Mamadou Sy is a trained physician and third-year PhD candidate at the George Mason University College of Public Health. His achievements include award-winning initiatives for advancing community-based wellness and social cohesion in.

Email: [email protected] | LinkedIn

Q: What program are you currently in and what is your dissertation about?

A: “I am currently completing a PhD in Public Health at George Mason University, with a concentration in Health Behavior and Society. My dissertation examines obesity treatment outcomes in the GLP-1 era through a multilevel equity lens.

More specifically, my work looks at how neighborhood deprivation, healthcare engagement, and behavioral strategies shape weight-loss outcomes among adults with obesity and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease, or MASLD. With the rapid expansion of GLP-1 medications, we have entered a new era in obesity treatment. However, my research is grounded in the belief that medication alone does not erase the social and structural conditions that shape health. Where people live, how they access care, whether they can remain engaged with treatment, and what behavioral support is available all matter.

Through my dissertation, I hope to better understand how emerging obesity treatments work in real-world settings and whether their benefits are equitably distributed across different social and neighborhood contexts.”

Q: April is National Minority Month. Can you share a moment from your academic training so far that has shaped how you center equity in your own research?  

A: “One moment that shaped how I think about equity in research came from my early work using data from the Look AHEAD trial, one of the largest weight-loss trials examining the effects of intensive lifestyle intervention on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Because of my interest in social determinants of health, I used participants’ ZIP codes to examine whether the effectiveness of the lifestyle intervention differed by neighborhood deprivation. My expectation was that neighborhood context would matter. I thought that factors such as food access, safe spaces for physical activity, transportation, and other environmental conditions might affect whether participants could benefit from a lifestyle intervention.

But the results were not what I expected. I did not find meaningful differences by neighborhood deprivation. At first, that surprised me. But when I looked more closely at the study population, I realized something important: although I could statistically define different levels of neighborhood deprivation, the overall sample was still highly educated and relatively socioeconomically advantaged. In other words, the trial included women and racial and ethnic minority participants, but it still did not fully represent the communities most affected by obesity and related chronic diseases.

That experience changed how I think about representation. It taught me that diversity in research cannot stop at race, ethnicity, or sex. Socioeconomic representation matters too. If the people who face the greatest structural barriers are systematically excluded from long-term trials because of transportation issues, work schedules, caregiving responsibilities, mistrust, or rigid study requirements, then our findings may not reflect the realities of the people most affected by the conditions we study.

For me, centering equity means asking not only, “Who is included?” but also, “Who is missing, and why?” It also means designing studies in ways that reduce barriers to participation—whether through transportation support, flexible scheduling, community partnerships, trust-building, or returning results in ways that are meaningful to participants. Chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, and hypertension disproportionately affect communities facing socioeconomic disadvantage. Our research should be designed so that those communities are not only represented, but genuinely included.”

Q: As a black scholar working in public health, how do you define concepts like “health  equity tourism” and what do you believe responsible, community-engaged research should look like in practice?

A: “The term “health equity tourism” was new to me when I first saw this question, but the concept immediately resonated. I found out that it is the practice of investigators without prior experience or sustained commitment to health equity research “parachuting” into the field, often in response to funding opportunities or public attention, without the necessary grounding, accountability, or long-term investment.

To me, health equity tourism happens when equity becomes a label rather than a commitment. It is when researchers use the language of justice, disparity, or community engagement without doing the deeper work of building relationships, sharing power, understanding history, or giving back to the communities from whom data are collected.

Responsible community-engaged research should be done by, with, and for communities. That means communities should not only be recruited as participants, but engaged as partners in shaping the research questions, interpreting findings, and deciding how results are shared and used. It also means researchers are members of the communities, and have to be transparent about who they are, what they stand for, what the research can and cannot do, and what will happen after the data are collected.

As researchers, we often ask people deeply personal questions about their income, health, relationships, behaviors, identities, and lived experiences. If we expect that level of openness from participants, then we also have a responsibility to practice transparency and humility ourselves. We should not hide only behind our titles— PhD, MD, MPH, investigator — while asking communities to be vulnerable with us.

Another important part of responsible research is returning findings to the communities that made the work possible. Publications and conference presentations matter, but they are not enough. Many community members will never read a journal article, and even if they do, the format may not be useful to them. We should share findings in accessible ways, through community meetings, briefs, conversations, visuals, workshops, or other formats that communities can actually use.

I do not believe in research for the sake of research. I believe research should move something. It should clarify a problem, support action, strengthen communities, or challenge systems that produce inequity. That requires time, trust, humility, and accountability.”

Q: How has your approach to community engagement or qualitative research evolved during your doctoral training?

A: “My approach to community engagement has evolved by helping me name and deepen ideas that I already felt from my clinical background. Before entering public health, I trained and practiced as a physician. Clinical work taught me that trust is not optional. If people do not trust the healthcare system, the researcher, or the clinician, they may not come back, they may not share what is really happening, and they may not feel that the work is meant for them.

During my doctoral training, I have come to see community engagement not just as a method, but as a stance. It is about how we position ourselves in relation to the people and communities we study. I have become more aware of the importance of not seeing myself as outside of the community, coming in only to collect data, but as someone who is accountable to the communities connected to my work.

My training has also challenged the idea of complete neutrality. Of course, as researchers, we must not manipulate data to confirm what we want to believe. We have an obligation to be rigorous, transparent, and honest. But I also do not believe that researchers are blank slates. Our backgrounds, values, identities, and experiences influence the questions we ask, the frameworks we choose, and the way we interpret findings.

For me, the answer is not to pretend that we have no standpoint. The answer is reflexivity—being honest about what we bring to the work, what we care about, and what our limitations are. It is also important to be transparent with communities about what research can do and what it cannot do. Researchers should not present themselves as saviors. We do not have that kind of power. But we also should not use institutional constraints as an excuse to avoid change. Even within academic systems, we can choose to build more respectful, transparent, and accountable research practices.”

Q: As you think about your next steps after completing your PhD, what do you hope to achieve or contribute to the field of public health?

A: “After completing my PhD, I hope to contribute to a public health field that takes representation seriously—not only racial, ethnic, and gender representation, but also socioeconomic representation. Over time, research policies and expectations have changed to improve the inclusion of women and racial and ethnic minority groups in clinical studies. That progress matters. But I believe we need to go further.

Socioeconomic status shapes health in profound ways. As a Black scholar, I recognize that my experiences may overlap with, but are not identical to, those of Black individuals living in highly deprived communities. Race matters, but race does not erase differences in income, education, housing, neighborhood conditions, transportation access, or healthcare access. If we want research to be meaningful for the populations most affected by chronic diseases, then we need to ensure that people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are not left out of the evidence base.

I hope to be involved in studies that do more than acknowledge mistrust or underrepresentation. I want to help design research that actively reduces barriers to participation, builds long-term relationships, and creates conditions where communities that have been historically excluded can see value in participating.

I also want to help ensure that public health remains public. By that, I mean that our work should not live only in academic journals, conference rooms, or statistical models. We have a responsibility to communicate findings in ways that are accessible to the broader public. I see myself continuing to write, teach, mentor, and develop ways to translate scientific findings into language and tools that communities can use. I want my work to help move public health closer to its purpose: not only documenting inequities, but contributing to the conditions that allow people and communities to live healthier, more dignified lives.”