OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To establish a conceptual framework to
develop a CTS-IDP with data analytics, and an e-Learning Faculty Development
Guide on best practices and use of the IDP over the CTS academic life-course.
METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: To accomplish our goal, we propose the
following methods: (1) an online survey, using a convenience sample of the 24
KL2 CTSA IDP Collaborative members (conducted in 2017), to assess perceived
needs for a universal CTS-IDP, current IDP practices, barriers to IDP use, and
to discern and align each CTSA Hub’s interests, expertise and
commitment to specific areas of the study; (2) A scoping narrative literature
review, utilizing the Arksey and O’Malley framework covering the time
period corresponding to the initiation of funding (1999) of the original K30
Clinical Research Curriculum Awards through to the present CTSA funding period,
incorporating Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) keywords (career development;
career development plan; employee plan; mentoring plans; compacts; research
contracts; career planning; mentor guide), initially delineated by USC reference
librarian and to be expanded by reference librarian services from the Icahn
School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and University of Rochester, and performed on
NIH searchable databases including NCBI PubMed, Central and Medline &
Worldwide Science; Web of Science, ProQuest, ProQuest Abi/Inform,
Google Scholar, Cochrane, Ovid MEDLINE databases, as well as Google for
published papers in English and Spanish. For this portion of the work, we will
describe and characterize (1) research career development or progression
constructs, domains, and milestones; (2) establish the presence or absence of
defined and/or pre-specified timed milestone objectives and inclusion
of SWOT analytics (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats)
and/or Gantt chart approaches; (3) delineate IDPs structure, toolkits
and their key features (competencies, skills acquisition and processes
utilized); (4) and identify specific gaps to best address the need for
personalized career development education. Based on this review, we will
synthesize CTS milestones, develop a time frame for meeting RCD expectations,
and establish RCD benchmarks for achieving these milestones, all in consensus
with the IDP Collaborative Workgroup. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS:
Seventy-seven percent of the IDP CTSA’s responded to the online
survey, led by University of Rochester, and the results can be summarized as
follows: (1) 100% agreed that the IDP process is important and should
be considerably improved to optimize effectiveness; (2) a range of diverse IDP
formats are utilized, making comparisons across programs difficult; (3)
50% of CTSA hubs report only fair to good compliance with the IDP
process; (4) a major barrier to the IDP process is lack of instruction regarding
how best to utilize; (5) poor alignment of currently available IDPs designed for
basic science PhDs with CTS investigators; (6) an absence of a CTS specific IDP
to best foster RCD for this specific career trajectory. When asked: What are the
barriers to writing a detailed and thoughtful IDP, responses in order of
agreement from greatest to least were: No verification of acquired competencies,
beyond self-report (56%), Static platform (38%), Not
constructed for clinical and translational researcher (31%), No
analytical or documentation on use (31%), No instruction given to
scholars on how to use it effectively and efficiently (31%), The IDP
we are using is more constructed for PhD students and postdoctoral fellows
(25%), No instruction given to the scholars on why it is important as
adult learners (19%), and Not constructed for early career
physicians/scientist (13%). Additional progress has been
made on our Scoping review: An initial ABI/Inform and PubMed USC
research librarian conducted search using Author names yielded 72 articles, of
which only 2 were relevant to the topic at hand. A ProQuest™ search
yielded 19 potentially relevant articles, 11 of which were of relevance to the
topic of IDPs; and a Google Scholar search yielded 18 and 25 on career
development and self-management, respectively. This has enabled us to put forth
an initial model of factors that impact the purpose and design of IDPs that
includes? DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Discussion: Our initial
data suggests that many CTSA institutions see the need to further enhance the
mentoring process with a more informed and personalized IDP template and
process. Furthermore, our initial scoping review suggests a framework upon which
to build specific components of a more ideal and useful IDP to best guide
mentored research career development of CTS trainees. Significance: Developing
and evaluating collaborative evidence-based CTS IDP and corresponding e-Learning
Guide could potentially prevent or reduce important delays in RCD, a common
roadblock for the translation of clinical interventions. Ultimately, the CTS-IDP
serves not only to support and frame a scholar’s RCD
“habits of mind” during training and early career
development but to also to achieve a sustainable long-term career at a CTS
researcher equipped to meet the ever challenging and dynamic research
landscape.
A Systematic Scoping Review on Portfolios of Medical Educators
