Faculty Bibliography

Minoritized groups experience interpersonal, structural, and systemic marginalization that is also perpetuated within academic institutions. This marginalization produces barriers that exclude racial/ethnic minoritized groups within academic medicine from career opportunities and advancement. Racial/ethnic minoritized faculty are often expected to take on additional labor to serve the diversity needs of the program and/or institution that are often unrecognized or undervalued in the tenure or promotion process or detract from additional responsibilities. The unique needs resulting from multiple intersecting identities must be considered when planning initiatives to support minoritized groups in academia. This is detrimental to medicine as it limits innovation, perpetuates health disparities, and prevents the recruitment of scholars/physicians that are representative of the diversity within the U.S. population. Cluster hiring is a newer initiative adopted by many institutions; recently supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to improve diversity and inclusion of racial/ethnic minoritized groups. Here we discuss the elements of the cluster hire process and how they might be particularly relevant to intersectional inclusion and structural change of academic institutions, while also highlighting potential limitations to broad adoption. We conclude with recommendations for the potential need for integration of more culturally informed cluster hiring practices that can be made at the departmental, institutional and national level to positively impact the hiring, retention and advancement of faculty from marginalized populations.

Despite significant public health attention and investment, hundreds of thousands of individuals have suffered fatal opioid overdose since the onset of the opioid crisis. Risk of opioid overdose has been exacerbated by the influx of fentanyl, a powerful synthetic opioid, into the drug supply. The National Institutes of Health Helping End Addiction Long-term (HEAL) Initiative is supporting the development of vaccines targeting fentanyl to protect against overdose. If successful, a vaccine would induce anti-fentanyl antibodies to sequester fentanyl (but not other opioids) in the blood, preventing fentanyl from crossing into the brain and reaching the central nervous system where it can cause overdose. Introduction of an overdose preventing strategy that relies on a vaccine to confer passive protection may be impactful. However, vaccines are poorly understood by the public and politicized. Moreover, the overdose ecosystem is complex and extends across numerous social, economic, medical, and cultural systems. As such, optimal use of a vaccine strategy to address overdose may benefit from multidisciplinary consideration of the social, ethical, and systemic factors that influence substance use and overdose that may also impact the acceptability of a fentanyl vaccine and related implementation strategies. In March 2022, Dr. Elissa Weitzman convened a two-day conference at the Harvard Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study on the Social Complexity of a Fentanyl Vaccine to Prevent Opioid Overdose. In all, 19 professionals from diverse disciplines (medicine, psychology, history, ethics, immunology, vaccinology, communications, policy) attended the conference and led discussions that centered on population health and epidemiology, history of medicine and frameworks for understanding substance use, ethics, decision-making and attitudes, and operational issues to the question of a novel immunotherapy targeting fentanyl overdose. Participants also debated the risks and benefits of vaccine administration in response to fictional clinical case vignettes. A summary of the conference presentations and discussions follows.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Creating an inclusive and equitable learning environment is a national priority. Nevertheless, data reflecting medical students' perception of the climate of equity and inclusion are limited. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To develop and validate an instrument to measure students' perceptions of the climate of equity and inclusion in medical school using data collected annually by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:The Promoting Diversity, Group Inclusion, and Equity tool was developed in 3 stages. A Delphi panel of 9 members identified survey items from preexisting AAMC data sources. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was performed on student responses to AAMC surveys to construct the tool, which underwent rigorous psychometric validation. Participants were undergraduate medical students at Liaison Committee on Medical Education-accredited medical schools in the US who completed the 2015 to 2019 AAMC Year 2 Questionnaire (Y2Q), the administrations of 2016 to 2020 AAMC Graduation Questionnaire (GQ), or both. Data were analyzed from August 2020 to November 2023. EXPOSURES/UNASSIGNED:Student race and ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:Development and psychometric validation of the tool, including construct validity, internal consistency, and criterion validity. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Delphi panel members identified 146 survey items from the Y2Q and GQ reflecting students' perception of the climate of equity and inclusion, and responses to these survey items were obtained from 54 906 students for the Y2Q cohort (median [IQR] age, 24 [23-26] years; 29 208 [52.75%] were female, 11 389 [20.57%] were Asian, 4089 [7.39%] were multiracial, and 33 373 [60.28%] were White) and 61 998 for the GQ cohort (median [IQR] age, 27 [26-28] years; 30 793 [49.67%] were female, 13 049 [21.05%] were Asian, 4136 [6.67%] were multiracial, and 38 215 [61.64%] were White). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of student responses identified 8 factors for the Y2Q model (faculty role modeling; student empowerment; student fellowship; cultural humility; faculty support for students; fostering a collaborative and safe environment; discrimination: race, ethnicity, and gender; and discrimination: sexual orientation) and 5 factors for the GQ model (faculty role modeling; student empowerment; faculty support for students; discrimination: race, ethnicity, and gender; and discrimination: sexual orientation). Confirmatory factor analysis indicated acceptable model fit (root mean square error of approximation of 0.05 [Y2Q] and 0.06 [GQ] and comparative fit indices of 0.95 [Y2Q] and 0.94 [GQ]). Cronbach α for individual factors demonstrated internal consistency ranging from 0.69 to 0.92 (Y2Q) and 0.76 to 0.95 (GQ). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:This study found that the new tool is a reliable and psychometrically valid measure of medical students' perceptions of equity and inclusion in the learning environment.

