Virtual Summer Undergraduate Mentorship Program for Students Underrepresented in Medicine Yields Significant Increases in Self-Efficacy Measurements During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mixed Methods Evaluation.

Purpose: The barriers that Black and Hispanic/Latinx students underrepresented in medicine (URiM) face while seeking biomedical careers have been identified, including lack of career preparation and social support. Yet it is unclear how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted their decisions and progress toward their occupational goals. Methods: Adapting to the precautions necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors conducted a mixed-methods evaluation of our 2020 virtual summer URiM biomedical mentoring program, using both quantitative and qualitative pre- and post-program questionnaires to measure the students' perceptions of their preparation and self-efficacy for applying to health professional schools. Results: Themes were extracted from qualitative data through thematic analysis. When students were asked how the COVID-19 pandemic affected them, two themes and subthemes emerged: (1) loss of supportive environment, (1.1) challenging learning environment, (2) derailed or uncertain future, and (2.2) COVID-19 hitting home. When students were surveyed about their online experience at the end of the program, the themes (3) supportive community and (4) inspired and reinforced goals appeared. In addition, quantitative data examined through statistical analysis revealed that the students' career self-efficacy improved significantly after program participation. Conclusion: Our results indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic has further challenged URiM students with pre-existing career obstacles. The outcomes also demonstrate that it is possible to virtually provide URiM students with socioemotional support and increase their career self-efficacy. Overall, frequent evaluations are encouraged to better understand the dynamic challenges of URiM students, improve the design of health career "pipeline" programs, and diversify the physician workforce to address racial health inequities.

Dreams Realized: A Long-Term Program Evaluation of Three Summer Diversity Pipeline Programs.

Purpose: Pipeline programs are a well-known approach to enhancing health care workforce diversity and reducing health disparities. Few evaluations of pipeline programs include long-term outcome; fewer still, if any explore perceptions of students after completing such programs, to elucidate factors that contribute to successful entry into the health professions. The authors conducted a program evaluation of three summer diversity pipeline programs in the Bronx, NY, investigating both long-term outcomes and participants' hindsight perspectives of the impact of these programs on their career trajectories. Methods: Investigators conducted a cross-sectional, long-term, mixed-methods survey study. The primary and secondary outcomes for the quantitative analysis were matriculation into biomedical programs to pursue MD or PhD degrees and Master's degrees, respectively, and associated demographic factors. Free-text questions explored the most valuable and influential components of the programs; responses were analyzed qualitatively. Results: Of 147 respondents, 107 (73%) were on-track or had entered a doctoral or master's program, achieving either the primary or secondary outcomes, respectively. Components cited as most valuable included clinical experience, mentorship, career exposure, and research opportunities. Three themes were identified from the free-text responses: (1) Dreams realized; (2) Professional identity formation; and (3) Addressing systemic inequities. Conclusions: These three pipeline programs achieved career outcomes similar to published data. Participants' insights highlight the value of relationships, direct exposure to the health professions, and the importance of such programs to address systemic barriers faced. Results can inform criteria both for participant selection, as well as benchmarks used to define individual and programmatic success.

Community Experiences and Perceptions of Clinical and Translational Research and Researchers.

BACKGROUND: Engaging communities in research is increasingly recognized as critical to translation of research into improved health outcomes. Our objective was to understand community stakeholders' perspectives on researchers, academic institutions, and how community is valued in research. METHODS: A 45-item survey assessing experiences and perceptions of research (trust, community value, equity, researcher preparedness, and indicators of successful engagement) was distributed to 226 community members involved in health research with academic institutions. RESULTS: Of the 109 respondents, 60% were racial/ethnic minorities and 78% were women, representing a range of community organizations, faith-based organizations, and public health agencies. Most (57%) reported current involvement with a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA). Only 25% viewed researchers as well-prepared to engage communities and few (13%) reported that resources were available and adequate to support community involvement. Most community stakeholders (66%) were compensated for their involvement in research, but only 40% perceived compensation to be appropriate. Trust of research and perceptions that researchers value community were more positive among those who perceived their compensation as appropriate (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate compensation and resources to support community involvement in research may improve perceptions of trust and value in academic-community partnerships. Strategies are needed to increase researcher preparedness to engage with communities.

Towards a unified taxonomy of health indicators: academic health centers and communities working together to improve population health.

