The purpose of this scoping review is two-fold: to assess the literature that quantitatively measures outcomes of mentorship programs designed to support research-focused junior faculty and to identify mentoring strategies that promote diversity within academic medicine mentoring programs.

Studies were identified by searching Medline using MESH terms for mentoring and academic medicine. Eligibility criteria included studies focused on junior faculty in research-focused positions, receiving mentorship, in an academic medical center in the USA, with outcomes collected to measure career success (career trajectory, career satisfaction, quality of life, research productivity, leadership positions). Data were abstracted using a standardized data collection form, and best practices were summarized.

Search terms resulted in 1,842 articles for title and abstract review, with 27 manuscripts meeting inclusion criteria. Two studies focused specifically on women, and four studies focused on junior faculty from racial/ethnic backgrounds underrepresented in medicine. From the initial search, few studies were designed to specifically increase diversity or capture outcomes relevant to promotion within academic medicine. Of those which did, most studies captured the impact on research productivity and career satisfaction. Traditional one-on-one mentorship, structured peer mentorship facilitated by a senior mentor, and peer mentorship in combination with one-on-one mentorship were found to be effective strategies to facilitate research productivity.

Efforts are needed at the mentee, mentor, and institutional level to provide mentorship to diverse junior faculty on research competencies and career trajectory, create a sense of belonging, and connect junior faculty with institutional resources to support career success.

Pragmatic trials are needed to establish evidence-based obesity treatment in primary care settings, particularly in community health centers (CHCs) that serve populations at heightened risk of obesity. Recruiting a representative trial sample is a critical first step to informing care for diverse communities. We described recruitment strategies utilized in a pragmatic obesity trial and assessed the sociodemographic characteristics and odds of enrollment by recruitment strategy.

We analyzed data from Balance, a pragmatic trial implemented within a network of CHCs. We recruited participants via health center-based and electronic health record (EHR)-informed mail recruitment. We analyzed associations between sociodemographic characteristics and the return rate of patient authorization forms (required for participation) from EHR-informed mail recruitment. We also compared sociodemographic characteristics and randomization odds by recruitment strategy after returning authorization forms.

Of the individuals recruited through EHR-informed mail recruitment, females were more likely than males to return authorization forms; however, there were no differences in rates of return by preferred language (English/Spanish) or age. Females; underrepresented racial and ethnic groups; Spanish speakers; younger adults; and those with lower education levels were recruited more successfully in the health center. In contrast, their counterparts were more responsive to mail recruitment. Once authorization forms were returned, the odds of being randomized did not significantly differ by recruitment method.

Health center-based recruitment was essential to meeting recruitment targets in a pragmatic weight gain prevention trial, specifically for Hispanic and Spanish-speaking communities. Future pragmatic trials should consider leveraging in-person recruitment for underrepresented groups in research.

Communities of color have faced disproportionate morbidity and mortality from COVID-19, coupled with historical underrepresentation in US clinical trials, creating challenges for equitable participation in developing and testing a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine.

To increase diversity, including racial and ethnic representation, in local Los Angeles County NIH-sponsored Phase 3 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine clinical trials, we used deliberative community engagement approaches to form a Community Consultant Panel (CCP) that partnered with trial research teams. Thirteen members were recruited, including expertise from essential workers, community-based and faith-based organizations, or leaders from racial and ethnic minority communities.

Working closely with local investigators for the vaccine studies, the CCP provided critical insight on best practices for community trust building, clinical trial participation, and reliable information dissemination regarding COVID-19 vaccines. Modifying recruitment, outreach, and trial protocols led to majority–minority participants (55%–78%) in each of the three vaccine clinical trials. CCP’s input led to cultural tailoring of recruitment materials, changes in recruitment messaging, and supportive services to improve trial accessibility and acceptability (transportation, protocols for cultural competency, and support linkages to care in case of an adverse event). Barriers to clinical trial participation unable to be resolved included childcare, requests for after-hours appointment availability, and mobile locations for trial visits.

Using deliberative community engagement can provide critical and timely insight into the community-centered barriers to COVID-19 vaccine trial participation, including addressing social determinants of health, trust, clinical trial literacy, structural barriers, and identifying trusted messenger and reliable sources of information.

The COVID-19 pandemic created an unprecedented need for population-level clinical trials focused on the discovery of life-saving therapies and treatments. However, there is limited information on perception of research participation among perinatal populations, a population of particular interest during the pandemic.

Eligible respondents were 18 years or older, were currently pregnant or had an infant (≤12 months old), and lived in Florida within 50 miles of sites participating in the OneFlorida Clinical Research Consortium. Respondents were recruited via Qualtrics panels between April and September 2020. Respondents completed survey items about barriers and facilitators to participation and answered sociodemographic questions.