Black individuals in the USA experience disparities in mental health that lead to unfavorable health outcomes and increased morbidity from mental illness due to centuries of racism. We emphasize the need to understand the roots of racial injustice to achieve racial equity. Historical factors such as European imperialism, enslavement, the myth of Black inferiority, and scientific racial classification have all perpetuated disparities, leading to the current underestimation, misdiagnosis, and inadequate treatment of mental illness in Black populations. Many of the issues discussed herein apply to Black people globally; however, our focus is on Black Americans and the inequities that result from the current US mental health system. We discuss the limitations of using the DSM-5 classification system and common epidemiological surveys, which do not capture or call for a comprehensive analysis of the systems producing mental health issues, to understand mental illness among Black Americans.

Emotional distress can disproportionately disable individuals from minoritized groups, such as Black Americans, due to multiple intersecting factors. Addressing these challenges requires a comprehensive, culturally sensitive approach to mental health care that promotes inclusivity, accessibility, and representation within the field, to foster empowerment and resilience among minoritized communities. Given the weight of negative factors that can lead to psychological distress and mental illness, the wellness of Black Americans and how they support their mental health is important to acknowledge. In this Series paper, we propose that Black Americans have developed systems for managing many of these threats to their survival and wellbeing.

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a collaborative approach that involves active participation and input from members of the community on all aspects of the research process. CBPR is an important research method as it can empower communities to work with academicians and other scholars for more robust and culturally appropriate interventions. Although CBPR is useful regardless of race or ethnicity, it is particularly important for Black scientists and communities. This is because CBPR seeks to address social and health inequities by engaging with historically excluded communities, as well as to produce research that is relevant to the community. Successful CBPR initiatives can improve Black mental health through collaboration, empowerment, and cultural sensitivity, as the current under-representation of Black scientists hampers mental health equity efforts. Equal funding of Black scientists is key to conducting community-engaged research. We discuss CBPR and its importance for Black mental health, case studies of CBPR conducted by Black scientists, Black leaders, and community members, and what is necessary for Black people to attain mental health in an inherently racist society.

Opioid use disorder (OUD) and overdose deaths are a public health crisis. One contributing factor is stigma towards people who use opioids. We developed and conducted a public-facing, half-day educational event designed to challenge misperceptions about OUD from a contemporary neuroscience perspective. Participants engaged with three different resources on the neurobiology of addiction, and, at the end of the event, they rated its effectiveness. We also collected and compared pre- and post-event composite OUD stigma scales. Participants rated our approach and the overall event as highly effective. Additionally, OUD stigma scores were lower immediately following the event, and this decrease was primarily driven by decreased internalized stigma. Here, we demonstrate an effective proof-of-concept that an accessible, public-facing, neuroscience education event may reduce OUD stigma in the community.