精准医学研究中多样性的定性研究:多样性决策图的开发与利益相关者评估。

IF 2.1 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science Pub Date : 2025-03-18 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1017/cts.2025.45
Janet K Shim, Caitlin E McMahon, Larissa Saco, Michael Bentz, Nicole Foti, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee
{"title":"精准医学研究中多样性的定性研究:多样性决策图的开发与利益相关者评估。","authors":"Janet K Shim, Caitlin E McMahon, Larissa Saco, Michael Bentz, Nicole Foti, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee","doi":"10.1017/cts.2025.45","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The diversity gap in precision medicine research (PMR) participation has led to efforts to boost the inclusion of underrepresented populations. Yet our prior research shows that study teams need greater support to identify key decision-making issues that influence diversity and equity, weigh competing interests and tradeoffs, and make informed research choices. We therefore developed a Diversity Decision Map (DDM) to support the identification of and dialogue about study practices that impact diversity, inclusion, and equity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The DDM is empirically derived from a qualitative project that included a content analysis of documents, observations of research activities, and interviews with PMR stakeholders. We identified activities that influenced diversity goals and created a visual display of decision-making nodes, their upstream precedents, and downstream consequences. To assess the potential utility of the DDM, we conducted engagements with stakeholder groups (regulatory advisors, researchers, and community advisors).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>These engagements indicated that the DDM helped diverse stakeholder groups trace tradeoffs of different study choices for diversity, inclusion, and equity, and suggest paths forward. Stakeholders agreed that the DDM could facilitate discussion of tradeoffs and decision-making about research resources and practices that impact diversity. Stakeholders felt that different groups could use the DDM to raise questions and dilemmas with each other, and shared suggestions to increase the utility of the DDM.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on a research life course perspective, and real-world research experiences, we developed a tool to make transparent the tradeoffs of research decisions for diversity, inclusion, and equity in PMR.</p>","PeriodicalId":15529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"9 1","pages":"e78"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12083197/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A qualitative study of diversity in precision medicine research: The development and stakeholder assessment of a Diversity Decision Map.\",\"authors\":\"Janet K Shim, Caitlin E McMahon, Larissa Saco, Michael Bentz, Nicole Foti, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/cts.2025.45\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The diversity gap in precision medicine research (PMR) participation has led to efforts to boost the inclusion of underrepresented populations. Yet our prior research shows that study teams need greater support to identify key decision-making issues that influence diversity and equity, weigh competing interests and tradeoffs, and make informed research choices. We therefore developed a Diversity Decision Map (DDM) to support the identification of and dialogue about study practices that impact diversity, inclusion, and equity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The DDM is empirically derived from a qualitative project that included a content analysis of documents, observations of research activities, and interviews with PMR stakeholders. We identified activities that influenced diversity goals and created a visual display of decision-making nodes, their upstream precedents, and downstream consequences. To assess the potential utility of the DDM, we conducted engagements with stakeholder groups (regulatory advisors, researchers, and community advisors).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>These engagements indicated that the DDM helped diverse stakeholder groups trace tradeoffs of different study choices for diversity, inclusion, and equity, and suggest paths forward. Stakeholders agreed that the DDM could facilitate discussion of tradeoffs and decision-making about research resources and practices that impact diversity. Stakeholders felt that different groups could use the DDM to raise questions and dilemmas with each other, and shared suggestions to increase the utility of the DDM.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on a research life course perspective, and real-world research experiences, we developed a tool to make transparent the tradeoffs of research decisions for diversity, inclusion, and equity in PMR.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15529,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"e78\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12083197/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.45\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.45","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导读:精准医学研究(PMR)参与的多样性差距导致努力促进纳入代表性不足的人群。然而,我们之前的研究表明,研究团队需要更多的支持来确定影响多样性和公平性的关键决策问题,权衡竞争利益和权衡,并做出明智的研究选择。因此,我们开发了一个多样性决策图(DDM),以支持对影响多样性、包容性和公平性的学习实践的识别和对话。方法:DDM是从一个定性项目中得出的,该项目包括对文件的内容分析、研究活动的观察和对PMR利益相关者的访谈。我们确定了影响多样性目标的活动,并创建了决策节点、上游先例和下游后果的可视化显示。为了评估DDM的潜在效用,我们与利益相关者团体(监管顾问、研究人员和社区顾问)进行了接触。结果:这些参与表明,DDM帮助不同的利益相关者群体追踪多样性、包容性和公平性的不同研究选择的权衡,并提出了前进的道路。利益相关者一致认为,DDM可以促进关于影响多样性的研究资源和实践的权衡和决策的讨论。利益相关者认为不同的群体可以利用DDM相互提出问题和困境,并分享建议以提高DDM的效用。结论:基于研究生命历程的视角和现实世界的研究经验,我们开发了一个工具,使PMR研究决策的多样性、包容性和公平性之间的权衡变得透明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A qualitative study of diversity in precision medicine research: The development and stakeholder assessment of a Diversity Decision Map.

Introduction: The diversity gap in precision medicine research (PMR) participation has led to efforts to boost the inclusion of underrepresented populations. Yet our prior research shows that study teams need greater support to identify key decision-making issues that influence diversity and equity, weigh competing interests and tradeoffs, and make informed research choices. We therefore developed a Diversity Decision Map (DDM) to support the identification of and dialogue about study practices that impact diversity, inclusion, and equity.

Methods: The DDM is empirically derived from a qualitative project that included a content analysis of documents, observations of research activities, and interviews with PMR stakeholders. We identified activities that influenced diversity goals and created a visual display of decision-making nodes, their upstream precedents, and downstream consequences. To assess the potential utility of the DDM, we conducted engagements with stakeholder groups (regulatory advisors, researchers, and community advisors).

Results: These engagements indicated that the DDM helped diverse stakeholder groups trace tradeoffs of different study choices for diversity, inclusion, and equity, and suggest paths forward. Stakeholders agreed that the DDM could facilitate discussion of tradeoffs and decision-making about research resources and practices that impact diversity. Stakeholders felt that different groups could use the DDM to raise questions and dilemmas with each other, and shared suggestions to increase the utility of the DDM.

Conclusion: Based on a research life course perspective, and real-world research experiences, we developed a tool to make transparent the tradeoffs of research decisions for diversity, inclusion, and equity in PMR.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
26.90%
发文量
437
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信