Of 533 respondents, most were between 25 and 34 years of age (n = 259, 49%) and identified as White (n = 303, 47%) and non-Hispanic (n = 344, 65%). Facebook was the most popular social media platform among our respondents. The most common barriers to research participation included poor explanation of study goals, discomforts to the infant, and time commitment. Recruitment through healthcare providers was perceived as the best way to learn about clinical research studies. When considering research participation, "myself" had the greatest influence, followed by familial ties. Noninvasive biological samples were highly acceptable. Hispanics had higher positive perspectives on willingness to participate in a randomized study (p = 0.009). Education (p = 0.007) had significant effects on willingness to release personal health information.

When recruiting women during the pregnancy and postpartum periods for perinatal studies, investigators should consider protocols that account for common barriers and preferred study information sources. Social media-based recruitment is worthy of adoption.

There have been a number of federal policies and guidance’s impacting diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEI) in clinical research. While these are needed, they have not diminished the gaps related to clinical trial recruitment, research professional’s capacity for cultural competence, and clinical research professional role development. Mentoring and co-mentoring circles have traditionally been used in Medicine, but until now had not been used for workforce development of clinical research professionals (CRPs).

We designed a six-session, monthly co-mentoring circle to take place at two academic medical centers to pilot an interinstitutional co-mentoring circle centered on storytelling videos of Black Voices in Clinical Research. This provided a DEI framework for discussions on role experiences, cultural competence, and role progression.

Seven CRPs completed the DRC pilot. The participants positively evaluated the experience and made recommendations for future iterations. Discussion: Co-mentoring circles can be useful tools to connect CRPs across complex research medical centers and provide support that may have a positive impact on role satisfaction and retention.

This framework for developing co-mentoring circles can serve as a toolkit for future CRP co-mentoring circles within and across institutions for workforce development. The Black Voices in Clinical Research storytelling videos provide a rich foundation for future discussion on DEI issues for CRPs and collaborating with participants.

Several evidence-informed consent practices (ECPs) have been shown to improve informed consent in clinical trials but are not routinely used. These include optimizing consent formatting, using plain language, using validated instruments to assess understanding, and involving legally authorized representatives when appropriate. We hypothesized that participants receiving an implementation science toolkit and a social media push would have increased adoption of ECPs and other outcomes.

We conducted a 1-year trial with clinical research professionals in the USA (n = 1284) who have trials open to older adults or focus on Alzheimer’s disease. We randomized participants to receive information on ECPs via receiving a toolkit with a social media push (intervention) or receiving an online learning module (active control). Participants completed a baseline survey and a follow-up survey after 1 year. A subset of participants was interviewed (n = 43).

Participants who engaged more with the toolkit were more likely to have tried to implement an ECP during the trial than participants less engaged with the toolkit or the active control group. However, there were no significant differences in the adoption of ECPs, intention to adopt, or positive attitudes. Participants reported the toolkit and social media push were satisfactory, and participating increased their awareness of ECPs. However, they reported lacking the time needed to engage with the toolkit more fully.

Using an implementation science approach to increase the use of ECPs was only modestly successful. Data suggest that having institutional review boards recommend or require ECPs may be an effective way to increase their use.

Many clinical trials leverage real-world data. Typically, these data are manually abstracted from electronic health records (EHRs) and entered into electronic case report forms (CRFs), a time and labor-intensive process that is also error-prone and may miss information. Automated transfer of data from EHRs to eCRFs has the potential to reduce data abstraction and entry burden as well as improve data quality and safety.

We conducted a test of automated EHR-to-CRF data transfer for 40 participants in a clinical trial of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We determined which coordinator-entered data could be automated from the EHR (coverage), and the frequency with which the values from the automated EHR feed and values entered by study personnel for the actual study matched exactly (concordance).

The automated EHR feed populated 10,081/11,952 (84%) coordinator-completed values. For fields where both the automation and study personnel provided data, the values matched exactly 89% of the time. Highest concordance was for daily lab results (94%), which also required the most personnel resources (30 minutes per participant). In a detailed analysis of 196 instances where personnel and automation entered values differed, both a study coordinator and a data analyst agreed that 152 (78%) instances were a result of data entry error.

An automated EHR feed has the potential to significantly decrease study personnel effort while improving the accuracy of CRF data.

The murder of George Floyd created national outcry that echoed down to national institutions, including universities and academic systems to take a hard look at systematic and systemic racism in higher education. This motivated the creation of a fear and tension-minimizing, curricular offering, “Courageous Conversations,” collaboratively engaging students, staff, and faculty in matters of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the Department of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics at the University of Florida.

