Patient and stakeholder involvement enhances the conduct and applicability of comparative effectiveness research (CER). However, examples of engagement practices for CER leveraging real-world data (i.e., data from routine clinical practice) are scarce. Notably, these studies differ from traditional clinical trials in their technical complexity and minimal prospective data collection, posing unique challenges for stakeholder involvement. This paper describes patient and stakeholder engagement in a CER study of type 2 diabetes (T2D) medications using real-world data from a large administrative claims database.

A Patient and Stakeholder Advisory Group (PSAG) was formed to guide study design, conduct, and dissemination. The PSAG (n = 12) included individuals with T2D, clinicians, health systems leaders, professional society representatives, and a payer representative. Members were surveyed post-study initiation to assess their participation goals and experiences to date.

PSAG members influenced key design and methodological decisions, including cohort selection and adding an aim focused on patient preference elicitation. Survey results indicated high satisfaction with engagement processes and a desire for ongoing involvement. Most PSAG members cited their main goals as impacting the lives of people with T2D and ensuring the research’s relevance to clinicians.

Best practices for engaging stakeholders in CER using real-world data are underdeveloped. Our experience suggests that an inclusive, stakeholder-engaged approach enriches the research process and ensures diverse perspectives are integrated into study design and conduct. Ongoing efforts will focus on assessing long-term engagement outcomes and PSAG member satisfaction.

The hidden curriculum encompasses the norms, values, and behaviors within a learning environment. Navigating the hidden curricula of academia is crucial for doctoral trainees, particularly those from underrepresented backgrounds. Faculty mentors have an important role in helping trainees uncover and cope with the hidden curriculum. The purpose of this paper is to explore perceptions of the hidden curriculum among diverse doctoral trainees and mentors.

Following a presentation on the hidden curriculum at the Association for Clinical and Translational Science annual meeting in March 2021, attendees were asked to brainstorm ideas for diverse trainees and their mentors. Breakout room discussions were held for specific hidden curriculum topics; participants voted on which topics to discuss from a list of topics defined during the presentation. Ideas from these discussions were presented to the larger group to upvote.

Participants (n = 116) voted to discuss the following hidden curriculum topics: “coping with bias,” “assertive communication,” “knowing how things work,” and “developing a career.” Many suggestions emphasized the role of institutions in empowering mentors to help diverse trainees and, more generally, to meaningfully support policies and programs that facilitate the career success of trainees and faculty from underrepresented backgrounds.

This work generated a list of suggested action items for trainees, mentors, and institutions to ameliorate the hidden curricula of academia, especially for diverse trainees. However, institutions need to support changes that will facilitate these discussions as well as more broadly enable the success of faculty and students from diverse backgrounds.

To mitigate the impact of racism, sexism, and other systemic biases, it is essential for organizations to develop strategies to address their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) climates. The objective of this formative evaluation was to assess Mayo Clinic Department of Health Sciences Research (HSR) faculty and staff perceptions toward a proposed departmental DEI plan and to explore findings by diversity and professional subgroups.

Key plan components include recruitment and support for diverse individuals; training for all HSR employees and leaders; and a review system to capture diversity and inclusion feedback for leaders. Additional activities include building inclusion “nudges” into existing performance reviews. To assess pre-implementation beliefs about specific plan components, we polled attendees at a departmental staff meeting in July 2020.

Overall, respondents (n = 162) commonly endorsed a blinded promotion review process and DEI training for all staff and leaders as most important. In contrast, respondents expressed less support for plan activities related to “nudges.” However, attitudes among certain diversity or professional groups toward specific plan activities diverged from their non-diversity group counterparts. Qualitative feedback indicated awareness of the need to address DEI issues.

Overall, HSR faculty and staff respondents conveyed support for the plan. However, some specific plan activities were perceived differently by members of certain diversity or professional subgroups.

These findings present a DEI framework on which other institutions can build and point to future directions for how DEI activities may be differentially perceived by impacted faculty and staff.