Explore the vast range of titles available.

The All of Us Research Program (All of Us) is a national effort to accelerate health research by exploring the relationship between lifestyle, environment, and genetics. It is set to become one of the largest research efforts in U.S. history, aiming to build a national resource of data from at least one million participants. All of Us aims to address the need for more diversity in research and set the stage for that diversity to be leveraged in precision medicine research to come. This paper describes how the program assessed demographic characteristics of participants who have enrolled in other U.S. biomedical research cohorts to better understand which groups are traditionally represented or underrepresented in biomedical research. We 1) reviewed the enrollment characteristics of national cohort studies like All of Us, and 2) surveyed the literature, focusing on key diversity categories essential to the program's enrollment aims. Based on these efforts, All of Us emphasizes enrollment of racial and ethnic minorities, and has formally designated the following additional groups as historically underrepresented: individuals-with inadequate access to medical care; under the age of 18 or over 65; with an annual household income at or below 200% of the federal poverty level; who have a cognitive or physical disability; have less than a high school education or equivalent; are intersex; identify as a sexual or gender minority; or live in rural or non-metropolitan areas. Research accounting for wider demographic variability is critical. Only by ensuring diversity and by addressing the very barriers that limit it, can we position All of Us to better understand and tackle health disparities.

Background Previous studies support cultural tailoring of recruitment materials as a strategy to promote the enrollment of minoritized groups in clinical trials. However, there is a lack of guidance for research teams to create culturally tailored materials, potentially contributing to low recruitment rates of minoritized groups. We describe the development and pilot testing of recruitment material guidelines used to culturally tailor clinical trial recruitment materials targeting African Americans and Latinos. Methods The guideline development team consisted of investigators, research staff, and community leaders and members experienced in the recruitment and community engagement of minoritized groups. The recruitment material guidelines were developed using the literature, focus groups with African Americans and Latinos, the teams’ research experience, and guidance from a community advisory board. To assess the effectiveness of the guidelines, a pilot study was conducted comparing advertisement click-through rates and enrollment outcomes between two institutions differing in use of culturally tailored versus non-tailored Facebook banner ads for the “Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness” (ADAPTABLE) study. Results Five themes emerged from focus groups: (1) employ diversity and inclusion in recruitment efforts; (2) access multiple recruitment channels to increase reach and possible participation; (3) increase your “footwork”; (4) personalize outreach and recruitment to specific groups’ beliefs and values; (5) align recruitment messaging with language preferences and motivations for study participation; and (6) specify incentives for participation. Guidelines were: 1) be inclusive; 2) use all forms of media; 3) take a personalized approach; 4) align recruitment messaging with motivations for study participation; 5) specify incentives; and 6) get out into the community. Additional guidelines were developed addressing specific considerations for images and language when targeting African American and Latino populations. Pilot study results demonstrated that clicks per impression ratio (0.47 clicks per impression vs. 0.03 clicks per impression) and the percentage of African American enrollment were significantly higher when using tailored compared to non-tailored ads (12.8% vs. 8.3%, respectively). Conclusion The recruitment material guidelines offer practical recommendations to reach diverse populations for clinical trial participation more effectively. Our preliminary data supports use of these guidelines as a strategy to enhance recruitment of minoritized groups into clinical research studies.

Use of race adjustment in estimating glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) has been challenged given concerns that it may negatively impact the clinical care of Black patients, as it results in Black patients being systematically assigned higher eGFR values than non-Black patients. We conducted a systematic review to assess how well eGFR, with and without race adjustment, estimates measured GFR (mGFR) in Black adults globally. A search across multiple databases for articles published from 1999 to May 2021 that compared eGFR to mGFR and reported outcomes by Black race was performed. We included studies that assessed eGFR using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI Cr ) creatinine equations. Risk of study bias and applicability were assessed with the QUality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. Of 13,167 citations identified, 12 met the data synthesis criteria (unique patient cohorts in which eGFR was compared to mGFR with and without race adjustment). The studies included patients with and without kidney disease from Africa (n = 6), the United States (n = 3), Europe (n = 2), and Brazil (n = 1). Of 11 CKD-EPI equation studies, all assessed bias, 8 assessed accuracy, 6 assessed precision, and 5 assessed correlation/concordance. Of 7 MDRD equation studies, all assessed bias, 6 assessed accuracy, 5 assessed precision, and 3 assessed correlation/concordance. The majority of studies found that removal of race adjustment improved bias, accuracy, and precision of eGFR equations for Black adults. Risk of study bias was often unclear, but applicability concerns were low. Our systematic review supports the need for future studies to be conducted in diverse populations to assess the possibility of alternative approaches for estimating GFR. This study additionally provides systematic-level evidence for the American Society of Nephrology—National Kidney Foundation Task Force efforts to pursue other options for GFR estimation.

