scholarly journals 2531 Phase II award: Evaluation of outcomes in preparing independent researchers by continued mentoring and career development support (2006–2016)

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (S1) ◽  
pp. 59-59
Author(s):  
Maria T. San Martin ◽  
Ruth Rios ◽  
Barbara Segarra ◽  
Karen G. Martinez ◽  
Estela Estape ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Career Development ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Time Management ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Development Program ◽  
Semistructured Interview ◽  
Research Experience ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The Hispanic Clinical and Translational Education and Career Development program entails formal research training (Phase I) through an established post-doctoral Master of Science in Clinical and Translational Research. The most qualified graduates from Phase I compete to receive 1–2 years support for continued mentoring and career development (Phase II program) aiming to apply for a regular research grant or career award (K or R series). OBJECTIVE: This project aims to present an evaluation of the Phase II program and Scholars outcomes. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: METHODS: Participants (n=12) responded to a semistructured interview including 43 questions about program’s processes and outcomes. Descriptive and content analysis was done. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: RESULTS: Results show that 83% are women, 42% are MD, and 67% are affiliated to the University of Puerto Rico-Medical Sciences Campus and 67% were able to fulfill their career development expectations during the Phase II Award. At present (92%) are conducting clinical research in their current position. Outcomes include new selection of research line, K Awards, and enhanced skills in clinical and translational research DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: DISCUSSION: Challenges identified were: time management, better coaching and a more structured mentoring experience. The main benefit of the program were protected time, research budget, and the opportunity to acquire more research experience.

scholarly journals Improving clinical and translational research training: a qualitative evaluation of the Atlanta Clinical and Translational Science Institute KL2-mentored research scholars program

2016 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dawn L Comeau ◽  
Cam Escoffery ◽  
Ariela Freedman ◽  
Thomas R Ziegler ◽  
Henry M Blumberg
Keyword(s):  
Career Development ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Minority Group ◽  
Junior Faculty ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Underrepresented Minority ◽  
Science Institute ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

A major impediment to improving the health of communities is the lack of qualified clinical and translational research (CTR) investigators. To address this workforce shortage, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) developed mechanisms to enhance the career development of CTR physician, PhD, and other doctoral junior faculty scientists including the CTR-focused K12 program and, subsequently, the KL2-mentored CTR career development program supported through the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs). Our evaluation explores the impact of the K12/KL2 program embedded within the Atlanta Clinical and Translational Science Institute (ACTSI), a consortium linking Emory University, Morehouse School of Medicine and the Georgia Institute of Technology. We conducted qualitative interviews with program participants to evaluate the impact of the program on career development and collected data on traditional metrics (number of grants, publications). 46 combined K12/KL2 scholars were supported between 2002 and 2016. 30 (65%) of the 46 K12/KL2 scholars are women; 24 (52%) of the trainees are minorities, including 10 (22%) scholars who are members of an underrepresented minority group. Scholars reported increased research skills, strong mentorship experiences, and positive impact on their career trajectory. Among the 43 scholars who have completed the program, 39 (91%) remain engaged in CTR and received over $89 000 000 as principal investigators on federally funded awards. The K12/KL2 funding provided the training and protected time for successful career development of CTR scientists. These data highlight the need for continued support for CTR training programs for junior faculty.

scholarly journals 2292 Evaluating the impact of a K-award on clinical and translational research

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (S1) ◽  
pp. 55-55
Author(s):  
Elias M. Samuels ◽  
Thomas E. Perorazio ◽  
Ellen Champagne ◽  
Brenda Eakin
Keyword(s):  
Translational Research ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Research Experiences ◽  
Research Careers ◽  
Study Population ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research ◽  
Research Service