A qualitative design was employed assessing narrative feedback from participants during the Fall semester of 2020. Additionally, the ten-factor model implementation framework was applied and assessed. Data collection included two focus groups and document analysis with member-checking. Thematic analysis (i.e., organizing, coding, synthesizing) was used to analyze a priori themes based on the four agreements of the courageous conversations framework, stay engaged, expect to experience discomfort, speak your truth, and expect and accept non-closure.

A total of 41 participants of which 20 (48.78%) were department staff members, 11 (26.83%) were department faculty members, and 10 (24.30%) were graduate students. The thematic analysis revealed 1) that many participants credited their learning experiences to what their peers had said about their own personal lived experiences during group sessions, and 2) several participants said they would either retake the course or recommend it to a colleague.

With structured implementation, courageous conversations can be an effective approach to create more diverse, equitable, and inclusive spaces in training programs with similar DEI ecosystems.

There is an increasing recognition of the benefits of sustained community engagement (CE) that accrue to academic health centers and the communities they serve. However, the success and sustainability of CE projects rely on the efforts of individual faculty, learners, and community members, for whom CE efforts are typically added to their professional and personal priorities and responsibilities. This competition for time and resources between priorities and CE can discourage academic medical faculty from participating in CE activities. The Stacked Community Engagement model is proposed to synergize or “stack” responsibilities and goals onto the scaffolding of CE projects.

We examined the literature and expert CE practitioner opinion to identify the challenges faced by community-engaged academic faculty and the key characteristics of CE projects that successfully align and integrate with the priorities of faculty, learners, and community members. We synthesized this information to develop the conceptual Stacked CE model for developing CE academic medical faculty, then illustrated the model in heterogeneous CE programs to explore its generalizability, validity, and robustness.

The Stacked CE model, when applied to a specific nutrition education program (The Food Doctors) and outreach program (StreetLife Communities), provided a practical framework for examining the sustained success of a partnership between Medical College of Wisconsin faculty and medical students and the community.

The Stacked CE model is a meaningful framework for developing community-engaged academic medical faculty. By identifying overlap and integrating CE into professional activities with intention, CE practitioners can benefit from the deeper connections and sustainability.

Racial and ethnic minority groups have higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe illness, and death; however, they receive monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment at lower rates than non-Hispanic White patients. We report data from a systematic approach to improve equitable provision of COVID-19 neutralizing monoclonal antibody treatment.

Treatment was administered at a community health urgent care clinic affiliated with a safety-net urban hospital. The approach included a stable treatment supply, a same-day test and treat model, a referral process, patient outreach, and financial support. We analyzed the race/ethnicity data descriptively and compared proportions using a chi-square test.

Over 17 months, 2524 patients received treatment. Compared to the demographics of county COVID-19-positive cases, a greater proportion of patients who received mAb treatment were Hispanic (44.7% treatment vs. 36.5% positive cases, p < 0.001), a lower proportion were White Non-Hispanic (40.7% treatment vs. 46.3% positive cases, p < 0.001), equal proportion were Black (8.2% treatment vs. 7.4% positive cases, P = 0.13), and equal proportion occurred for other race patients.

Implementation of multiple systematic strategies to administer COVID-19 monoclonal antibodies resulted in an equitable race/ethnic distribution of treatment.

In 2015, the University of Pittsburgh partnered with several Minority Serving Institutions to develop the Leading Emerging and Diverse Scientists to Success (LEADS) Program. LEADS was designed to provide skills development, mentoring, and networking support to early career underrepresented faculty.

LEADS included three components: skills training (e.g., grant and manuscript writing and team science), mentoring, and networking opportunities. Scholars completed a pre- and post-test survey and an annual alumni survey that included measures on burnout, motivation, leadership, professionalism, mentoring, job and career satisfaction, networking, and an assessment of their research self-efficacy.

Scholars demonstrated a significant increase in their research self-efficacy having completed all the modules (t = 6.12; P < 0.001). Collectively, LEADS scholars submitted 73 grants and secured 46 grants for a 63% success rate. Most scholars either agreed or strongly agreed that their mentor was effective in helping to develop their research skills (65%) and provided effective counseling (56%). Scholars did experience increased burnout with 50% feeling burned out at the exit survey (t = 1.42; P = 0.16) and 58% reporting feelings of burnout at the most recent survey in 2020 (t = 3.96; P < 0.001).

Our findings support the claim that participation in LEADS enhanced critical research skills, provided networking and mentoring opportunities, and contributed to research productivity for scientists from underrepresented backgrounds.