National Advisory Board on Medical Rehabilitation Research (NABMRR)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
May 4-5, 2026
The VideoCast recording of the first day of the May 2026 NABMRR meeting is available https://videocast.nih.gov/watch/235394d8-294a-11f1-82c0-124f0a52e769 . Use the time stamps (in parentheses) in this report to navigate the recording.
Introduction (00:06)
The NABMRR met on May 4-5, 2026. The meeting began at 10:00 am EST on May 4, 2026. Dr. Kathleen Zackowski, NABMRR Chair, began the meeting with a roll call of attendees. Present (virtually or in person) were the Board members listed alphabetically below.
- Sarah Blanton, PT, DPT, FNAP, Professor Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Division of Physical Therapy, Emory University School of Medicine;
- Karl D. Cooper, JD, Executive Director, American Association on Health and Disability
- Linda Ehrlich-Jones, PhD, RN, FAAN, Associate Director, Center for Rehabilitation Outcomes Research, Research Professor, Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine
- Angel Hardy Heinz, MAPP, Public Policy Manager, Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation
- Steven J. Keteyian, MD, PhD, Section Head, Cardiac Rehabilitation/Preventive Cardiology Unit, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Henry Ford Hospital Medical Group
- Oluwaferanmi [Feranmi] O. Okanlami MD, Director - Student Accessibility and Accommodation Services, Assistant Professor, Family Medicine/ Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation/ Urology/ Orthopaedic Surgery, Associate Director, Health Policy and Economics Path of Excellence, University of Michigan School of Medicine
- Kris Tjaden, PhD, Professor and Associate Dean, Department of Communicative Disorders and Sciences, University at Buffalo, State University of New York
- Lewis A. Wheaton, PhD, Associate Professor, School of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
- Tiffany A. Yu, MS, Founder and CEO, Diversability, LLC, Los Angeles, California
- Kathleen M. Zackowski, PhD, Associate Vice President, The National Multiple Sclerosis Society
Present (virtually or in person) were the ex officio Board members listed alphabetically below.
- Daofen Chen, Program Director, National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke, National Institutes of Health
- Theresa Cruz, Director, National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health
- Rohan Hazra, Acting Director, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health
- Nicole Jeffords, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, U.S. Department of Education
- Lyndon Joseph, Program Director, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health
- John Shero, Director, Extremity Trauma & Amputation Center of Excellence, U.S. Department of War
- Ralph Nitkin, Deputy Director, National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health
- Adam Politis, Senior Advisor for Disability Health Research , National Institutes of Health
Dr. Nitkin reminded the Board that Dr. Patricia Dorn has now retired and there will be a new representative from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) at the next meeting. Dr. Zackowski reminded that meeting is being recorded and asked members to reserve upcoming meeting dates of December 7-8, 2026; May 3-4, 2027; and December 6-7, 2027. Meeting minutes from the December 2025 meeting were approved.
NICHD and NIH Updates (07:27)
Dr. Rohan Hazra, Acting Director of the NICHD, provided NIH and NICHD personnel updates. Dr. Hazra pointed out that he is one of 15 Acting Directors at NIH ICs.
In appropriations and budget updates, Dr. Hazra shared that NICHD spent all FY25 appropriations. NIH and NICHD received FY26 appropriation in mid-March. NIH received $48.7B, an increase of approximately $200M from the previous year. This small increase was in contrast to the 40 percent decrease in the President’s proposed budget. The NIH appropriation includes a provision of $1.3M in the base appropriation for the Safe to Sleep campaign. NICHD is working with NIH to identify a path forward for this mandate given the centralization of communications functions. NICHD’s FY26 appropriation was $1.77B, with $10M of the increase directed to the IMPROVE initiative to address maternal morbidity and mortality.
In program updates, Dr. Hazra reminded Board members and guests that the NIH-wide strategic plan is under development. The Request for Information allows public input on the plan and is available at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-26-047.html. Dr. Hazra explained that Highlighted Topics is a new way to inform the research community about scientific areas of high interest to the NIH. The Highlighted Topics page is located at https://grants.nih.gov/funding/find-a-fit-for-your-research/highlighted-topics. Dr. Hazra stated that Congress very recently reauthorized the federal SBIR/STTR program after a lapse of several months.