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Identify the impact of the provision of clinical and translational research training awards on investigators’ pursuit of clinical and translational research careers. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Propensity score matching and qualitative analysis/investigators receiving MICHR’s KL2 research training awards. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: While the evaluations of the impact of this service have shown participants find them to be valuable it is expected that participation in the workshop may be more beneficial to investigators with certain types of prior research experiences and who utilize more CTSA research support. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Because this evaluation of a research service incorporate data representing investigator’s receipt of different CTSA resources, the findings can be used to inform the ongoing coordination of these services in ways that optimize their impact on the production of clinical and translational research. There is an enduring need for evaluations of CTSA programs to account for investigators’ use of different constellations of research services in order to identify what combinations of services over time are most effective at fostering successful clinical and translational research careers.

scholarly journals KL2 mentored career development programs at clinical and translational science award hubs: Practices and outcomes

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine A. Sorkness ◽  
Linda Scholl ◽  
Alecia M. Fair ◽  
Jason G. Umans
Keyword(s):  
Career Development ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Development Programs ◽  
Graduate Degrees ◽  
Training Opportunities ◽  
Career Development Award ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

AbstractIntroduction:NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) include KL2 mentored career development awards for faculty commencing clinical and translational research. A survey of KL2 leaders revealed program practices, curricular elements and compelling data about scholar characteristics and outcomes.Methods:We conducted a literature review, framed the survey construct, and obtained input from across the CTSA consortium. A REDCap survey was emailed in fall 2016 to 61 active programs.Results:Fifty-five programs (90.2%) responded. Respondents had been funded from 3 to 11 years, including 22 “mature” hubs funded for ≥8 years. Program cohort sizes were 56% “small”, 22% “medium”, and 22% “large.” Hubs offer extensive competency-aligned training opportunities relevant to clinical and translational research, including graduate degrees, mentorship, and grant-writing. Seventy-two percent of hubs report parallel “KL2-equivalent” career development programs. All hubs share their training and facilitate intermingling with other early stage investigators. A total of 1,517 KL2 scholars were funded. KL2 awardees are diverse in their disciplines, research projects, and representation; 54% are female and 12% self-identified as underrepresented in biomedical research. Eighty-seven percent of scholars have 2–3 mentors and are currently supported for 2–3 years. Seventy-eight percent of alumni remain at CTSA institutions in translational science. The most common form of NIH support following scholars’ KL2 award is an individual career development award.Conclusions:The KL2 is a unique career development award, shaped by competency-aligned training opportunities and interdisciplinary mentorship that inform translational research pathways. Tracking both traditional and novel outcomes of KL2 scholars is essential to capture their career trajectories and impact on health.

Impact of advanced clinical and translational research educational programs on oncology specialties and career development.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11026-11026
Author(s):  
Aron Simkins ◽  
Michael Lee ◽  
Wencesley A. Paez ◽  
Cecilia Arana Yi ◽  
Heidi E. Kosiorek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Career Development ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Research Productivity ◽  
Return On Investment ◽  
Career Advancement ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