The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program represents a significant public investment. To realize its major goal of improving the public's health and reducing health disparities, the CTSA Consortium's Community Engagement Key Function Committee has undertaken the challenge of developing a taxonomy of community health indicators. The objective is to initiate a unified approach for monitoring progress in improving population health outcomes. Such outcomes include, importantly, the interests and priorities of community stakeholders, plus the multiple, overlapping interests of universities and of the public health and health care professions involved in the development and use of local health care indicators.The emerging taxonomy of community health indicators that the authors propose supports alignment of CTSA activities and facilitates comparative effectiveness research across CTSAs, thereby improving the health of communities and reducing health disparities. The proposed taxonomy starts at the broadest level, determinants of health; subsequently moves to more finite categories of community health indicators; and, finally, addresses specific quantifiable measures. To illustrate the taxonomy's application, the authors have synthesized 21 health indicator projects from the literature and categorized them into international, national, or local/special jurisdictions. They furthered categorized the projects within the taxonomy by ranking indicators with the greatest representation among projects and by ranking the frequency of specific measures. They intend for the taxonomy to provide common metrics for measuring changes to population health and, thus, extend the utility of the CTSA Community Engagement Logic Model. The input of community partners will ultimately improve population health.

Community representatives' involvement in Clinical and Translational Science Awardee activities.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the formal roles of community representatives (CRs) in Clinical and Translational Science Awardee (CTSA) activities, to evaluate the extent of integration into the organizational and governance structures and to identify barriers to effective integration. METHODS: The inventory tool was distributed to each of the 60 CTSAs using a secure web application. RESULTS: Forty-seven (78%) completed the inventory. The mean number of CRs per CTSA is 21.4 (SD: 14.8). Most CTSAs had community advisory boards (89%) and 94% included CRs in Community Engagement (CE) cores. Only 11% reported a CR being a member of the CTSA leadership team and 19% reported that CRs advise core programs beyond CE. CRs are compensated by 79% of CTSAs. Mean annual compensation is $753 (median: $400). Compensation directly correlated with the number of hours that CRs worked in CTSA activities (r = 0.64; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This inventory allows CTSAs to better understand how CRs have engaged in activities and brings attention to the limited representation among cores and in leadership roles. CTSAs should, with substantive input from CRs, develop strategies to provide the resources and compensation necessary to better integrate the community in CTSA activities and fully realize the goals of the CTSA vision.

Developing a multidisciplinary model of comparative effectiveness research within a clinical and translational science award.

The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) were initiated to improve the conduct and impact of the National Institutes of Health's research portfolio, transforming training programs and research infrastructure at academic institutions and creating a nationwide consortium. They provide a model for translating research across disciplines and offer an efficient and powerful platform for comparative effectiveness research (CER), an effort that has long struggled but enjoys renewed hope under health care reform. CTSAs include study design and methods expertise, informatics, and regulatory support; programs in education, training, and career development in domains central to CER; and programs in community engagement.Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University and Montefiore Medical Center have entered a formal partnership that places their CTSA at a critical intersection for clinical and translational research. Their CTSA leaders were asked to develop a strategy for enhancing CER activities, and in 2010 they developed a model that encompasses four broadly defined "compartments" of research strength that must be coordinated for this enterprise to succeed: evaluation and health services research, biobehavioral research and prevention, efficacy studies and clinical trials, and social science and implementation research.This article provides historical context for CER, elucidates Einstein-Montefiore's CER model and strategic planning efforts, and illustrates how a CTSA can provide vision, leadership, coordination, and services to support an academic health center's collaborative efforts to develop a robust CER portfolio and thus contribute to the national effort to improve health and health care.

Learning social medicine in the Bronx: an orientation for primary care residents.

BACKGROUND: Primary care educators face the challenge of teaching the social context of health and disease to clinicians. DESCRIPTION: Since 1975, the Residency Program in Social Medicine has trained clinicians to practice in urban underserved communities. During Orientation Month, 1st-year residents are relieved of inpatient duties and participate in learning activities addressing social and cultural aspects of health. Learning objectives include understanding patients' social context, their community, and the role of physicians as professionals. Recent innovations include incorporating an overall theme, weekly case studies, "triple jump" exercises, community mapping projects, patient-led community tours, and theme-specific visits to community institutions (e.g., prisons). EVALUATION: Residents complete weekly formative evaluations, a summative evaluation, and narrative reflections. Faculty complete an evaluative questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Orientation is a highly rated and valued part of our curriculum. Its success derives from ongoing curricular innovation and evolution, a departmental commitment to social medicine, and positive community response to our learners' interest and energy.

Diversity in academic medicine no. 6 successful programs in minority faculty development: ingredients of success.

This article describes the ingredients of successful programs for the development of minority faculty in academic medicine. Although stung by recent cuts in federal funding, minority faculty development programs now stand as models for medical schools that are eager to join the 140-year-old quest for diversity in academic medicine. In this article, the ingredients of these successful faculty development programs are discussed by experts in minority faculty development and illustrated by institutional examples. Included are descriptions of program goals and content, mentoring and coaching, selecting participants, providing a conducive environment, managing the program, and sustaining support. This article is a companion to another article, "Successful Programs in Minority Faculty Development: Overview," in this issue of the Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine.

Diversity in academic medicine no. 1 case for minority faculty development today.