Dr. Hazra spoke about adjustments to the NIH peer review process following the lapse in appropriations. Dr. Hazra stated that the NICHD is committed to making every effort towards obligating its full appropriation and making awards by the end of the fiscal year.
Dr. Hazra shared some scientific highlights from the institute as a whole, including advances in rapid genetic diagnoses for newborns; early brain development and phonological processing; endometriosis; and treatment for a rare neurodegenerative disorder.
Dr. Tiffany Yu asked about the difference between Congress’s appropriation for the NIH, which left the organization largely intact, and the President’s proposal which had suggested more radical change. Dr. Hazra stated that the House and Senate had very different views on reorganization of NIH. There was not bandwidth on the Hill to reconcile these different approaches. He stated that we will have to see if the more modest reorganization proposal in the President’s FY27 budget is viewed more favorably. He noted that the NIH is actively recruiting directors for all the ICs with vacancies.
Dr. Keteyian stated that there is concern in the extramural research community about the review process, especially the “competitive but not discussed” policy, and whether the new process will truly be temporary. Dr. Hazra stated that there have been many leadership changes, including a very recent change where there is a new acting director of CSR now. He stated that CSR was pleased with how the new policy reduced the length of review meetings. Dr. Hazra expressed the hope that CSR will be able to share feedback from program and applicants for a fuller conversation before any permanent changes are implemented. However, he also noted that NICHD no longer has its our own review staff and everything is in CSR’s hands. Dr. Nitkin stated that a small number of the competitive but not discussed applications could still be considered for funding.
Dr. Zackowski asked how the acting IC directors work together, and do the other ICs know what NCMRR is doing? When do acting directors become permanent? Dr. Hazra expressed his gratitude to Dr. Cernich for setting up an effective network among senior NIH staff and stated that all the ICs work well together. He indicated that there is an ongoing process within NIH and HHS for reviewing IC director positions.
NCMRR Updates (57:18)
Dr. Cruz provided several NCMRR updates. Dr. Cruz reported on the publication of the NIH Strategic Plan for Disability Health Research. The NIH Strategic Plan for Disability Health Research provides new opportunities to communicate with congress and the public. Dr. Cruz encouraged all Board members to review the plan and share it within their professional networks. Dr. Cruz reported that the NIH Strategic Plan for Rehabilitation Research for FY26 is in the final stage of approval now and should be released soon. Dr. Cruz listed recently NCMRR outreach efforts and reported several significant scientific advances from NCMRR-supported studies. These included work on systems to use artificial intelligence to improve control of prosthetic limbs, a smart watch to monitor social interaction, and a video game used for biofeedback.
Dr. Karl Cooper thanked all who worked on the Disability strategic plan. He emphasized that any ideas for advocacy would be appreciated. Dr. Adam Politis said many areas are ripe for investment. Dr. Nitkin said that the plan tries to keep the focus on pragmatic, practical, scalable interventions that will make a difference in the lives of people. Dr Zackowski asked about plan implementation, and Dr. Cruz indicated that pragmatic trials are a major interest. A board member asked about any update to NIH mission statement, in response to discussions that occurred in 2024. Dr. Cruz indicated that those discussions occurred during the previous presidential administration, and the current administration has not continued that work.
Community Champions for Disability Health Challenge (1:26:50)
Dr. Cruz introduced the Community Champions for Disability Health Challenge and reported on the winners. The challenge serves a number of purposes, but Dr. Cruz emphasized developing innovative ideas from non-traditional sources, promoting solutions, and improving awareness of disability health. NEI, NIAMS, NIDCD, NIH OD, ACL/NIDLRR, NASA (through its contract with Center of Excellence in Collaborative Innovation) were all collaborators in this activity.
Phase 1 winners included:
- ABLE South Carolina works on teaching nurses how to care for people with disabilities and addressing the needs of nurses with disabilities;
- Mark Morris Dance Group brings dance lessons and community to people with Parkinson’s- related mobility difficulties;
- Autism Society of America created toolkits for primary and preventive care to make care more comfortable;
- Down Syndrome Association of Northeast Ohio* provided free dental screenings for people with Down syndrome in partnership with a local dental school. Through their 21 Smiles project, they also provided a self-advocacy curriculum, a social media campaign to encourage better oral health practices for people with Down syndrome, and a dental education effort directed at dental students and dentists who care for people with Down syndrome.