11026 Background: The Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program currently supports more than 50 leading medical research institutions in the U.S. with the aims of training, promoting and developing future translational science researchers, with particular emphasis on advanced Clinical and Translational Research (CTR) education. No prior studies have evaluated career development in oncologists who have completed CTR training. The objective of this study is to examine the impact of advanced CTR training on career development, return-on-investment and research productivity in Oncology specialties. Methods: With IRB approval, we conducted a survey study of U.S.-based Hematology/Oncology (H/O), Radiation Oncology (RO), and Surgical Oncology (SO) members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology who completed CTR training. Data was anonymized and collected through Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). Outcomes were compared using Chi-square test for frequency data. Results: We received 225 survey responses (62.1% H/O, 23.3% RO, 13.2% SO, 1.4% others). About 28.4% (n = 64) of the respondents had a PhD or Master's degree in CTR (Group A) compared to 71.6% (n = 161) with graduate certificates or non-degree granting courses in CTR (Group B). Specialty ratio was equally distributed between both groups. Overall, 79.7% vs 57.5%; P < 0.001 of respondents worked in academia, of which 55.2% had tenure track positions. Over 49 different CTSA Programs throughout the U.S. were represented. In terms of impact with new research projects, the ability to secure funding and opportunities for multidisciplinary collaboration, satisfaction with CTR training was higher among Group A compared with Group B (P < 0.001; P < 0.01; P < 0.01 respectively). In terms of research output, higher satisfaction was seen in Group A (67.2% vs 47.4%; P < 0.01), however total publications per year were not statistically significant (P = 0.135). Usefulness of a CTR degree on career advancement, a difference of 50.0% vs 19.1%; P < 0.001 was noted. Similarly, usefulness regarding new job opportunities and return-on-investment also favored Group A (P < 0.001). Overall satisfaction with training was significantly higher in Group A (73.4% vs 48.7%; P = 0.004). Conclusions: This study is the first to report satisfaction ratings for CTR training among oncology specialties. Although no significant difference was observed in terms of publication output, those with higher levels of advanced degrees were more satisfied with their CTR training, and viewed it as more impactful to career advancement and research productivity. The evidence presented is useful for informing career development for oncology residents and fellows offered CTR degrees during their training.

scholarly journals NIH Grant Awards as a Metric of Clinical and Translational Research Training Effectiveness

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline M. Knapke ◽  
Erin N. Haynes ◽  
Pierce Kuhnell ◽  
Joel Tsevat
Keyword(s):  
Translational Research ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Training Effectiveness ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

scholarly journals Organizational Infrastructure in the Collegiate Athletic Training Setting, Part I: Quality-of-Life Comparisons and Commonalities Among the Models

2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie M. Mazerolle ◽  
Christianne M. Eason ◽  
Ashley Goodman
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Time Management ◽  
Quantitative Data ◽  
Athletic Trainers ◽  
Work Life ◽  
Life Balance ◽  
Organizational Infrastructure

Context: Some anecdotal evidence has suggested that organizational infrastructure may affect the quality of life of athletic trainers (ATs). Objective: To compare ATs' perspectives on work-life balance, role strain, job satisfaction, and retention in collegiate practice settings within the various models. Design: Cross-sectional and qualitative study. Setting: National Collegiate Athletic Association Divisions I, II, and III. Patients or Other Participants: Fifty-nine ATs from 3 models (athletics = 25, medical = 20, academic = 14) completed phase I. A total of 24 ATs (15 men, 9 women), 8 from each model, also completed phase II. Data Collection and Analysis: Participants completed a Web-based survey for phase I and were interviewed via telephone for phase II. Quantitative data were analyzed using statistical software. Likert-scale answers (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) to the survey questions were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, and Cohen f tests. Qualitative data were evaluated using a general inductive approach. Multiple-analyst triangulation and peer review were conducted to satisfy data credibility. Results: Commonalities were communication, social support, and time management and effective work-life balance strategies. Quantitative data revealed that ATs employed in the athletics model worked more hours (69.6 ± 11.8 hours) than those employed in the medical (57.6 ± 10.2 hours; P = .001) or academic (59.5 ± 9.5 hours; P = .02) model, were less satisfied with their pay (2.68 ± 1.1; χ2 = 7.757, P = .02; f = 0.394), believed that they had less support from their administrators (3.12 ± 1.1; χ2 = 9.512, P = .009; f = 0.443), and had fewer plans to remain in their current positions (3.20 ± 1.2; χ2 = 7.134, P = .03; f = 0.374). Athletic trainers employed in the academic model believed that they had less support from coworkers (3.71 ± 0.90; χ2 = 6.825, P = .03; f = 0.365) and immediate supervisors (3.43 ± 0.90; χ2 = 6.006, P = .050; f = 0.340). No differences in role conflict were found among the models. Conclusions: Organizational infrastructure may play a role in mediating various sources of conflict, but regardless of facilitators, ATs need to be effective communicators, have support networks in place, and possess time-management skills.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document