For the past 20 years, the percentage of the American population consisting of nonwhite minorities has been steadily increasing. By 2050, these nonwhite minorities, taken together, are expected to become the majority. Meanwhile, despite almost 50 years of efforts to increase the representation of minorities in the healthcare professions, such representation remains grossly deficient. Among the underrepresented minorities are African and Hispanic Americans; Native Americans, Alaskans, and Pacific Islanders (including Hawaiians); and certain Asians (including Hmong, Vietnamese, and Cambodians). The underrepresentation of underrepresented minorities in the healthcare professions has a profoundly negative effect on public health, including serious racial and ethnic health disparities. These can be reduced only by increased recruitment and development of both underrepresented minority medical students and underrepresented minority medical school administrators and faculty. Underrepresented minority faculty development is deterred by barriers resulting from years of systematic segregation, discrimination, tradition, culture, and elitism in academic medicine. If these barriers can be overcome, the rewards will be great: improvements in public health, an expansion of the contemporary medical research agenda, and improvements in the teaching of both underrepresented minority and non-underrepresented minority students.

Diversity in academic medicine no. 4 Northeast Consortium: innovation in minority faculty development.

In fiscal year 2006, the US Government abruptly and drastically reduced its funding for programs to increase the racial and ethnic diversity of academic medicine, including programs to increase the development of minority medical faculty. Anticipating this reduction, 4 such programs-the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, University of Medicine and Dentistry in New Jersey-New Jersey Medical School, and University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine-decided to pool their resources, forming the Northeast Consortium of Minority Faculty Development. An innovation in minority faculty development, the Northeast Consortium of Minority Faculty Development has succeeded in exposing faculty trainees to research and teaching that they might not have considered otherwise, expanding the number and diversity of their mentors and role models, providing them potential access to larger and different populations and databases for purposes of research, and expanding their peer contacts. After introducing the Northeast Consortium of Minority Faculty Development, this article describes the origins and goals of each member program.

Diversity in academic medicine no. 2 history of battles lost and won.

Spurred by its rapidly changing demographics, the United States is striving to reduce and eliminate racial and ethnic health disparities. To do so, it must overcome the legacy of individual, institutional, and structural racism and resolve conflicts in related political and social ideologies. This has moved the struggle over diversity in the health professions outside the laboratories and ivy-covered walls of academic medicine into the halls of Congress and chambers of the US Supreme Court. Although equal employment opportunity and affirmative action programs began as legal remedies for distinct histories of legally sanctioned racial and gender discrimination, they also became effective means for increasing the representation of underrepresented minorities in higher education and the health professions. Beginning in the 1970s and continuing today, legal challenges to measures for realizing equal opportunity and leveling the playing field have reached the US Supreme Court and state-wide ballot initiatives. These historical challenges and successes are the subject of this article. Although the history is not exhaustive, it aims to provide an important context for the struggles of advocates to improve the representation of underrepresented minorities in medicine and reduce racial and ethnic health disparities.

Diversity in academic medicine no. 3 struggle for survival among leading diversity programs.

Since efforts to increase the diversity of academic medicine began shortly after the Civil War, the efforts have been characterized by a ceaseless struggle of old and new programs to survive. In the 40 years after the Civil War, the number of minority-serving institutions grew from 2 to 9, and then the number fell again to 2 in response to an adverse evaluation by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. For 50 years, the programs grew slowly, picking up speed only after the passage of landmark civil rights legislation in the 1960s. From 1987 through 2005, they expanded rapidly, fueled by such new federal programs as the Centers of Excellence and Health Careers Opportunity Programs. Encompassing majority-white institutions as well as minority-serving institutions, the number of Centers of Excellence grew to 34, and the number of Health Careers Opportunity Programs grew to 74. Then, in 2006, the federal government cut its funding abruptly and drastically, reducing the number of Centers of Excellence and Health Careers Opportunity Programs to 4 each. Several advocacy groups, supported by think tanks, have striven to restore federal funding to previous levels, so far to no avail. Meanwhile, the struggle to increase the representation of underrepresented minorities in the health professions is carried on by the surviving programs, including the remaining Centers of Excellence and Health Careers Opportunity Programs and new programs that, funded by state, local, and private agencies, have arisen from the ashes.

Diversity in academic medicine no. 5 successful programs in minority faculty development: overview.

Despite recent drastic cutbacks in federal funding for programs to diversify academic medicine, many such programs survive and continue to set examples for others of how to successfully increase the participation of minorities underrepresented in the healthcare professions and, in particular, how to increase physician and nonphysician minority medical faculty. This article provides an overview of such programs, including those in historically black colleges and universities, minority-serving institutions, research-intensive private and public medical schools, and more primary care-oriented public medical schools. Although the models for faculty development developed by these successful schools overlap, each has unique features worthy of consideration by other schools seeking to develop programs of their own. The ingredients of success are discussed in detail in another article in this theme issue of the Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine, "Successful Programs in Minority Faculty Development: Ingredients of Success."