About

Chelsea Modlin, MD, is an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and a faculty member at the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. Her research centers on the intersection of global health ethics and infectious diseases, with particular focus on equity in clinical trial design and fairness within international research collaborations. She also has an interest in the clinical ethics of antimicrobial resistance and stewardship. Prior to her current position, Dr. Modlin was a clinical fellow in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and completed the J. Willis Hurst Internal Medicine Residency Program at Emory University, where she received distinctions in Global Health and Leadership in Teaching and Education. She was also a Hecht-Levi Fellow focusing on Ethics and Infectious Diseases, jointly appointed at the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University and the Wellcome Center for Ethics and Humanities at the University of Oxford.

Research topics

• Pathology
• Medicine
• Surgery
• Family medicine
• Intensive care medicine

Selected publications

• P-1578. Designing a collaboration tool for equitable international HIV research: the Uganda-US experience

  Open Forum Infectious Diseases · 2026-01-01

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  Abstract Background Prioritizing mutually beneficial inputs, processes, outputs and impact between partners within international research partnerships (IRPs) is an ethical imperative to achieve meaningful scientific aims. The goal of this project is to capture themes and topics from the Uganda-US HIV IRP experience to include in the design of a tool to assist partnerships in addressing research inequities.Figure 1.Example of survey output demonstrating differences between Ugandan and US respondents.Answers to questions were six single-choice Likert responses ranging from 'Strongly Agree' to 'Strongly Disagree' with one neutral response and one 'unknown/unsure' response option. Methods Exploratory quantitative (survey) to qualitative (in depth interviews) mixed-method design among Ugandan and US HIV researchers and research staff. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Interview transcripts were analyzed using exploratory and confirmatory thematic analysis. Results Eighty surveys and 16 interviews took place November 2024-April 2025. The figure demonstrates an example of survey output. Disagreement between Ugandan and US researchers involved the inclusion of less advantaged researchers and communities in priority setting, data analysis, and scientific interpretation, accessing academic mentorship, and a lack of US researcher appreciation for the context in which research in Uganda takes place. Responsibility for monitoring and improving these outcomes was distributed between researchers, research institutions, and research funders. Areas of agreement between Ugandan and US researchers included a highly developed scientific capacity within Uganda, funded most often through international efforts, but a lack of support for the administrative and infrastructure capacity needed to reach scientific independence. Accountability for this lack of development was attributed to policies within institutions and funders. Conclusion IRP processes identified as inequitable are often rooted in larger global health systems such as the influence funders and limitations around institutional and national scientific infrastructure. While these are challenging for researchers or IRPs to address, areas of discordance between Ugandan and US researchers, such as setting the research agenda, developing the science within a more informed understanding of Ugandan contexts, and increasing accessibility of mentorship and data analysis skills may be optimal targets for developing a collaboration tool for international research partnerships. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

  PublisherDOI

• Leveraging mHealth and Peers to Engage African-Americans and Latinxs in HIV Care (LEAN)

  Vivli · 2026-03-13

  datasetOpen accessSenior author

  This is a pragmatic randomized controlled study comparing existing linkage to care and retention (LTCR) services to an mHealth-enhanced linkage to care and retention (mLTCR) protocol.

  PublisherDOI

• Available datapackage for study 'Leveraging mHealth and Peers to Engage African-Americans and Latinxs in HIV Care (LEAN)'

  Vivli · 2026-03-13

  datasetOpen accessSenior author

  This is a pragmatic randomized controlled study comparing existing linkage to care and retention (LTCR) services to an mHealth-enhanced linkage to care and retention (mLTCR) protocol.