Background Racial and ethnic minorities are often underrepresented in clinical trials, threatening the generalizability of trial results. Several factors may contribute to underrepresentation of minorities in clinical trials, including lack of training for researchers and staff on the importance of diversity in clinical trials and effective strategies for recruiting and retaining minority populations. Methods Applying community engaged research principles, we developed a massive open online course (MOOC) to help research team members develop knowledge and skills to enhance the recruitment of minorities in clinical trials. A transdisciplinary working group, consisting of clinical researchers, community engagement specialists, minority clinical trial recruitment and retention educators and specialists, and knowledge management information scientists, was formed to develop an evidence-based curriculum. Feedback from the Recruitment Innovation Center Community Advisory Board was incorporated to help finalize the curriculum. The course was implemented in Coursera, an online learning platform offering MOOCs. A bootstrap paired sample t-test was used to compare pre- and post-assessments of knowledge, attitudes, and intentions as it relates to minority recruitment. Results The final course, entitled Faster Together, was divided into eight 1-h modules. Each module included video presentations, reading assignments, and quizzes. After 10 months, 382 individuals enrolled in the course, 105 participants completed the pre-test, and 14 participants completed the post-test. Participants’ knowledge scores were higher with an increase in the mean number of correct answers from 15.4 (95% CI:12.1–18.7) on the pre-test to 18.7 (95% CI:17.42–20.2) on the post-test. All post-test respondents ( n  = 14) indicated that the course improved their professional knowledge, and 71.4% of respondents indicated that they were very likely to make changes to their recruitment practices. Conclusions Faster Together, a massive open online course, is an acceptable, accessible approach to educating research teams on minority recruitment in clinical trials. Preliminary evidence indicates the course increased knowledge on how to recruit minorities into clinical trials and could promote change in their recruitment practices.

Background Addressing social and behavioral determinants of health (SBDs) may help improve health outcomes of community clinic patients. This cross-sectional study explored how assessing SBDs can be used to complement health data collection strategies and provide clinicians with a more in-depth understanding of their patients. Methods Adult patients, ages 18 and older, at an urban community health care clinic in Tennessee, U.S.A., were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding health status, health history and SBDs while waiting for their clinic appointment. The SBD component included items from the National Academy of Medicine, the Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patient Assets, Risks, and Experiences instrument, and the Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking. Data collection and analysis occurred in 2017. Results One hundred participants completed the study. The questionnaire took approximately 11 min to complete, and the response rate was 90% or higher for all items except annual household income (unanswered by 40 participants). The median number of negative SBDs was 4 (IQR 2.75–7.0), 96 participants had at least one unmet need, and the most common negative SBD was physical activity (75%; 75/100). Conclusions The hybrid questionnaire provided insight into a community clinic population’s SBDs and allowed for a more complete understanding than a single questionnaire alone. The brief questionnaire administration time and low non-response rate support the questionnaire’s feasibility in the community clinic setting, and results can be used by clinicians to further the personalization goals of precision medicine. Next steps include evaluating how to connect patients with appropriate resources for addressing their SBDs.

Clinical trials continue to face significant challenges in participant recruitment and retention. The Recruitment Innovation Center (RIC), part of the Trial Innovation Network (TIN), has been funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health to develop innovative strategies and technologies to enhance participant engagement in all stages of multicenter clinical trials. In collaboration with investigator teams and liaisons at Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions, the RIC is charged with the mission to design, field-test, and refine novel resources in the context of individual clinical trials. These innovations are disseminated via newsletters, publications, a virtual toolbox on the TIN website, and RIC-hosted collaboration webinars. The RIC has designed, implemented, and promised customized recruitment support for 173 studies across many diverse disease areas. This support has incorporated site feasibility assessments, community input sessions, recruitment materials recommendations, social media campaigns, and an array of study-specific suggestions. The RIC’s goal is to evaluate the efficacy of these resources and provide access to all investigating teams, so that more trials can be completed on time, within budget, with diverse participation, and with enough accrual to power statistical analyses and make substantive contributions to the advancement of healthcare.