- National Aphasia Synergy created peer befriending network to help people with stroke increase social interactions
- Split Second Foundation* provided a free fitness center specifically for people with disabilities, and expanded to incorporate a more holistic approach encompassing case management and coordination, navigation, transportation, financial literacy, and other types of support. The results showed physical improvement, decreases in emergency care visits, and social support.
- Hermansky-Pudlak Syndrome (HPS) Network* – HPS involves vision impairment, pulmonary fibrosis, and albinism. Because of a founder effect, it is found more frequently in Puerto Rico. The HPS Network sponsors a family conference and supports clinical care coordination, transportation support, preliminary data collection, and a multi-lingual wellness program.
- United Cerebral Palsy Association of Greater Cleveland created a lending library for alternative and augmentative communication devices for children. Letting kids borrow devices helped families figure out what technology worked before purchase.
* These groups went on to be Phase 2 winners
Phase 2 winners (Down syndrome Association of Northeast Ohio, Split Second Foundation, and HPS Network) presented more details about their individual projects. The Down syndrome Association of Ohio presentation was made by Dr. Laura Cifra-Bean and Mr. Christopher Bean. Mr. Mark Raymond presented on behalf of the Split Second Foundation. Ms. Donna Appell presented on behalf of the HPS Network.
Dr. Heinz said all winners were well deserving. Each participant provided information about what they see as their next big challenge. Mr. Raymond said figuring out a good value based care model to partner with HMOs, govt programs, etc. will be essential for growth and sustainability. Mr. Bean said getting more people with Down syndrome involved in other activities, such as cooking classes, is something he is looking forward to. Dr. Cifra-Bean added that it is important to expand healthy aging support and outreach to adult medical providers as people with Down syndrome age, because adult medical specialists often don’t know enough about congenital disorders. Ms. Appell reported that HPS is working on expansion of transportation to get people full pulmonary workups and give researchers descriptive data. Transportation and care coordination will make it easier to establish clinical research studies.
Dr. Nitkin thanked all the participants and said that academic researchers often do not respond to the real needs of the community. He asked the presenters to describe the feedback they received that helped them expand their scope. Ms. Appell said she had to figure out how not to be scared and how to understand the culture and issues in Puerto Rico. She indicated that many people had concerns and there were a lot of people experiencing disability stigma. Mr. Raymond said Split Second’s expansion came about organically. If people see you can help solve a problem, they will bring you another problem, he stated. He said that if you go to a doctor, they want you to see 4 other doctors and give you 4 other tests, multiplying your problems rather than solving the one you came with. Split Second focuses on solving problems. Dr. Cifra-Bean incorporated efforts on SNAP benefits for people within facilities because that’s what people were bringing to them.
Dr. Yu commented that relational health is very important. She asked Mr. Raymond did he see a lower representation of women with disabilities in the fitness activities, because girls with disabilities are less likely to participate in sports. Mr. Raymond said that it was the opposite – women came more quickly and formed friendships more easily. Having a fun, happy environment was helpful to encourage people to come. Dr. Zackowski asked if there were plans for growing more organizational leaders. Mr. Raymond said yes, this is a national issue as leaders are aging. Ms. Appell said part of being a good leader is knowing when to step back and encourage others to take over. Her daughter Ashley is taking over an effort in New York State to advocate for rare diseases research and community outreach. Dr. Cifra-Bean related that siblings of people with disabilities often become strong advocates and need support. Mr. Bean said the community needs more self advocates and fewer traffic problems.
NABMRR Liaison to the NICHD Advisory Council (2:34:00)
Dr. Linda Ehrlich-Jones highlighted recent NICHD-funded research advances relevant to the rehabilitation community. Of particular interest is OpenExo, a free, open-source exoskeleton platform that lets people build their own exoskeletons for under $2,000 in materials. In addition, Dr. Ehrlich-Jones reported on clinical trials for two promising interventions, Supporting Play, Exploration, and Early Development Intervention (SPEEDI) and Sitting Together And Reaching To Play (START-Play). Both interventions are designed to provide infants with rehabilitation and posture to encourage them to find different ways of navigating and engaging with their world. Dr. Ehrlich-Jones also discussed funding trends, noting that as average award dollars increase, fewer grants can be awarded. Finally, Dr. Ehrlich-Jones provided the schedule for future NICHD council reviews.
