Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 81
Filter
1.
Adv Chronic Kidney Dis ; 29(1): 76-82, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2151156

ABSTRACT

The Executive Order on Advancing American Kidney Health aimed to slow the progression of kidney disease, increase access to kidney transplantation, and expand home dialysis. In order to support the kidney health strategy laid out by the Advancing American Kidney Health, the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Diabetes, and Digestive, and Kidney Diseases, as well as other funding agencies must dedicate robust research funding to kidney disease. Currently, federal research investment for kidney health is less than 1% of Medicare fee-for-service expenditures for Americans with kidney disease. To address disparities in federal research funding, nephrology organizations are working together to advocate for increased federal commitment to kidney disease research. Underfunding of kidney disease research impedes scientific opportunities and innovation and prevents the collaboration of young investigators with research faculty that can accelerate the exodus of talent within the nephrology research workforce. This review provides an overview of the current state of federal research funding for kidney disease within the United States. In addition, we discuss ongoing advocacy efforts and programs that aim to increase federal funding for kidney-related research and accelerate the development of new and better therapies.


Subject(s)
Goals , Kidney Diseases , Aged , Humans , Kidney , Kidney Diseases/therapy , Medicare , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , United States
3.
Diabetes ; 70(8): 1623-1633, 2021 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2114268

ABSTRACT

Women are broadly underrepresented in scientific leadership positions and their accomplishments are not provided equal recognition compared with those of men, but the imbalance in the field of diabetes is unknown. Hence, we analyzed multiple aspects of historical and present-day female representation in the diabetes field.We quantified gender representation at annual American Diabetes Association (ADA) meetings; editorial board service positions for ADA and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) journals; principal investigators for ADA, JDRF, and National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases P30 grant funding; and ADA, JDRF, and EASD award recipients. There are many women in the field of diabetes: registration for the ADA Scientific Sessions has been 43% female since 2016, and for over five decades, women comprised 83% of ADA Presidents of Health Care and Education. Yet, only 9% of ADA Presidents of Medicine and Science have been women. Women were well represented on editorial boards for journals focused on diabetes education (Diabetes Spectrum, 89% female) and primary care (Clinical Diabetes, 49% female) but not for the more academically targeted Diabetes Care (34% female), Diabetes (21% female), and Diabetologia (30% female). Only one-third of ADA Pathway to Stop Diabetes and JDRF grants have been awarded to women, and females only lead 2 of 18 (11%) of the P30-supported Diabetes Research Centers. Finally, only 2-12% of major ADA, JDRF, and EASD awards were given to women, without significant change over time. Despite increasing recognition of gender imbalance in research and medicine, many disparities in the field of diabetes persist. We call for decreasing barriers for advancement of female investigators and creating environments that promote their retention and equitable recognition for their contributions to the field.


Subject(s)
Awards and Prizes , Diabetes Mellitus , Diabetes Mellitus/therapy , Female , Humans , Leadership , Male , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Societies, Medical , United States
4.
J Womens Health (Larchmt) ; 31(9): 1241-1245, 2022 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2037366

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Emerging data suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted women in academic medicine, potentially eliminating recent gains that have been made toward gender equity. This study examined possible pandemic-related gender disparities in research grant submissions, one of the most important criteria for academic promotion and tenure evaluations. Methods: Data were collected from two major academic institutions (one private and one public) on the gender and academic rank of faculty principal investigators who submitted new grants to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) during COVID-19 (March 1st, 2020, through August 31, 2020) compared with a matched period in 2019 (March 1st, 2019, through August 31, 2019). t-Tests and chi-square analyses compared the gender distribution of individuals who submitted grants during the two periods of examination. Results: In 2019 (prepandemic), there was no significant difference in the average number of grants submitted by women compared with men faculty. In contrast, women faculty submitted significantly fewer grants in 2020 (during the pandemic) than men. Men were also significantly more likely than women to submit grants in both 2019 and 2020 compared with submitting in 2019 only, suggesting men faculty may have been more likely than their women colleagues to sustain their productivity in grant submissions during the pandemic. Discussion: Women's loss of extramural funding may compound over time, as it impedes new data collection, research progress, and academic advancement. Efforts to support women's research productivity and career trajectories are urgently needed in the following years of pandemic recovery.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Financing, Organized , Humans , Male , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Pandemics , Sex Factors , United States/epidemiology
6.
Trials ; 23(1): 424, 2022 May 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1951314

