considers health policy and ethical incentives for substantiation before US Food and Drug Administration approval. There are no current studies that comprehensively compare these interventions against one another. The American Heart Association Strategically Focused Research Network on the Science of Diversity in Clinical Trials represents a multicenter, collaborative network between Stanford School of Medicine and Morehouse School of Medicine created to understand the barriers to diversity in clinical trials by contemporaneous head‐to‐head interventional strategies accessing digital, institutional, and community‐based recruitment strategies to produce informed recruitment strategies targeted to improve underrepresented patient representation in clinical trials.