Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
220,788 studies31 sourcesUpdated 57 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Equity neuroscience

Measuring what matters: case for a national benchmarking framework for neurological disparities research

  • Bruce Ovbiagele1
  • Olajide Williams2
  1. 1Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, United States of America
  2. 2Department of Neurology, Columbia University, New York, United States of America
Read full textPDFDOICite

Abstract

Importance:: Neurological disease disproportionately burdens racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographically underserved populations in the United States (US), yet no standardized, public accountability mechanism exists to track how academic neurology departments invest in and produce research addressing these disparities.

Objective:: To present the scientific and organizational-behavior evidence supporting potential development of BEACON (Benchmark for Equity, Access, and Contributions to Outcomes in Neurology), a composite annual scoring framework that ranks US academic neurology departments on the funding, output, quality, and community engagement of their neurological disparities research.

Evidence review:: We synthesize epidemiologic evidence of neurological health disparities, documented inequities in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding allocation, and the sociological and health-services literature demonstrating that public institutional rankings reliably change organizational behavior.

Findings:: Multiple independent literatures spanning legal education, hospital quality reporting, and NIH policy converge on the same mechanism: public, comparative, institution-level measurement reliably redirects institutional investment toward the measured domain. No equivalent measurement currently exists for neurological disparities research specifically.

Conclusions and relevance:: A composite ranking such as BEACON could be a scientifically grounded, low-cost lever to redirect institutional attention, philanthropic investment, and faculty recruitment toward reducing neurological health disparities in the US.

Related

  1. Retrospective cohort study measuring the disparities in post-COVID conditions among persons with disabilities: findings from primary care settings, 2019-22.
    Esther E Velasquez, Robert L Phillips, JoAnn M Thierry +6
    Research connectionsPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textNeurologyEurope PMC
  2. Regional disparities in lung cancer surgery and survival in South Korea: a nationwide population-based retrospective cohort study using linked cancer registry and national health insurance data
    Hee Sung Kim, Kyoung Eun Yeob, So Young Kim +2
    Translational Lung Cancer ResearchPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textOncologyEurope PMC
  3. National trends and disparities in mortality involving bladder cancer and substance use disorders in the United States, 1999–2023
    Kanza Atif, Unsa Arif, Muhammad Ali Gorish +9
    Frontiers in oncologyPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textOncologyEurope PMC
  4. Comorbidity Exposure-Window Definitions and Multidimensional Disparities in Long COVID Risk: Evidence from a U.S. National Cohort (2020-2024)
    Y. Chen, Z. Chen, G. Yang +9
    medRxivPreprintCC BY-NC-NDFull textEpidemiology & public healthmedRxiv
  5. National trends, demographic disparities, and phenotypic shifts in encephalopathy-associated mortality in the United States: A CDC WONDER analysis, 1999-2024
    K. J. A. Hamed, M. A. Sayah, R. M. Bundid
    medRxivPreprintCC BY-NC-NDFull textEpidemiology & public healthmedRxiv

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{ovbiagele2026measuring,
  title = {{Measuring what matters: case for a national benchmarking framework for neurological disparities research}},
  author = {Bruce Ovbiagele and Olajide Williams},
  journal = {Equity neuroscience},
  year = {2026},
  month = sep,
  doi = {10.1016/j.neuros.2026.100075},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuros.2026.100075},
  note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Measuring what matters: case for a national benchmarking framework for neurological disparities research
AU  - Bruce Ovbiagele
AU  - Olajide Williams
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/09/27
JO  - Equity neuroscience
DO  - 10.1016/j.neuros.2026.100075
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuros.2026.100075
AB  - Importance:: Neurological disease disproportionately burdens racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographically underserved populations in the United States (US), yet no standardized, public accountability mechanism exists to track how academic neurology departments invest in and produce research addressing these disparities.  Objective:: To present the scientific and organizational-behavior evidence supporting potential development of BEACON (Benchmark for Equity, Access, and Contributions to Outcomes in Neurology), a composite annual scoring framework that ranks US academic neurology departments on the funding, output, quality, and community engagement of their neurological disparities research.  Evidence review:: We synthesize epidemiologic evidence of neurological health disparities, documented inequities in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding allocation, and the sociological and health-services literature demonstrating that public institutional rankings reliably change organizational behavior.  Findings:: Multiple independent literatures spanning legal education, hospital quality reporting, and NIH policy converge on the same mechanism: public, comparative, institution-level measurement reliably redirects institutional investment toward the measured domain. No equivalent measurement currently exists for neurological disparities research specifically.  Conclusions and relevance:: A composite ranking such as BEACON could be a scientifically grounded, low-cost lever to redirect institutional attention, philanthropic investment, and faculty recruitment toward reducing neurological health disparities in the US.
SN  - 3050-8401
ER  -