“I don’t mention my background to suggest that I’m unique, but rather to show how my experiences reflect those of many patients who would benefit from research designed by people who understand their needs.”

AJN has recently discussed the impacts of research budget cuts in The Repercussions of Trump Administration Cuts to NIH and Research Funding and Maternal Health: Funding Cuts Amid an Ongoing Crisis. As a third year in Columbia University’s nursing PhD program, I have also been directly impacted from recent government funding changes.

An application withdrawn without review.

The F31 is a predoctoral fellowship through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that provides funding for dissertation research and training. I applied for the version designated for applicants from underrepresented backgrounds, following the application guidance at the time. But a few weeks ago, I was notified that my application had been retroactively withdrawn without review, as it no longer aligned with the current administration’s research priorities. My application was not transferred to the general F31 pool for funding consideration, which made the decision feel especially unfair.

I spent well over 100 hours on this F31 grant proposal. In collaboration with my research mentors, I focused on the following research question: How do nurses help patients manage their chronic heart failure in telehealth programs to reduce preventable rehospitalizations? This question was rooted in what I witnessed firsthand as a registered nurse in critical care and telehealth settings. Many patients with chronic medical conditions such as heart failure struggled to properly manage their conditions not because they didn’t want to, but because they lacked consistent access to education and support. My proposal aimed to explore how nursing interventions through on-demand telehealth could help reduce these preventable readmission events.

A research focus informed by experience.

I want to acknowledge that I was one of the applicants who met the eligibility criteria to apply for the diversity F31 program. I grew up in a rural part of Oregon and am a Vietnamese American first-generation (in my immediate family) college student. These lived experiences have collectively helped shape the way I understand patients and approach nursing research. I don’t mention my background to suggest that I’m unique, but rather to show how my experiences reflect those of many patients who would benefit from research designed by people who understand their needs. Yet, research continues to struggle with recruiting individuals from these communities to lead the very studies meant to serve them. The diversity-focused F31 allowed for a more holistic approach in reviewing applicants. It recognized that lived experiences can meaningfully inform a researcher’s perspective and ability to conduct scientifically rigorous work.

The letter regarding the administrative withdrawal of my F31 application stated that diversity, equity, and inclusion studies are “often used to support unlawful discrimination on the basis of race and other protected characteristics.” In response to this statement, I want to emphasize that the secondary dataset used in my grant proposal is racially, ethnically, and economically diverse, which is uncommon in heart failure research, a field well known for relying on homogenous samples. The study recruits participants from over five languages (English, Spanish, French, Mandarin, and Russian), a level of inclusivity I rarely see in the literature. This kind of work expands the reach of research to ensure that historically underserved populations are included.

Of particular concern is that the institute I applied to, the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR), may be entirely eliminated soon under a recent federal budget request made by the Trump administration to Congress. This decision threatens not only funding for nursing programs, but also the future of early-stage nurse researchers working to improve and inform nursing care through science.

Given the shift in government research priorities and my dissertation timeline, reapplying to another NIH institute in the next grant application may not be a realistic option. My original application was withdrawn before formal review, so I never received feedback whether I was competitive for funding or how to improve. That feedback would have been invaluable to my growth as a researcher, something that other applicants facing similar grant withdrawals also miss out on.

With the information provided here, I hope readers can more openly and critically reflect on how health equity and diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in nursing research contribute to patient care. Nurse educators and clinical leaders can promote health equity by staying engaged with nursing research that centers diverse patient experiences. Additionally, support of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives doesn’t have to take place through formal mechanisms. It can also happen through everyday conversations, mentorship, and ongoing encouragement. I am grateful that faculty at Columbia University’s School of Nursing continue to recognize and uplift the students from underrepresented backgrounds, especially those connected to the communities most impacted by inequities in care.

Lastly, I strongly believe the conversation about government funding must continue. Funding from the NIH has played a critical role in advancing nursing science. Sustaining support of designated NIH and NINR funding is therefore not just a political issue; it is a nursing issue.

Helen Dinh, BSN, RN, is a PhD candidate at Columbia University School of Nursing.