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 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 2305

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (S1) ◽  
pp. 47-47
Author(s):  
Gayathri Devi ◽  
Ranjan Sudan ◽  
Stephanie Freel ◽  
Laura Fish
Keyword(s):  
Focus Groups ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Interdisciplinary Approach ◽  
Health Care Research ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Team Science ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Duke University ◽  
The Impact

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To improve translational research, we have developed a program called Duke Multidisciplinary Education and Research in Translational Sciences (Duke MERITS). Duke MERITS will facilitate cross-disciplinary collaboration among faculty involved in foundational, clinical and/or health care research and in turn also prepare them to train the next generation of translational researchers. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The program aims are (1) to define metrics and outcomes measures so faculty can track their progress and identify impact of their collaborative research in translational sciences; (2) to offer a multi-modal faculty development series to promote team science, improve didactic teaching, and incorporate innovative resources to promote interdisciplinary approach to translational research; (3) to provide module-based hands-on-training sessions in bench to bedside research and training in translational grant writing to facilitate the development of multidisciplinary research collaborations. The present study describes results from Aim 1 and includes (a) development of baseline outcome assessment tools necessary to gauge the impact of our programs on both the participating faculty and the research culture within Duke University, (b) impact of a specific course offering in Translational Medicine. In order to achieve this, we conducted multiple focus group sessions with faculty self-identified as junior-, mid-, or advanced-career, a mixed group at any career level and included a group of graduate students and postdoctoral trainees to study the impact of a graduate level course in Translational Aspects of Pathobiology. The activities during these translational science focus groups were designed to define what successful translational science is, to determine what resources support translational Science at Duke, and to decide what resources we need in order to enhance Duke’s position as a leader in research and scientific education. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We identified that translational science is changing standards while incorporating leadership, teamwork, collaborations, and movement primarily focusing on the overall goal of improving all aspects of health. Participants categorized their field of study and the fields of their coparticipants most frequently as basic discovery and a combination of intervention and health services. The most frequently identified pros/benefits of performing translational science at Duke include industry connections, collaborations with other departments resulting in disciplines being bridged, improving patient care, and access to resources as well as money. The most frequently identified cons/barriers of performing translational science includes the expensiveness, silos, and lack of resources willing to absorb risks. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The identification of these defined factors from the focus groups has allowed us to issue a comprehensive, sliding Likert scale-based anonymous survey from the secure RedCap system and is being rolled out throughout Duke University, including schools of medicine, nursing, Trinity, biomedical engineering. We envision that Duke MERITS education program will facilitate interprofessional efforts, which we define as a team science approach to identify the clinical “roadblock” and then seek an innovative approach or technology to help overcome this “roadblock”? It can facilitate institutional and departmental recognition in faculty career development. The common goal is to gain fundamental new insights that will result in significant improvement of the existing “standard of care” and meet the challenges of dwindling extramural support.

scholarly journals Using bibliometrics to evaluate translational science training: evidence for early career success of KL2 scholars

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Kelli Qua ◽  
Clara M. Pelfrey
Keyword(s):  
Early Stage ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Grant Funding ◽  
Federal Grant ◽  
Point Analysis ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Science Training ◽  
Selection Of ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

Abstract Introduction: Evaluating clinical and translational research (CTR) mentored training programs is challenging because no two programs are alike. Careful selection of appropriate metrics is required to make valid comparisons between individuals and between programs. The KL2 program provides mentored-training for early-stage CTR investigators. Clinical and Translational Awards across the country have unique KL2 programs. The evaluation of KL2 programs has begun to incorporate bibliometrics to measure KL2 scholar and program impact. Methods: This study investigated demographic differences in bibliometric performance and post-K award funding of KL2 scholars and compared the bibliometric performance and post-K award federal funding of KL2 scholars and other mentored-K awardees at the same institution. Data for this study included SciVal and iCite bibliometrics and National Institutions of Health RePORTER grant information for mentored-K awardees (K08, K23, and KL2) at Case Western Reserve University between 2005 and 2013. Results: Results showed no demographics differences within the KL2 program scholars. Bibliometric differences between KL2 and other mentored-K awardee indicated an initial KL2 advantage for the number of publications at 5 years’ post-matriculation (i.e., the start of the K award). Regression analyses indicated the number of initial publications was a significant predictor of federal grant funding at the same time point. Analysis beyond the 5-year post-matriculation point did not result in a sustained, significant KL2 advantage. Conclusions: Factors that contributed to the grant funding advantage need to be determined. Additionally, differences between translational and clinical bibliometrics must be interpreted with caution, and appropriate metrics for translational science must be established.