  PublisherDOI

• CARB Your Enthusiasm: An Ethics-Informed Analysis for Clinicians of the US National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria

  Clinical Infectious Diseases · 2025-08-30

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  The United States National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria provides strategic direction within the nation's interagency to mitigate antibiotic resistance. This commentary provides an ethics-informed analysis of this document's implications for clinical management of infectious diseases and antibiotic prescribing.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Impact of a Tailored Patient Support App on HIV Viral Suppression and Care Engagement: A Randomized, Controlled, Effectiveness-Implementation Trial

  2025-11-14

  report
  PublisherDOI

• A scoping review of equity toolkits for international academic partnerships

  International Journal for Equity in Health · 2025-10-14

  reviewOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  INTRODUCTION: When there are frank asymmetries in power, resources, and capacity efforts to advance academic collaboration are essential for the conduct of ethical partnership-based health research, education, and policymaking. Numerous toolkits are available that provide structured templates for academic partnerships and other key stakeholders to systematically evaluate and reflect on how their practices enhance or inhibit equity. However, there is no comparative analysis available to examine similarities and differences between the multitude of toolkits available. METHOD: We conducted a comprehensive scoping review of international partnership equity toolkits across the domains of global health research, education, and practice in four academic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and WHO Regional Indexes) and grey literature. The search took place June through August 2023. A primary search used broad keyword combinations followed by a secondary search of toolkit titles identified during the primary search. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews was followed. Key themes, motivations, development processes, application practices, and uses of these toolkits were examined by a combination of (1) templated extraction of data and (2) applying an inductive and iterative coding approach by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: Within the academic databases, 7580 abstracts were screened (7580 primary, 198 secondary), 120 documents underwent full-text review (112 primary, 8 secondary) and 27 articles (26 primary, 1 secondary) met inclusion criteria. Within the grey literature, 104 articles and webpages (40 primary, 64 secondary) met inclusion criteria. Seventeen toolkits were identified. The majority were geared toward evaluating research (n = 15) rather than education (n = 2) or practice (n = 0) partnerships. Toolkits covered a broad range of objectives, development methods, and target audiences. Twenty-three countries were represented in the creation of the toolkits; however, less than half (8/17, 47%) of toolkits had representation from low- or low/middle-income countries. We identified six broad categories within the toolkits - oversight, partnership dynamics, ethical foundation, contextual factors, partnership procedures and activities, and capacity. Under these, themes such as stakeholder engagement, communication, partnership outputs, clarification of roles and responsibilities, funding, and management of data or other products generated by the partnership were common. CONCLUSION: There was variability in the development, intended audience, and application methods of the toolkits, yet there was also substantial thematic content overlap. Limited information on the application or use of toolkits is available. To date, there is no data on whether these toolkits resulted in equity-oriented changes in partnership practices or policy.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Impact of a Tailored Patient Support Mobile App on Viral Suppression and Care Engagement among People Living with HIV: a Randomized Controlled Trial (Preprint)

  2025-08-10

  preprintOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  <sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> Disparities in HIV care persist and there is a need to evaluate scalable approaches to improving HIV care engagement and viral suppression in real-world settings. </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> To compare standard of care HIV linkage, adherence, and retention (LAR) clinic-based support services to a mobile health (mHealth)-enhanced linkage, adherence, and retention (mLAR) intervention and assess mLAR implementation. </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> Participants were enrolled from six Baltimore HIV clinics in an individual-level randomized controlled trial. Eligibility criteria included adults living with HIV who had a new HIV diagnosis, were out of care, or were deemed by clinic staff as someone who could benefit from LAR services. Participants in the control group received the referring clinic’s standard LAR services. Participants randomized to the intervention additionally received mHealth-supported patient navigation including an app platform that integrated HIV surveillance data from throughout Maryland. The primary outcome was HIV virologic suppression at 12 months. Participants with non-suppressed viral load or missing viral loads at 12 months (inclusive of a +/- 3-month window) were considered virologic failures. Secondary outcomes included loss to follow-up and mortality at 12 months. Implementation outcomes were assessed via in-depth interviews with participants and patient support staff. This study was implemented in collaboration with patients and stakeholders, including members of the Baltimore City Health Department, the Maryland Department of Health, patient navigators, HIV healthcare providers, and people living with HIV. Members of the Steering Committee provided guidance on the study design and implementation, app development, interpretation of results, and dissemination of findings. </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> A total of 451 participants (226 LAR control group and 225 mLAR intervention group) were randomized and 3 (1 LAR and 2 mLAR) withdrew consent before the study endpoint. Virologic suppression was 56.9% (95% CI 50.4%-63.4%, LAR) and 50.3% (95% CI 44.%-57.7%, mLAR) in the two arms [difference 5.8% (-3.4%-14.9%), p-value=0.22]. Sixty-six participants (29.3%) in the LAR arm and 71 (31.8%) in the mLAR arm were missing a viral load test at 12 months and were assumed to be not virologically suppressed. These results were similar when stratified by race, ethnicity and clinic site. In the LAR and mLAR arms, respectively, 28.9% (95% CI 22.9%-34.8%) and 31.8% (95% CI 25.7%-37.9%) of participants were lost to follow-up [difference -2.9% (-11.5%-5.6%), p-value=0.49] while all-cause mortality was 4.9% versus 4.0% [Pearson's chi-squared p&lt;0.662]. In-depth interviews revealed mixed perceptions of the app; some participants and patient navigators valued its usability, while others found it redundant with existing tools like electronic medical record portals and phone communication. </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> An app-based mobile health intervention for patients and patient supporters had no impact on virologic suppression, engagement in care, or mortality. In populations with complex socio-structural determinants of health, additional strategies are needed to improve HIV care outcomes. </sec> <sec> <title>CLINICALTRIAL</title> ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03934437 </sec>