AI in Rehabilitation: From Biomechanics to Psychosocial Support (2:46:15)
Dr. James Cotton from the Shirley Ryan Ability Lab presented on research conducted in his lab, working at the intersection of artificial intelligence, wearable sensors, computer vision, causal and biomechanical modeling, and novel technologies to more precisely monitor and improve rehabilitation outcomes. In particular, his team focuses on methods that can be easily translated and disseminated at scale into the clinical real world.
Currently, researchers in rehabilitation can measure motion in an expensive, time-intensive clinical gait laboratory or with a stopwatch and marks on the floor, as clinicians do. Dr. Cotton’s lab is developing a motion capture system that can be used in a variety of settings, including real-world care settings.
From these data, researchers can look for biomarkers indicating diagnosis and response to treatment.
Dr. Chung-Yi Chiu of University of Illinois Urbana Champaign described research that revolves around health promotion, psychosocial adjustment to disability, and chronic illness and social participation. Dr. Chiu’s research team is developing an AI self-management tool that can help people with multiple sclerosis problem-solve, make decisions, find useful resources, partner with health care providers, and take action to manage their condition. Dr. Chui emphasized that the tool they are building will be very secure and any information incorporated into the tool would be provided voluntarily.
Speaking about Dysarthria: Rehabilitation Outcomes across Time and Context (4:07:30)
Dr. Kris Tjaden presented research investigating the acoustic bases of reduced intelligibility and naturalness in dysarthria secondary to neurodegenerative disease, such as Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis. Researchers in Dr. Tjaden’s lab are working to develop measurements of speech clarity and speech that can be used outside the lab and in everyday clinical practice. They found that visual analog scaling (where listeners rate how understandable someone sounds on a sliding scale) yielded comparable results to the traditional, time-consuming method of transcribing every word a speaker says. In addition, an automated computer tool shows promise for measuring speech rate, compared to manual analysis of how fast people speak.
Dr. Tjaden collaborated with a group on a large five-year study on deep brain stimulation (DBS) for Parkinson's disease. Results showed that found that speech clarity remained stable up to 12 months after surgery, and patients reported no decline in their ability to communicate in everyday life — suggesting that fear of speech worsening should not be a primary reason to avoid this treatment.
Day Two
The VideoCast recording of the second day of the May 2026 NABMRR meeting is available https://videocast.nih.gov/watch/8b6b66c6-294a-11f1-82c0-124f0a52e769 . Use the time stamps (in parentheses) in this report to navigate the recording.
Medical Rehabilitation Resource Centers (00:54)
Dr. Joe Bonner presented on the Medical Rehabilitation Resource Centers. This long-standing NCMRR program is co-funded by NINDS, NIBIB, NIDCD, and NCCIH in addition to NICHD. The goal of this initiative is to enhance research capability in medical rehabilitation to understand mechanisms of functional recovery, develop therapeutic strategies, identify clinical care gaps, and improve the lives of people with disabilities.
The current centers include two (Stanford and South Carolina) that were previously part of the program, plus 4 new centers. There is a healthy amount of turnover in this highly competitive program, with many sites interested in participating. Each center has its own research project(s) and cores that support those projects. All centers have some resources available to the research community. For example, there are pilot projects within the center’s administrative core ($35K of funding for early state investigators or folks entering a new field). Each center is required to host at least one workshop (some host multiple), virtual or in person. Centers also provide resources and consultative services of various types (data, consulting on methods).
Dr. Zackowski asked Dr. Bonner how program staff plan to monitor the centers over time and make sure they are making sufficient progress and meeting expectations. Dr. Bonner stated that there will be monitoring of traditional research metrics for the research projects and measures of use of center resources. He added that there are quarterly review meetings with all the ICs that co-fund the centers. Dr. Zackowski asked about involving individuals outside center institutions, and Dr. Bonner said that NIH staff will help make connections, and the pilot projects are another way to develop new collaborations.
Pragmatic Rehabilitation Research in Rural Settings: Collaboratory Trials from the NIH CARE for Health Initiative (33:45)
Dr. Julie Fritz from the University of Utah and Dr. Sebastian Tong from the University of Washington, collaborators on the rural rehabilitation primary care practice-based research network, presented on their work in rural areas.