scholarly journals Reengineering the National Clinical and Translational Research Enterprise: The Strategic Plan of the National Clinical and Translational Science Awards Consortium

2010 ◽  
Vol 85 (3) ◽  
pp. 463-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven E. Reis ◽  
Lars Berglund ◽  
Gordon R. Bernard ◽  
Robert M. Califf ◽  
Garret A. FitzGerald ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Translational Research ◽  
Strategic Plan ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

scholarly journals Feasibility of common bibliometrics in evaluating translational science

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Schneider ◽  
C. M. Kane ◽  
J. Rainwater ◽  
L. Guerrero ◽  
G. Tong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Combined Analysis ◽  
Shared Data ◽  
Thomson Reuters ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

IntroductionA pilot study by 6 Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) explored how bibliometrics can be used to assess research influence.MethodsEvaluators from 6 institutions shared data on publications (4202 total) they supported, and conducted a combined analysis with state-of-the-art tools. This paper presents selected results based on the tools from 2 widely used vendors for bibliometrics: Thomson Reuters and Elsevier.ResultsBoth vendors located a high percentage of publications within their proprietary databases (>90%) and provided similar but not equivalent bibliometrics for estimating productivity (number of publications) and influence (citation rates, percentage of papers in the top 10% of citations, observed citations relative to expected citations). A recently available bibliometric from the National Institutes of Health Office of Portfolio Analysis, examined after the initial analysis, showed tremendous potential for use in the CTSA context.ConclusionDespite challenges in making cross-CTSA comparisons, bibliometrics can enhance our understanding of the value of CTSA-supported clinical and translational research.

Aging researchers in early stages (ARIES): a model for career development collaboration of researchers in aging

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kei Ouchi ◽  
Shalender Bhasin ◽  
Ariela R. Orkaby
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Career Development ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Development Programs ◽  
Aging Research ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Early Stages ◽  
Future Leaders ◽  
The Many

Purpose Individuals over age 65 represent the fastest-growing segment of the population, yet they are also the least studied group and are most likely to be excluded from research most likely to apply to them. A significant reason for this deficit has been a dearth of scientists and clinicians to care for and study the many diseases that impact older adults. The purpose of this manuscript is to help early-stage clinician-scientists develop local forums fostering their career developments. Design/methodology/approach In this manuscript, the difficulties associated with raising new generations of researchers in aging and offer suggestions for how early-stage clinician-scientists can foster career development in aging are discussed. This paper draws upon a local example, ARIES, to explain how early-stage investigators can be brought together with the goal of creating a pipeline of future leaders in aging research. Findings The model may empower more early-stage clinicians to successfully pursue aging research. Originality/value The current success of aging researchers in the early stages serves as a model for creating similar career development programs designed for early-stage researchers in aging.

scholarly journals Building capacity for collaborative research on opioid and other substance use disorders through the Clinical and Translational Science Award Program

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 81-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda B. Cottler ◽  
Alan I. Green ◽  
Harold Alan Pincus ◽  
Scott McIntosh ◽  
Jennifer L. Humensky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Data Science ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Timely Response ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Science Community ◽  
Landscape Survey ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

AbstractThe opioid crisis in the USA requires immediate action through clinical and translational research. Already built network infrastructure through funding by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) provides a major advantage to implement opioid-focused research which together could address this crisis. NIDA supports training grants and clinical trial networks; NCATS funds the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program with over 50 NCATS academic research hubs for regional clinical and translational research. Together, there is unique capacity for clinical research, bioinformatics, data science, community engagement, regulatory science, institutional partnerships, training and career development, and other key translational elements. The CTSA hubs provide unprecedented and timely response to local, regional, and national health crises to address research gaps [Clinical and Translational Science Awards Program, Center for Leading Innovation and Collaboration, Synergy paper request for applications]. This paper describes opportunities for collaborative opioid research at CTSA hubs and NIDA–NCATS opportunities that build capacity for best practices as this crisis evolves. Results of a Landscape Survey (among 63 hubs) are provided with descriptions of best practices and ideas for collaborations, with research conducted by hubs also involved in premier NIDA initiatives. Such collaborations could provide a rapid response to the opioid epidemic while advancing science in multiple disciplinary areas.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document