ArticleBMJ open2025
Developing evaluation metrics to measure the US national institute of health plans to enhance diverse perspectives: a protocol for a consensus-based study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe diversity of participating investigators representing diverse disciplines, career stages, stakeholder groups, regions and types of institutions is essential for the success of large-scale research programmes. In 2021, the National Institutes of Health introduced a requirement for some of its large grants to include a separate section that describes the project's plan for enhancing diverse perspectives (PEDPs). Our project aims to develop consensus-based PEDP evaluation metrics and instruments that can be systematically and sustainably collected across the projects. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Evaluation work is organised into three objectives. First, shared knowledge about PEDP infrastructures, activities and outcomes will be elicited through the review of the PEDP texts of funded projects, with 15 as the target sample size. Data will be analysed using a cultural domain analysis approach and assessed for recurrence and salience of PEDP metrics. Second, consensus-based evaluation metrics will be developed using a three-round Delphi method. The descriptive statistics (mean, SD and IQR) and cultural consensus analyses will be applied to the first and last rounds of the Delphi survey. Third, metrics will be piloted for implementation and validation within one of the Human BioMolecular Atlas Programme sites. Work will be completed by Fall 2025. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The long-term goal of the effort reported in this paper is to develop PEDP common metrics that are generalisable and feasible across diverse projects. This rigorous, focused evaluation development effort aims to inform scientific practices and policies around implementing the plans to enhance diverse perspectives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.