All too often the quality and rigor of topic investigations is inaccurately conveyed to information professionals, resulting in a mischaracterization of the research, which, if left unchecked and published, may in turn mislead potential readers. Accurately understanding and categorizing the types of topic investigation searches that are requested of information professionals is critical to both meeting requestors’ needs and reflecting their intended methodological approaches. Information professionals’ expertise can be an invaluable resource to guide users through the investigative and publication process.

Use of race adjustment in estimating glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) has been challenged given concerns that it may negatively impact the clinical care of Black patients, as it results in Black patients being systematically assigned higher eGFR values than non-Black patients. We conducted a systematic review to assess how well eGFR, with and without race adjustment, estimates measured GFR (mGFR) in Black adults globally. A search across multiple databases for articles published from 1999 to May 2021 that compared eGFR to mGFR and reported outcomes by Black race was performed. We included studies that assessed eGFR using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI.sub.Cr) creatinine equations. Risk of study bias and applicability were assessed with the QUality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. Of 13,167 citations identified, 12 met the data synthesis criteria (unique patient cohorts in which eGFR was compared to mGFR with and without race adjustment). The studies included patients with and without kidney disease from Africa (n = 6), the United States (n = 3), Europe (n = 2), and Brazil (n = 1). Of 11 CKD-EPI equation studies, all assessed bias, 8 assessed accuracy, 6 assessed precision, and 5 assessed correlation/concordance. Of 7 MDRD equation studies, all assessed bias, 6 assessed accuracy, 5 assessed precision, and 3 assessed correlation/concordance. The majority of studies found that removal of race adjustment improved bias, accuracy, and precision of eGFR equations for Black adults. Risk of study bias was often unclear, but applicability concerns were low. Our systematic review supports the need for future studies to be conducted in diverse populations to assess the possibility of alternative approaches for estimating GFR. This study additionally provides systematic-level evidence for the American Society of Nephrology-National Kidney Foundation Task Force efforts to pursue other options for GFR estimation.

Given the key role of systematic reviews in informing clinical decision making and guidelines, it is important for individuals to have equitable access to quality instructional materials on how to design, conduct, report, and evaluate systematic reviews. In response to this need, Vanderbilt University Medical Center's Center for Knowledge Management (CKM) created an open-access systematic review instructional video series. The educational content was created by experienced CKM information scientists, who worked together to adapt an internal training series that they had developed into a format that could be widely shared with the public. Brief videos, averaging 10 minutes in length, were created addressing essential concepts related to systematic reviews, including distinguishing between literature review types, understanding reasons for conducting a systematic review, designing a systematic review protocol, steps in conducting a systematic review, web-based tools to aid with the systematic review process, publishing a systematic review, and critically evaluating systematic reviews. Quiz questions were developed for each instructional video to allow learners to check their understanding of the material. The systematic review instructional video series launched on CKM's Scholarly Publishing Information Hub (SPI-Hub™) website in Fall 2023. From January through August 2024, there were 1,662 international accesses to the SPI-Hub™ systematic review website, representing 41 countries. Initial feedback, while primarily anecdotal, has been positive. By adapting its internal systematic review training into an online video series format suitable for asynchronous instruction, CKM has been able to widely disseminate its educational materials.

Given the key role of systematic reviews in informing clinical decision making and guidelines, it is important for individuals to have equitable access to quality instructional materials on how to design, conduct, report, and evaluate systematic reviews. In response to this need, Vanderbilt University Medical Center's Center for Knowledge Management (CKM) created an open-access systematic review instructional video series. The educational content was created by experienced CKM information scientists, who worked together to adapt an internal training series that they had developed into a format that could be widely shared with the public. Brief videos, averaging 10 minutes in length, were created addressing essential concepts related to systematic reviews, including distinguishing between literature review types, understanding reasons for conducting a systematic review, designing a systematic review protocol, steps in conducting a systematic review, web-based tools to aid with the systematic review process, publishing a systematic review, and critically evaluating systematic reviews. Quiz questions were developed for each instructional video to allow learners to check their understanding of the material. The systematic review instructional video series launched on CKM's Scholarly Publishing Information Hub (SPI-Hub[TM]) website in Fall 2023. From January through August 2024, there were 1,662 international accesses to the SPI-HubTM systematic review website, representing 41 countries. Initial feedback, while primarily anecdotal, has been positive. By adapting its internal systematic review training into an online video series format suitable for asynchronous instruction, CKM has been able to widely disseminate its educational materials. Keywords: Asynchronous learning; online learning; Systematic Reviews as Topic