Gender inequality in the global mental health research workforce: a research authorship scoping review and qualitative study in Nepal

IntroductionAlthough women’s health is prioritised in global research, few studies have identified structural barriers and strategies to promote female leadership and gender equality in the global health research workforce, especially in low-income and middle-income countries.MethodsWe conducted a mixed-methods study to evaluate gender equality in the mental health research workforce in Nepal. The scoping review assessed gender disparities in authorship of journal publications for Nepal mental health research, using databases (PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, NepJol, NepMed) for 5 years. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 22 Nepali researchers to identify structural barriers limiting women’s leadership.ResultsOf 337 articles identified, 61% were by Nepali first authors. Among Nepali first authors, 38.3% were women. Nepali women had half the odds of being first authors compared with men, when referenced against non-Nepali authors (OR 0.50, 95% CI 1.30 to 3.16). When limiting publications to those based on funded research, the odds were worse for first authorship among Nepali women (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.71). The qualitative analysis supported the scoping review and identified a lack of gender-friendly organisational policies, difficulties in communication and mobility, and limited opportunities for networking as barriers to women’s leadership in global health research.ConclusionEfforts are needed for greater representation of Nepali women in global mental health research, which will require transformative organisational policies to foster female leadership. Those in leadership need to recognise gender inequalities and take necessary steps to address them. Funding agencies should prioritise supporting organisations with gender equality task forces, policies and indicators.

Investing in International Graduate Students for the Scientific Endeavour Keeps the United States Competitive

As the global scientific and engineering powerhouse, the United States has pioneered numerous inventions such as the telephone, alternating current, radio broadcasting, and controlled nuclear chain reactions. Some may be surprised to find that these were products of immigrants, who pushed the boundaries of science and technology. In the past years, however, the U.S. has been losing its competitive advantage in the global labor market. A key reason for this is that the U.S. is failing to attract and retain international graduate students in STEM fields. Historically, a large portion of these students stayed after graduation and drove innovations that fueled the nation’s trillion-dollar economy. That trend is changing, with many now opting to go elsewhere for their graduate education. Critical flaws in U.S. visa and immigration policy and a lack of federal funding mechanisms for international graduate students are exacerbating this trend. As a result, the U.S. is losing promising junior scientists to other countries with more aggressive foreign recruitment strategies. To counter this trend, we outline in detail the areas with room for growth and propose policy solutions to be implemented by the federal government. These solutions will help the U.S. excel in STEM research workforce diversity, equality, cultural competence, and ultimately, retain its global leadership.

NRMNet: Building a National Resource for Mentorship, Networking and Professional Development to Enhance Diversity

Background: To address the need for diver­sifying the biomedical research workforce, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) established the Diversity Program Consor­tium (DPC) with the goal of developing, implementing, assessing, and disseminating interventions and programs to enhance the participation and persistence of individu­als from underrepresented backgrounds in biomedical research careers.Intervention: As part of the DPC initia­tive, the NIH funded the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN), which aimed to increase diversity of the biomedical research workforce through culturally responsive mentorship, networking, and professional development. In 2015, the NRMNet portal was developed to provide a broad-based network of mentors who are accessible to diverse mentees across the country. The portal also provides network­ing and professional development resources that support mentee transitions from one career stage to the next.Results: NRMNet is the gateway for career stage-specific mentorship, networking, resources, and professional development programs for trainees across the biomedi­cal, behavioral, clinical, and social sciences. In the first five years, the NRMN strategic recruitment efforts resulted in an expanded network of nearly 13,000 diverse mentors and mentees with NRMN representation in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. Consistently, over the first five years, racial and ethnic diversity was reflected in composition of mentee and mentor groups: 66% of 6,526 mentees and 33% of 3,866 mentors were from underrepresented groups.Conclusions: The NRMNet portal is a promising effort for enhancing participation and continued engagement of undrerepre­sented individuals in biomedical research careers by providing culturally responsive mentorship, networking, and professional development for individuals at all career stages.Ethn Dis. 2021;31(3):469-480; doi:10.18865/ed.31.3.469

Redeployment during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: implications for a clinical research workforce

Background: Health professionals are considered a group vulnerable to developing mental health symptoms during a pandemic, with redeployment being a risk factor. However, previous literature suggests workplace communication can be a protective element. Aims: An audit aimed to evaluate NHS research staff's experiences of redeployment in order to provide suggestions for future improvements in the process. Methods: A questionnaire was disseminated to all staff in the clinical research directorate of an NHS trust. Responses were analysed using thematic analysis. Findings: Over half the redeployed staff experienced perceived negative psychological outcomes. The main reported contributor to this was perceived lack of communication. Conclusion: Communication needs to be improved in future redeployments. Future research should consider a larger cohort and more input from team members who remained on the pre-COVID-19 studies in order to improve the transition back from redeployment.