We conducted a pilot study of implementing community health workers (CHWs) to assist patients with hypertension and social needs. As part of clinical care, patients identified as having an unmet need were referred to a CHW. We evaluated changes in blood pressure and needs among 35 patients and conducted interviews to understand participants’ experiences. Participants had a mean age of 54.1 years and 29 were Black. Twenty-six completed follow-up. Blood pressure and social needs improved from baseline to 6 months. Participants reported being accepting of CHWs, but also challenges with establishing a relationship with a CHW and being unclear about their role.

Community advisory boards (CABs) have traditionally been formed in the context of discrete projects and served to support community protections within the confines of the associated investigation(s). However, as funding bodies increasingly prioritize health equity, CABs have shifted – evolving into long-running organizations with broader scope and value. An emerging cornerstone of these project-independent boards (PICABs) has been the formation of “Research Review Boards” (RRBs). While unified in their goal of promoting community protection and representation in health research, it is unknown to what degree RRBs differ on key features including membership, leadership, service reach, and – crucially – impact. A scoping review was conducted according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines to analyze current practices for RRBs. Of screened articles (n= 1878), 25 were included, corresponding to 24 unique RRBs. Findings indicated overlaps in the stated missions, funding structures, and processes of most RRBs. Differences in membership composition, location, service-reach, leadership structures, evaluation procedures, and perceived impact were evident. Where data is available, RRBs receive positive endorsement from both internal members and external users. Standardization of evaluation procedures is needed to fully quantify impact. Additional challenges to sustainability, communication, and conflicts (e.g., of interest, commitment, and power differentials) merit further consideration.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) diversity supplements represent an opportunity to enhance diversity in the biomedical research workforce. Despite their potential impact, practical barriers prevent effective use of these resources. The Altman Clinical and Translational Research Institute (ACTRI) at the University of California San Diego (UCSD) developed and implemented of an institutional repository and support system to improve diversity supplement applications. The centralized repository and support system incorporated three strategies: (1) a secure web-based repository housing successful examples of supplements, (2) match making for diversity supplements and mentors, and (3) web-based resources for potential applicants. The repository was implemented in June 2021 and includes 51 supplement samples across 14 divisions of NIH as of November 2024. The repository has been accessed by 51 potential applicants since implementation in 2021. Few investigators have requested match making. Early indicators show a doubling in diversity supplement applications compared to pre-implementation period at UCSD. We outlined our approach to addressing some of the barriers in diversity supplement applications, which could provide a model for other institutions. Pending solutions to some of the lessons learned, coordinated efforts aimed at diversity supplements could be a practical approach toward a more diverse biomedical research workforce.

The need for collaborative and transparent sharing of COVID-19 clinical trial and large-scale observational study data to accelerate scientific discovery and inform clinical practice is critical. Responsible data-sharing requires addressing challenges associated with data privacy and confidentiality, data linkage, data quality, variable harmonization, data formats, and comprehensive metadata documentation to produce a high-quality, contextually rich, findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) dataset. This communication explores the experiences and lessons learned from sharing National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) COVID-19 clinical trial (including adaptive platform trials) and cohort study datasets through the NHLBI BioData Catalyst® (BDC) ecosystem, focusing on the challenges and successes of harmonizing these datasets for broader research use. Our findings highlight the importance of establishing standardized data formats, adopting common data elements and creating and maintaining robust data governance structures that address common challenges (i.e., data privacy and data-sharing limitations resulting from informed consent). These efforts resulted in a set of comprehensive and interoperable datasets from 5 clinical trials and 13 cohort studies that will enable downstream reuse in analyses and collaborations. The principles and strategies outlined, derived through experience with consortia data, can lay the groundwork for advancing collaborative and efficient data sharing.

The COVID-19 pandemic laid bare the inequities in U.S. healthcare in ways that captured public attention and reinforced the need to view all of healthcare through an equity lens. It also exposed global inequities in access to healthcare technologies. At Rockefeller University, we participate in the entire spectrum of translational research, but our focus is in the areas of basic research and new methods to prevent, diagnose, and treat disease, extending to proof of concept preclinical and Phase 1 studies. Since we believe that all phases of translational research should have an equity lens, we have instituted an initiative to encourage thought and planning about global equitable access to discoveries made by our trainee Clinical Scholars and faculty, even at the earliest phases of basic research. Assuring global equitable access to new technologies requires addressing at least 3 different aspects of new technology: 1. Patenting and licensing, 2. Manufacturing, and 3. Dissemination and implementation in low- and middle-income countries. In this review, I focus on patenting and licensing and offer ten questions for inventors to consider in discussing licensing their technologies with technology transfer officers to maximize equitable global access to the technologies they create.