Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Added sugars and high glycemic index (GI) foods might play a role in cardiometabolic pathogenesis. Our study aimed to describe the top sources of added sugars and types of high GI foods in diets of children by race/ethnicity. METHODS:We examined data for 3,112 children, aged 6 to 11 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2011 to 2016. Mean intake was estimated and linear regression models tested for differences by race/ethnicity. Population proportions for food sources were created and ranked, accounting for survey weighting when appropriate. RESULTS:Asian American and Mexican American children had the lowest reported added sugar intake. Cereals were observed to contribute highly to added sugar intake. Soft drinks did not contribute as much added sugar intake for Asian American children as it did for children of other races/ethnicities. Asian American children consumed significantly more high GI foods than other groups. Types of high GI foods differed meaningfully across racial/ethnic groups (ie, Mexican American: burritos/tacos; other Hispanic, White, and Black: pizza; Asian American: rice). Rice accounted for 37% of total high GI foods consumed by Asian American children. CONCLUSIONS:Sources of added sugars and types of high GI foods in children's diets vary across racial/ethnic groups. Targeting foods identified as top sources of added sugars for all race/ethnicities and focusing on substitution of whole grains may reduce obesity, diabetes, and related cardiometabolic risk more equitably.

With growing numbers of aging Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders (AANHPIs), the availability of culturally and linguistically appropriate screening tools for Alzheimer's disease and its related dementias (ADRD) is needed. The aim of this scoping review is to summarize the tools that have been adapted for and validated among the AANHPI population. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol for systematic reviews, six databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles describing ADRD among AANHPIs. Among 1,477 articles screened for inclusion, 15 articles were included in the final analysis. Results showed a paucity of studies that psychometrically validate tools among this population. Furthermore, studies that culturally adapted and/or translated existing tools mostly targeted East Asian American populations. Our review provides a first step in mapping the extant literature on ADRD screening tools for this underresearched population and will serve as a guide for future research, policy, and intervention.

Objective/UNASSIGNED:Although the fastest growing minority group, Asian Americans receive little attention in mental health research. Moreover, aggregated data mask further diversity within Asian Americans. This study aimed to examine depression risk by detailed Asian American subgroup, and further assess determinants within and between three Asian ethnic subgroups. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Needs assessment surveys were collected in 16 Asian American subgroups (six Southeast Asian, six South Asian, and four East Asian) in New York City from 2013-2016 using community-based sampling strategies. A final sample of N=1,532 completed the PHQ-2. Bivariate comparisons and multivariable logistic models explored differences in depression risk by subgroup. Results/UNASSIGNED:Southeast Asians had the greatest depression risk (19%), followed by South Asians (11%) and East Asians (9%). Among Southeast Asians, depression risk was associated with lacking health insurance (OR=.2, 95% CI: 0-.6), not having a provider who speaks the same language (OR=3.2, 95% CI: 1.3-8.0), and lower neighborhood social cohesion (OR= .94, 95% CI: .71-.99). Among South Asians, depression risk was associated with greater English proficiency (OR=3.9, 95% CI: 1.6-9.2); and among East Asians, depression risk was associated with ≤ high school education (OR=4.2, 95% CI: 1.2-14.3). Additionally, among Southeast Asians and South Asians, the highest depression risk was associated with high levels of discrimination (Southeast Asian: OR=9.9, 95% CI: 1.8-56.2; South Asian: OR=7.3, 95% CI: 3.3-16.2). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Depression risk and determinants differed by Asian American ethnic subgroup. Identifying factors associated with depression risk among these groups is key to targeting limited public health resources for these underserved communities.

BACKGROUND:The Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) aging population is rapidly growing and the burden of Alzheimer's disease and its related dementias (ADRD) will likely mirror this demographic growth. AANHPIs face significant barriers in obtaining timely ADRD diagnosis and services; yet little is known about ADRD in this population. OBJECTIVE:The study objective is to conduct a systematic review on the published literature on ADRD among AANHPIs to identify gaps and priorities to inform future research and action plans. METHODS:The systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA Protocol for Systematic Reviews. Co-author (TR), an experienced Medical Librarian, searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central of Clinical Trials, Ageline, and Web of Science for peer-reviewed articles describing ADRD among AANHPIs. The search was not limited by language or publication date. Each citation was reviewed by two trained independent reviewers. Conflicts were resolved through consensus. RESULTS:The title/abstract and full texts of 1,447 unique articles were screened for inclusion, yielding 168 articles for analysis. Major research topics included prevalence, risk factors, comorbidities, interventions and outreach, knowledge and attitudes, caregiving, and detection tools. A limited number of studies reported on national data, on NHPI communities generally, and on efficacy of interventions targeting AANHPI communities. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review on ADRD among AANHPI populations. Our review provides a first step in mapping the extant literature on ADRD among this underserved and under-researched population and will serve as a guide for future research, policy, and intervention.

BACKGROUND:It is important to monitor the scope of clinical research of all types, to involve participants of all ages and subgroups in studies that are appropriate to their condition, and to ensure equal access and broad validity of the findings. OBJECTIVE:We conducted a review of clinical research performed at New York University with the following objectives: (1) to determine the utility of institutional administrative data to characterize clinical research activity; (2) to assess the inclusion of special populations; and (3) to determine if the type, initiation, and completion of the study differed by age. METHODS:Data for all studies that were institutional review board-approved between January 1, 2014, and November 2, 2016, were obtained from the research navigator system, which was launched in November 2013. One module provided details about the study protocol, and another module provided the characteristics of individual participants. Research studies were classified as observational or interventional. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the characteristics of clinical studies across the lifespan, by type, and over time. RESULTS:A total of 22%-24% of studies included children (minimum age <18 years) and 4%-5% focused exclusively on pediatrics. Similarly, 64%-72% of studies included older patients (maximum age >65 years) but only 5%-12% focused exclusively on geriatrics. Approximately 85% of the studies included both male and female participants. Of the remaining studies, those open only to girls or women were approximately 3 times as common as those confined to boys or men. A total of 56%-58% of projects focused on nonvulnerable patients. Among the special populations studied, children (12%-15%) were the most common. Noninterventional trial types included research on human data sets (24%), observational research (22%), survey research (16%), and biospecimen research (8%). The percentage of projects designed to test an intervention in a vulnerable population increased from 17% in 2014 to 21% in 2015. CONCLUSIONS:Pediatric participants were the special population that was most often studied based on the number of registered projects that included children and adolescents. However, they were much less likely to be successfully enrolled in research studies compared with adults older than 65 years. Only 20% of the studies were interventional, and 20%-35% of participants in this category were from vulnerable populations. More studies are exclusively devoted to women's health issues compared with men's health issues.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Stakeholder engagement can play an important role in increasing public trust and the understanding of scientific research and its impact. Frameworks for stakeholder identification exist, but these frameworks may not apply well to basic science and early stage translational research. METHODS:Four Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs led six focus groups and two semi-structured interviews using a semi-structured discussion guide to learn from basic science researchers about stakeholder engagement in their work. The 24 participants represented fourteen clinical and academic disciplines. RESULTS:Early stage translational researchers reported engagement with a broad array of stakeholders. Those whose research has a clinical focus reported working with a more diverse range of stakeholders than those whose work did not. Common barriers to stakeholder engagement were grouped into three major themes: a poor definition of concepts, absence of guidance, and limited resources. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), the consortium of CTSAs, and the individual CTSA "hubs" are three actors that can help early stage translational researchers develop shared terms of reference, build the necessary skills, and assemble the appropriate resources for engaging stakeholders in Clinical and Translational Research. Getting this right will involve a coordinated push by all three entities.