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has considerably disrupted nearly all aspects of daily life, including healthcare delivery and clinical research. Because pragmatic clinical trials are often embedded within healthcare delivery systems, they may be at high risk of disruption due to the dual impacts on the conduct of both care and research. METHODS: We collected qualitative data using multiple methods to characterize the impact of COVID-19 on the research activities of 14 active pragmatic clinical trials in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory. A COVID-19 impact questionnaire was administered electronically to principal investigators in June 2020. Text responses were analyzed thematically, and qualitative summaries were subsequently reviewed by five independent reviewers, who made iterative revisions. Additional COVID-19-related impacts were identified during virtual meetings with trial teams during April-July 2020 and combined with questionnaire responses for analysis. RESULTS: Impacts of the pandemic were broadly classified into two main types: healthcare operations and social distancing. In some instances, trial delays created statistical challenges, particularly with trials using stepped-wedge designs, and necessitated changing data collection strategies or modifying interventions. The majority of projects used existing stakeholder-driven approaches to adapt interventions. Several benefits of these adaptions were identified, including expanded outreach capabilities and ability to study virtual intervention delivery. All trial teams were able to adapt to pandemic-related modifications. CONCLUSION: In a group of 14 ongoing pragmatic clinical trials, there was significant impact of COVID-19 on trial activities. Engaging appropriate stakeholders was critical to designing and implementing trial modifications and making continued safe progress toward meeting research objectives.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic , COVID-19/epidemiology , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Pandemics , United States/epidemiology
7.
Science ; 376(6599): 1262-1263, 2022 06 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1901910
8.
Transl Behav Med ; 12(7): 775-780, 2022 07 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1873997

ABSTRACT

This commentary provides background and context for the increasing attention to research designed to better understand and address the impact of structural racism on health, with particular attention to the role of the behavioral and social sciences. The manuscript describes the impetus provided to this work by recent public health crises of COVID-19 and the racial justice movement that emerged following the murder of George Floyd in the summer of 2020. A range of initiatives from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) focused on structural racism and health equity are discussed in this context and opportunities and gaps for future research are identified.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Equity , Humans , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Racial Groups , Social Sciences , Systemic Racism , United States
9.
Nurs Res ; 71(6): E48-E60, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1853293

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The National Institute of Nursing Research developed the National Institutes of Health symptom science model (SSM) in 2015 as a parsimonious conceptual model to guide symptom science research. OBJECTIVES: This concept development paper synthesizes justifications to strengthen the original model. METHODS: A literature review was performed, discussions with symptom science content expert stakeholders were held, and opportunities for expanding the current model were identified. Concept elements for a revised conceptual model-the SSM 2.0-were developed. RESULTS: In addition to the four original concept elements (complex symptom presentation, phenotypic characterization, biobehavioral factors [previously biomarker discovery], and clinical applications), three new concept elements are proposed, including social determinants of health, patient-centered experience, and policy/population health. DISCUSSION: There have been several calls to revise the original SSM from the nursing scientific community to expand its utility to other healthcare settings. Incorporating three additional concept elements can facilitate a broader variety of translational nursing research symptom science collaborations and applications, support additional scientific domains for symptom science activities, and produce more translatable symptom science to a wider audience of nursing research scholars and stakeholders during recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. The revised SSM 2.0 with newly incorporated social determinants of health, patient-centered experience, and policy/population health components now empowers nursing scientists and scholars to address specific symptom science public health challenges particularly faced by vulnerable and underserved populations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Nursing Research , United States , Humans , Pandemics , National Institute of Nursing Research (U.S.) , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)
10.
Clin Transl Sci ; 14(5): 1629-1647, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1853690

ABSTRACT

The mission of translational science is to bring predictivity and efficiency to the development and dissemination of interventions that improve human health. Ten years ago this year, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences was founded to embody, conduct, and support this new discipline. The Center's first decade has brought substantial progress across a broad range of translational areas, from diagnostic and drug development to clinical trials to implementation science to education. The origins of the translational science and advances to this point are reviewed here and allow the establishment of an ambitious future research agenda for the field.


Subject(s)
/trends , History, 20th Century , History, 21st Century , Humans , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/history , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/organization & administration , /organization & administration , United States
11.
BMJ Open ; 12(5): e059041, 2022 05 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1840580