Drs. Fritz and Tong described challenges in rural communities, and discussed that rurality can be difficult to measure and assess. Drs. Fitz and Tong agreed that it is especially important to engage people with lived experience in research, and to think about more than just creating access – although that is important, we should not stop at that point or we will create suboptimal solutions.
Dr. Fitz related that their collaborative BeatPain study is funded by HEAL and based at the University of Utah, in partnership with federally qualified health centers throughout the state. Creating a partnership model has been essential to building trust and creating successful projects.
Dr. Tong stated that rural residents tend to be underrepresented in clinical trials, and it has been somewhat harder at every stage of the process (contact, engagement, enrollment, retention) to engage rural residents in clinical research. Dr. Fitz emphasized that it was crucial to be attentive to making sure the researchers were capturing a representative sample of the people who are receiving care in those clinics. According to the researchers, the lessons learned included:
- It is critical to engage individuals with lived experience into research activity at all stages;
- Building trust rapidly with new partners is difficult but essential;
- Referral requirements must be interoperable – each clinic does things its own way, and researchers must accommodate the variation;
- Regulatory requirements were a challenge. Meeting these requirements took time from the clinical partners and they had very little time to give. The clinical partners needed longer timeline, greater lead time, and they wanted to join studies in earlier phases.
Dr. Nitkin pointed out that self-selection bias can be an issue in addressing the needs of rural residents because they may bring different attitudes or characteristics to the research. He asked how that issue figured into research designs. Dr. Fitz replied that their team did observe these factors (individualism, self management, independence), along with access to healthy food and lifestyles. Dr. Tong stressed the need to make the research localized. He said it was important, for example, to brand the study in association with the local clinic and not the urban university. Dr. Bonner asked the presenters to describe additional challenges. Dr. Fitz said that the COVID-19 pandemic was certainly one. Flexibility is critical, she explained, because there will always be more changes that come along. Staffing changes happen, for example, and sometimes the capacity just isn’t there. The electronic health record support and IT support are critical. Dr. Fitz stated that the EHR systems in rural areas are often less sophisticated compared with those in academic medical centers. Dr. Fitz emphasized that the core research question absolutely has to be of value to the partnering clinic. The researchers that tell clinics what ought to be important to them will fail. To be successful, researchers have to take things off the plate of the clinics and not put things on. She stressed that many clinicians are not interested in knowledge generation only for the sake of knowledge. Dr. Tong indicated that scientists need to balance the rigor research needs with the flexibilities communities need. You can’t impose your own very strict protocols on their settings, he stated. Furthermore, he related that if clinic providers have one bad research experience, the clinic will walk away and will not come back to do another research study. Dr. Tong also related that sometimes clinicians choose to join studies on the topics they are passionate about and they are not going to be objective. This can create a problem if the study does not wind up with a positive result and the clinic wants to continue the intervention.
Dr. Nitkin asked about research outcomes, and Dr. Tong stated that it is important to address the outcomes that matter in the community, which in some cases could be a secondary outcome. Dr. Fitz advocated to ground the research study more in implementation questions, that is, ask how we should do it, not whether or not we do it. In her experience, clinics are often more interested in implementation outcomes than in health outcomes.
Dr. Zackowski asked about how researchers communicate the results of studies. Dr. Tong answered that they hold both provider meetings and a community forum or webinar. Dr. Cooper asked the presenters to elaborate on regulatory barriers. Dr. Tong related that his experience was that some of the challenges were with understanding which Institutional Review Board (IRB) is in change, and how reliance on a single IRB is interpreted. For example, one federally qualified health center was also affiliated with a university, and they couldn’t understand which IRB was controlling. Dr. Tong said that ongoing conversations with IRBs are needed. Dr. Fitz pointed out that some of this problem is inherent to pragmatic research generally.
Bioengineering Supports for Motor Function Following Upper-Limb Amputation (1:33:46)
Dr. Zackowski introduced Dr. Lewis Wheaton from Georgia Tech University. Dr. Wheaton related that very few clinical practice guidelines exist for the management of upper-limb amputation. There are few substantive clinical recommendations, and these tend to be supported by weak evidence. Dr. Wheaton stated that he and his collaborators are interested in looking at the rehabilitation of people with upper-limb loss, taking a neurorehabilitation perspective. Dr. Wheaton described new training approaches for people with upper-limb prosthetics, including a “matched limb” approach and training on the unimpaired as well as impaired side.