  PublisherDOI

• How Should We Think About Clinicians’ Individual Antibiotic Stewardship Duties?

  The AMA Journal of Ethic · 2024-06-01 · 5 citations

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  The language of antibiotic stewardship is often used to capture the moral importance of individual prescribers doing their part to combat antibiotic resistance. "Stewardship" as an ethics concept borrows from collective action problems-those that cannot be solved by individuals only-like those discussed in the environmental ethics literature. This article suggests that hyper focus on stewardship, however, risks misunderstanding individual prescribers' reasons to limit antibiotic use.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Ethical priorities for international collaborative adaptive platform trials for public health emergencies

  BMJ Global Health · 2023-07-01 · 3 citations

  articleOpen access

  Rapidly produced evidence on effective medical counter measures is critical for responding to health emergencies caused by (re-)emerging infectious diseases.<br/><br/>Adaptive platform trials played a significant role in the global research response to COVID-19 and are likely to be increasingly used in the future, both in emergency and non-emergency contexts.<br/><br/>We call attention to a number of ethical considerations that should influence the development and future implementation of large-scale multicountry adaptive platform studies.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Towards achieving transnational research partnership equity: lessons from implementing adaptive platform trials in low- and middle-income countries

  Wellcome Open Research · 2023-12-06 · 9 citations

  preprintOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  Background: Use of adaptive clinical trials, particularly adaptive platform trials, has grown exponentially in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Implementation of these trials in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has been fostered through the formation or modification of transnational research partnerships, typically between research groups from LMICs and high-income countries (HICs). While these partnerships are important to promote collaboration and overcome the structural and economic disadvantages faced by LMIC health researchers, it is critical to focus attention on the multiple dimensions of partnership equity. Methods: Based on informal literature reviews and a meeting with leaders of one of the multinational COVID-19 adaptive platform trials, we describe some important considerations about research partnership equity in this context. Results: We organize these considerations into eight thematic categories: 1) epistemic structures, 2) funding, 3) ethics oversight, 4) regulatory oversight, 5) leadership, 6) post-trial access to interventions, data, and specimens, 7) knowledge translation and dissemination, and 8) research capacity strengthening and maintenance. Within each category we review normative claims that support its relevance to research partnership equity followed by discussion of how adaptive platform trials highlight new dimensions, considerations, or challenges. Conclusion: In aggregate, these observations provide insight into procedural and substantive equity-building measures within transnational global health research partnerships more broadly.

  PublisherDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Jeremy Sugarman

  19 shared

• Joseph Ali

  Johns Hopkins University

  13 shared

• Danica Rockney

  University of Michigan–Ann Arbor

  8 shared

• Nancy E. Kass

  Johns Hopkins University

  7 shared

• Winfred Nazziwa

  Uganda National Council for Science and Technology

  7 shared

• Russell R. Kempker

  Emory University

  6 shared

• Matthew DeCamp

  6 shared

• Michèle Barry

  Center for Innovation

  6 shared

Awards & honors

• Hecht-Levi Fellow focusing on Ethics and Infectious Diseases