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to characterise and evaluate the National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) grant allocation speed and pattern of COVID-19 research. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: COVID-19 NIH RePORTER Dataset was used to identify COVID-19 relevant grants. PARTICIPANTS: 1108 grants allocated to COVID-19 research. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was to determine the number of grants and funding amount the NIH allocated for COVID-19 by research type and clinical/scientific area. The secondary outcome was to calculate the time from the funding opportunity announcement to the award notice date. RESULTS: The NIH awarded a total of 56 169 grants in 2020, of which 2.0% (n=1108) wwas allocated for COVID-19 research. The NIH had a US$45.3 billion budget that year, of which 4.9% (US$2.2 billion) was allocated to COVID-19 research. The most common clinical/scientific areas were social determinants of health (n=278, 8.5% of COVID-19 funding), immunology (n=211, 25.8%) and pharmaceutical interventions research (n=208, 47.6%). There were 104 grants studying COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions, of which 2 grants studied the efficacy of face masks and 6 studied the efficacy of social distancing. Of the 83 COVID-19 funded grants on transmission, 5 were awarded to study airborne transmission of COVID-19 and 2 grants on transmission of COVID-19 in schools. The average time from the funding opportunity announcement to the award notice date was 151 days (SD: ±57.9). CONCLUSION: In the first year of the pandemic, the NIH diverted a small fraction of its budget to COVID-19 research. Future health emergencies will require research funding to pivot in a timely fashion and funding levels to be proportional to the anticipated burden of disease in the population.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research , COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Financing, Organized , Humans , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , United States
13.
J Med Libr Assoc ; 110(2): 279-280, 2022 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1811077

ABSTRACT

LitCovid. National Center for Biotechnology Information, US National Library of Medicine, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20894; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/coronavirus/; free. iSearch COVID-19 portfolio. Office of Portfolio Analysis, National Institutes of Health, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892; https://icite.od.nih.gov/covid19/search/; free. COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease. World Health Organization, Avenue Appia 20, 1211 Geneva; https://search.bvsalud.org/global-literature-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov/; free.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , National Library of Medicine (U.S.) , Publications , United States
14.
Nature ; 603(7899): 25-27, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1730273

Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Clinical Trials as Topic , Drug Repositioning , Host-Pathogen Interactions/drug effects , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Adenosine Monophosphate/administration & dosage , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Administration, Oral , Alanine/administration & dosage , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/therapeutic use , Animals , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/administration & dosage , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Monoclonal/administration & dosage , Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Neutralizing/administration & dosage , Antibodies, Neutralizing/economics , Antibodies, Neutralizing/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Antiviral Agents/pharmacology , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Vaccines , Cytidine/analogs & derivatives , Cytidine/therapeutic use , Depsipeptides/pharmacology , Depsipeptides/therapeutic use , Dexamethasone/administration & dosage , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Drug Combinations , Drug Synergism , Esters/pharmacology , Esters/therapeutic use , Guanidines/pharmacology , Guanidines/therapeutic use , Hospitalization , Humans , Hydroxylamines/therapeutic use , Internationality , Lactams/therapeutic use , Leucine/therapeutic use , Mice , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/organization & administration , Nitriles/therapeutic use , Peptide Elongation Factor 1/antagonists & inhibitors , Peptides, Cyclic/pharmacology , Peptides, Cyclic/therapeutic use , Proline/therapeutic use , Protease Inhibitors/pharmacology , Protease Inhibitors/therapeutic use , RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase/antagonists & inhibitors
15.
Mol Biol Cell ; 33(3): vo1, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1709244

ABSTRACT

Despite substantial investment and effort by federal agencies and institutions to improve the diversity of the professoriate, progress is excruciatingly slow. One program that aims to enhance faculty diversity is the Institutional Research and Academic Career Development Award (IRACDA) funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of General Medical Sciences. IRACDA supports the training of a diverse cohort of postdoctoral scholars who will seek academic research and teaching careers. The San Diego IRACDA program has trained 109 postdoctoral scholars since its inception in 2003; 59% are women and 63% are underrepresented (UR) Black/African-American, Latinx/Mexican-American, and Indigenous scientists. Sixty-four percent obtained tenure-track faculty positions, including a substantial 32% at research-intensive institutions. However, the COVID-19 pandemic crisis threatens to upend IRACDA efforts to improve faculty diversity, and academia is at risk of losing a generation of diverse, talented scholars. Here, a group of San Diego IRACDA postdoctoral scholars reflects on these issues and discusses recommendations to enhance the retention of UR scientists to avoid a "lost generation" of promising UR faculty scholars.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cultural Diversity , Education, Graduate , Faculty, Medical/statistics & numerical data , Fellowships and Scholarships/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Universities/statistics & numerical data , California , Education, Graduate/economics , Ethnicity/statistics & numerical data , Faculty, Medical/economics , Female , Humans , Male , Minority Groups/statistics & numerical data , National Institute of General Medical Sciences (U.S.) , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Research Personnel/economics , Research Personnel/education , Research Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Salaries and Fringe Benefits/statistics & numerical data , United States , Universities/economics , Women/education
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL