Nadine Barrett

Overview:

Dr, Nadine J. Barrett is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health at Duke University. She currently hold senior leadership roles as CTSI Co-Director for Equity and Stakeholder Strategy and the Inaugural Director of The Center for Equity in Research in the Duke Clinical Translational Science Institute, and Associate Director for Equity and Stakeholder Strategy, Duke Cancer Institute. A medical sociologist by training, Dr. Barrett is a health disparities researcher, expert equity strategist, and a nationally-recognized leader in facilitating community/stakeholder and academic partnerships to advance health equity and developing training and methods to address implicit bias and structural and systemic racism that limits diverse participation in biomedical research. Her goals are to integrate diverse stakeholder engagement in the research process and healthcare systems, enhance enrollment and retention of underrepresented groups in biomedical research, increase diversity in the research workforce, and advance health equity. Prior to her current role, Dr. Barrett was the inaugural director of the Duke Cancer Institute’s Office of Health Equity, where for eight years she led a team to create a nationally awarded community engagement model to advance health equity, through patient navigation, nationally funded pipeline training programs for underrepresented race and ethnic groups, and authentic community partnerships to inform and drive research and quality healthcare as advisors, experts, and participants. Her leadership in both nonprofit and academia spans local, national, and international partnerships to better serve and engage historically marginalized and underserved populations.



Positions:

Assistant Professor in Family Medicine and Community Health

Family Medicine and Community Health, Community Health
School of Medicine

Member of the Duke Cancer Institute

Duke Cancer Institute
School of Medicine

Education:

Ph.D. 2005

Texas Woman's University

Grants:

Just Ask - Increasing Diversity in Oncology Clinical Research and Trials An Institutional and Stakeholder Engagement Approach

Administered By
Duke Cancer Institute
Awarded By
V Foundation for Cancer Research
Role
Principal Investigator
Start Date
End Date

Lung Cancer Screening Initiative

Administered By
Duke Cancer Institute
Awarded By
Lung Cancer Initiative of North Carolina
Role
Principal Investigator
Start Date
End Date

Breast Cancer Awareness to Action Ambassador Program (BCAAAP)

Administered By
Duke Cancer Institute
Awarded By
Susan G Komen for the Cure
Role
Principal Investigator
Start Date
End Date

JAK-STAT Inhibition to Reduce Racial Disparities in Kidney Disease

Administered By
Duke Molecular Physiology Institute
Awarded By
National Institutes of Health
Role
Co Investigator
Start Date
End Date

JAK-STAT Inhibition to Reduce Racial Disparities in Kidney Disease

Administered By
Medicine, Nephrology
Awarded By
National Institutes of Health
Role
Co Investigator
Start Date
End Date

Publications:

Increasing Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Cancer Clinical Trials: An American Society of Clinical Oncology and Association of Community Cancer Centers Joint Research Statement.

A concerted commitment across research stakeholders is necessary to increase equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) and address barriers to cancer clinical trial recruitment and participation. Racial and ethnic diversity among trial participants is key to understanding intrinsic and extrinsic factors that may affect patient response to cancer treatments. This ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Research Statement presents specific recommendations and strategies for the research community to improve EDI in cancer clinical trials. There are six overarching recommendations: (1) clinical trials are an integral component of high-quality cancer care, and every person with cancer should have the opportunity to participate; (2) trial sponsors and investigators should design and implement trials with a focus on reducing barriers and enhancing EDI, and work with sites to conduct trials in ways that increase participation of under-represented populations; (3) trial sponsors, researchers, and sites should form long-standing partnerships with patients, patient advocacy groups, and community leaders and groups; (4) anyone designing or conducting trials should complete recurring education, training, and evaluation to demonstrate and maintain cross-cultural competencies, mitigation of bias, effective communication, and a commitment to achieving EDI; (5) research stakeholders should invest in programs and policies that increase EDI in trials and in the research workforce; and (6) research stakeholders should collect and publish aggregate data on racial and ethnic diversity of trial participants when reporting results of trials, programs, and interventions to increase EDI. The recommendations are intended to serve as a guide for the research community to improve participation rates among people from racial and ethnic minority populations historically under-represented in cancer clinical trials. ASCO and ACCC will work at all levels to advance the recommendations in this publication.
Authors
Oyer, RA; Hurley, P; Boehmer, L; Bruinooge, SS; Levit, K; Barrett, N; Benson, A; Bernick, LA; Byatt, L; Charlot, M; Crews, J; DeLeon, K; Fashoyin-Aje, L; Garrett-Mayer, E; Gralow, JR; Green, S; Guerra, CE; Hamroun, L; Hardy, CM; Hempstead, B; Jeames, S; Mann, M; Matin, K; McCaskill-Stevens, W; Merrill, J; Nowakowski, GS; Patel, MI; Pressman, A; Ramirez, AG; Segura, J; Segarra-Vasquez, B; Hanley Williams, J; Williams, JE; Winkfield, KM; Yang, ES; Zwicker, V; Pierce, LJ
MLA Citation
Oyer, Randall A., et al. “Increasing Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Cancer Clinical Trials: An American Society of Clinical Oncology and Association of Community Cancer Centers Joint Research Statement.J Clin Oncol, vol. 40, no. 19, July 2022, pp. 2163–71. Pubmed, doi:10.1200/JCO.22.00754.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1521482
PMID
35588469
Source
pubmed
Published In
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Volume
40
Published Date
Start Page
2163
End Page
2171
DOI
10.1200/JCO.22.00754

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Healthcare Worker Experiences During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Analysis of the HERO Registry.

Background: The extent to which healthcare worker (HCWs) experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic vary by race or ethnicity after adjustment for confounding factors is not currently known. Methods: We performed an observational prospective cohort study of 24,769 healthcare workers from 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, enrolled between April 10, 2020 and June 30, 2021, and evaluated participant experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, including testing, diagnosis with COVID-19, emotional experiences, burnout, and interest in vaccines and vaccine clinical trials. Findings: After adjustment for professional role, medical history, and community characteristics, Black and Asian participants were less likely to receive SARS-CoV-2 viral testing (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0·82 [0·70, 0·96], p=0·012 and aOR 0·77 [0·67, 0·89], p<0·001 respectively) than White participants. Hispanic participants were more likely to have evidence of COVID-19 infection (aOR 1·23 (1·00, 1·50, p=0·048). Black and Asian participants were less likely to report interest in a COVID-19 vaccine (aOR 0·11 [0·05, 0·25], p<0·001 and aOR 0·48 [0·27, 0·85] p=0·012). Black participants were less likely to report interest in participating in a COVID-19 vaccine trial (aOR = 0·39 [0·28, 0·54], p<0·001). Black participants were also less likely to report 3 or more daily emotional impacts of COVID-19 (aOR = 0·66 [0·53, 0·82], p=<0·001). Black participants were additionally less likely to report burnout (aOR = 0·66 ([0·49, 0·95], p=0·025). Interpretation: In a large, national study of healthcare workers, after adjustment for individual and community characteristics, race/ethnicity disparities in COVID-19 outcomes persist. Future work is urgently needed to understand precise mechanisms behind these disparities and to develop and implement targeted interventions to improve health equity for healthcare workers. Funding: This work was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), Contract # COVID-19-2020-001.
Authors
Lusk, JB; Xu, H; Thomas, LE; Cohen, LW; Hernandez, AF; Forrest, CB; Michtalik, HJ; Turner, KB; O'Brien, EC; Barrett, NJ; HERO Research Program,
MLA Citation
Lusk, Jay B., et al. “Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Healthcare Worker Experiences During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Analysis of the HERO Registry.Eclinicalmedicine, vol. 45, Mar. 2022, p. 101314. Pubmed, doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101314.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1512548
PMID
35265822
Source
pubmed
Published In
Eclinicalmedicine
Volume
45
Published Date
Start Page
101314
DOI
10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101314

Disparities in Advance care planning (ACP): Has COVID-19 changed anything?