Dr. Wheaton also described the effects of what happens between training days. Dr. Wheaton advocated for research that uses sensors that are low profile but highly informative to measure how people are using devices and what errors happen outside of the research setting. Sensors can be sustainable, durable, and low cost. Dr. Wheaton reported that researchers can match the angle of bend of the prosthesis and measure resistance, and they can put the sensors on any type of prosthesis. However, more research is needed to see if the sensors are reliable and stable.
First, it is necessary to gather data on specific tasks and resting, then develop a model to disassociate passive wear/use from functional use, with a relatively high degree of accuracy. Ultimately, researchers would like to be able to see not only whether the prostheses are being worn, but also identify tasks where amputees have a challenge using the prosthesis. This would enable them to determine the best combination of training and biosensing to help people with limb loss (a) select their device and (b) get the most functionality out of the device. Currently, selection depends largely on insurance coverage and not on whether a device is effective. Moreover, training protocols are not very efficient even if the amputee is lucky enough to have the best device. Dr. Wheaton believes that a great deal more research needs to be done to expand the basic knowledge base so that clinicians can get the right prosthesis and the right training to the right person.
Dr. Yu reiterated that device selection for many people is very personal. Your prosthetic becomes an extension of you. She asked how to reimagine prosthesis so they can serve both functional and cultural/identity purposes. In her own rehabilitation experience, much of the focus was on how to make the unimpaired side do everything, rather than get the most function out of the prosthesis. She also stated that perhaps the rates of rejection are high because of how prosthetics look, especially when they are minimally helpful in restoring function. Dr. Wheaton stated that it was very apparent when his team started this work how important it was to get a handle on why people were hesitant to use prosthesis. Many people had visceral negative reactions to a prosthetic device because it didn’t look like a hand (a hook, e.g.). Some hooks can be very functional, but people may be reluctant to use it or may believe it will not work simply because of appearance. Dr. Wheaton said that it is important not to be overly prescriptive about what we have people do, because they can do more than we and they might think sometimes. He also pointed out that preferences vary, and some people may prefer something that doesn’t look like a hand/arm at all.
Dr. Zackowski stated that occupational therapists can be valuable on the research team for these types of questions. She asked if there are sex differences in device use. Dr. Lewis said that was an important question, but that different types of devices can make understanding this issue difficult. Dr. Zackowski asked if it is possible to distinguish when patients are focused on accuracy versus speed in their tasks. Dr. Lewis answered yes, but accuracy is most important to most people and typically accuracy needs to come before speed. Motor complexity slows you down but creates focus. As people gain experience, speed becomes more of a focus.
Dr. Cruz asked if it would be possible to use augmented reality while participants are waiting for the prosthetic. Dr. Lewis said perhaps yes, and he is looking into researching that question. Dr. Nitkin stated that engineers sometimes develop overly complex devices, which sometimes take a long time to learn. He asked whether intermediate devices sometimes make sense. Dr. Lewis stated that intermediate prostheses may not be truly intermediate – if an individual can do everything he or she needs and wants to do, they may not need the most high-tech super device; it may not be value added. Many engineered devices are best for people with highest level of limb loss. But if you have partial function, you have different challenges and different needs. Higher engineering isn’t necessarily always better.
Comments from Departing Members and Planning for the Next Meeting (2:32:05)
Dr. Nitkin introduced four Board members whose terms are near the end and invited them to make closing comments. He expressed appreciation for the work these members have done over the past several years. Dr. Keteyian stated that he appreciated being a member and found it inspiring. Dr. Tjaden also expressed appreciation and said she enjoyed the opportunity to bring communication disciplines to the Board and liked hearing perspectives she would not always be exposed to otherwise. Dr. Wheaton stated that NIH staff really care about the work of rehabilitation and care about supporting people. Dr. Zackowski said she would echo the comments of the others, and stated that the breadth of work shared at the Board has been exciting to hear.
Planning for the Next Meeting (2:43:00)
Dr. Nitkin asked for suggestions for topics for future meetings. Topics included:
- Implementation science and dissemination and implementation research
- Community based research
- Cost-effectiveness research
Dr. Nitkin closed the meeting, expressed appreciation, and reminded everyone that videocast would be available in a few weeks. He also thanked the tech support team especially for making the meeting possible and effective.
BACK TO TOP