Investigators' assessment of NIH mandated inclusion of women and minorities in research.

Full Abstract

BACKGROUND:
While investigators were concerned about the impact of mandated inclusion of minorities and women on the conduct of research, there has been little subsequent assessment of investigator views on the effectiveness of the mandate in achieving gender and racial/ethnic research diversity. We describe investigators' assessment of the impact of the mandate on inclusion of women and minorities in research.

METHODS:
440 principal investigators (PIs) surveyed between August 2002 and December 2002.

RESULTS:
Most PIs (69%) felt the mandate has been successful in increasing gender diversity, 7% felt that the mandate had failed to increase females and 24% were unsure. Fifty-five percent of PIs felt the mandate had been successful in increasing minorities; 12% felt it had failed and 32% were unsure. Those who felt that failure to include women makes it hard to draw conclusions about treatment/prevention strategies (P=0.05), white PIs (P=0.05), and those who ascribed importance to female inclusion (P=0.03) were more positive about the mandate's success for women. Similarly, those who felt more strongly that diversity in study samples ensures generalizability (P=0.03), white PIs (P=0.01), and those who ascribed importance to minority inclusion (P<0.01) were more positive about the mandate's success for minorities.

CONCLUSION:
While the majority of PIs were positive in their assessment of the mandate on increasing diversity in research, many were ambivalent. Greater clarity on the criteria the scientific community should use in assessing the effectiveness of the mandate would allow us to reach the mandate goals.

Learn Faster Today Improve your study skills

Author information

Author/s: Corbie-Smith, Giselle M (GM); Durant, Raegan W (RW); St George, Diane Marie M (DM);

Affiliation: Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Wing D, CB#7240, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. gcorbie(-atsign-)med.unc.edu

Grants: 5 T32 11001-15 (Agency:PHS HHS)

Journal and publication information

Publication Type: Journal Article; Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Journal: Contemporary clinical trials (Contemp Clin Trials), published in United States. (Language: eng)

Reference: 2006-Dec; vol 27 (issue 6) : pp 571-9

Dates: Created 2006/10/30; Completed 2007/02/28; Revised 2007/11/15;

PMID: 16843069, status: MEDLINE (last retrieval date: 12/26/2008)

Sourced from the National Library of Medicine. Abstract text and other information may be subject to copyright.

External Links for this article (including full text providers, if available):

Click Electronic Full-text Provider Links to see options for finding the electronic full text links to this article. Note there may be a subscription or fee required for access to the full text. See our FAQ for information on finding FREE full text articles.

This article may also be located in paper journal collections available in many libraries. Use the Journal and Publication Information above to find the full article.

MeSH headings (categories)

This article was linked to the MESH Headings shown below.

Adult
Attitude of Health Personnel
Data Collection - statistics & numerical data
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Minority Groups - legislation & jurisprudence
National Institutes of Health (U.S.) - ethics; legislation & jurisprudence

National Institutes of Health (U.S.) - ethics; legislation & jurisprudence
Patient Selection - ethics
Questionnaires
Research Design
Research Personnel
Research Support as Topic - ethics; legislation & jurisprudence
Selection Bias
United States
Women

These are the highest related articles currently in the database:

See 100+ related articles.