Authors
Gangavati, A; Olsen, M; Rhodes, R; Williams, S; Bethea, K; Dolor, R; Barrett, N; Durant, R; Ruffin, F; Bodiford, D; Thorne, G; Browne, E; Ejem, D; Sanders, L; Evans, M; Johnson, K
MLA Citation
Gangavati, A., et al. “Disparities in Advance care planning (ACP): Has COVID-19 changed anything?Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, vol. 70, 2020, pp. S194–S194.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1521889
Source
wos-lite
Published In
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Volume
70
Published Date
Start Page
S194
End Page
S194

Are there Racial Differences in COVID-19 Related Experiences Among Older Adults with Serious Illness?Analysis of Data from the EQUAL ACP study.

Authors
Gangavati, A; Johnson, K; Olsen, M; Sanders, L; Williams, S; Bethea, K; Barrett, N; Durant, R; Ejem, D; Dolor, R; Ruffin, F; Thorne, G; Rhodes, R
MLA Citation
Gangavati, A., et al. “Are there Racial Differences in COVID-19 Related Experiences Among Older Adults with Serious Illness?Analysis of Data from the EQUAL ACP study.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, vol. 70, 2020, pp. S193–94.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1521890
Source
wos-lite
Published In
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Volume
70
Published Date
Start Page
S193
End Page
S194

Association of Smartphone Ownership and Internet Use With Markers of Health Literacy and Access: Cross-sectional Survey Study of Perspectives From Project PLACE (Population Level Approaches to Cancer Elimination) (Preprint)

<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> <p>Telehealth is an increasingly important component of health care delivery in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, well-documented disparities persist in the use of digital technologies.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> <p>This study aims to describe smartphone and internet use within a diverse sample, to assess the association of smartphone and internet use with markers of health literacy and health access, and to identify the mediating factors in these relationships.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> <p>Surveys were distributed to a targeted sample designed to oversample historically underserved communities from April 2017 to December 2017. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate the association of internet and smartphone use with outcomes describing health care access and markers of health literacy for the total cohort and after stratifying by personal history of cancer. Health care access was captured using multiple variables, including the ability to obtain medical care when needed. Markers of health literacy included self-reported confidence in obtaining health information.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> <p>Of the 2149 participants, 1319 (61.38%) were women, 655 (30.48%) were non-Hispanic White, and 666 (30.99%) were non-Hispanic Black. The median age was 51 years (IQR 38-65). Most respondents reported using the internet (1921/2149, 89.39%) and owning a smartphone (1800/2149, 83.76%). Compared with the respondents with smartphone or internet access, those without smartphone or internet access were more likely to report that a doctor was their most recent source of health information (344/1800, 19.11% vs 116/349, 33.2% for smartphone and 380/1921, 19.78% vs 80/228, 35.1% for internet, respectively; both &lt;i&gt;P&lt;/i&gt;&amp;lt;.001). Internet use was associated with having looked for information on health topics from any source (odds ratio [OR] 3.81, 95% CI 2.53-5.75) and confidence in obtaining health information when needed (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.00-3.34) compared with noninternet users. Smartphone owners had lower odds of being unable to obtain needed medical care (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40-0.95) than nonsmartphone owners. Among participants with a prior history of cancer, smartphone ownership was significantly associated with higher odds of confidence in ability to obtain needed health information (OR 5.63, 95% CI 1.05-30.23) and lower odds of inability to obtain needed medical care (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06-0.47), although these associations were not significant among participants without a prior history of cancer.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> <p>We describe widespread use of digital technologies in a community-based cohort, although disparities persist. In this cohort, smartphone ownership was significantly associated with ability to obtain needed medical care, suggesting that the use of smartphone technology may play a role in increasing health care access. Similarly, major illnesses such as cancer have the potential to amplify health engagement. Finally, special emphasis must be placed on reaching patient populations with limited digital access, so these patients are not further disadvantaged in the new age of telehealth.</p> </sec>
Authors
Oshima, SM; Tait, SD; Thomas, SM; Fayanju, OM; Ingraham, K; Barrett, NJ; Hwang, ES
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1502693
Source
crossref
DOI
10.2196/preprints.24947