scholarly journals Independent investigator incubator (I3): a comprehensive mentorship program to jumpstart productive research careers for junior faculty

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
John Paul Spence ◽  
Jennifer L. Buddenbaum ◽  
Paula J. Bice ◽  
Julie L. Welch ◽  
Aaron E. Carroll
2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (s1) ◽  
pp. 67-68
Author(s):  
Stephanie A. Freel ◽  
Michael Gunn ◽  
Andrew Alspaugh ◽  
Gowthami Arepally ◽  
Gerard Blobe ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: 1.Identify barriers to pursuing research for physician trainees 2.Develop a sustainable pipeline of physician-scientists at Duke 3.Coordinate physician-scientist development programs across the School of Medicine under one central Office 4.Provide infrastructure and resources for all physician-scientists 5.Increase the number of MDs and MD/PhDs who pursue, succeed, and are retained in research METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: To establish a baseline understanding of the needs and concerns of physician-scientist trainees at Duke, we conducted focus groups using a standardized interview guide and thematic analysis. Findings from these focus groups were used to develop a framework for support, leading to the creation of the Office of Physician-Scientist Development (OPSD) housed centrally within the Duke School of Medicine. The OPSD integrates programs and resources for multiple populations including medical students, residents, fellows, junior faculty, and faculty mentors. Pipeline programs will also be developed to enhance research engagement in targeted student populations prior to medical school. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A total of 45 students and faculty participated in the focus groups and structured interviews (1st year medical student, n=11; 4th year medical students, n=11; residents/fellows, n=13; junior faculty, n=11). While participants raised a number of specific issues, one key message emerged: non-PhD MDs in basic research felt they lacked opportunities for directed training. Moreover, they felt the need to teach themselves many critical skills through trial and error. This has led to perceptions that they cannot compete effectively with PhDs and MD-PhD scientists for research funding and positions. Consensus recommendations included: better guidance in choosing mentors, labs, and projects; central resource for information relevant to physician scientists; training specifically tailored to physician scientists conducting laboratory-based research; improved infrastructure and well-defined training pathways; and assistance with grant preparation. To-date, over 90 students, residents, and fellows have been identified who identify as laboratory-based physician scientists. Additional efforts are underway to identify and characterize the broader range of physician-scientist students and trainees at Duke. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Our planning study revealed specific steps forward toward developing a robust community of physician-scientists at Duke. As a first step, the Dean of the School of Medicine has appointed an Associate Dean of Physician-Scientist Development to oversee a new Office of Physician-Scientist Development (OPSD) being launched in December of 2018. The OPSD will offer four primary programs. 1) A concierge mentoring program will assist new trainees in identifying research areas of interest and mentors. Trainees will receive periodic contact to provide additional support as needed and promote success. 2) A physician-scientist training program is being created to provide training specific to laboratory research skills as well as career and professional development training to complement existing clinical and translational research programs. 3) Integrated training pathways will provide additional mentored research training for those pursuing research careers. Pathways will capitalize on existing resources from R38 programs, while pursuing additional R38 and R25 support. 4) An MD-Scientist funding program has been developed to provide additional research funding and protected time for students pursuing a second research year. Through the support and programming offered by the OPSD, we anticipate decreased perceptions of barriers to pursuing a physician-scientist career and increased satisfaction with training opportunities. Over time, we expect such support to increase the number of MD students pursuing research as a career and the number of residents, fellows, and MD junior faculty remaining in research careers.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (05/06) ◽  
pp. 257-264
Author(s):  
Susan Nasab ◽  
John S. Rushing ◽  
James H. Segars ◽  
Emily Evers ◽  
Victoria L. Handa ◽  
...  

AbstractThis article aims to evaluate the impact of a mentorship program to enhance the training of clinical and research scientists in obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN). A departmental course was developed for junior faculty and fellows based on their areas of interest. The research was IRB-approved. The curriculum consisted of monthly interactive workshops for an interdisciplinary group of trainees in OBGYN. Themes included research, education, and leadership in academic OBGYN. There was a strong emphasis on participatory exercises. Examples of curriculum topics included manuscript publication and review, grant writing, working with an IRB, promotion, and time management. Pre- and post-course questionnaires assessed participants' confidence in skills related to the course topics. Generalized linear models were used to assess changes in post-course response, using each question as the dependent variable and an indicator for post-course as the predictor variable. The control group was composed of junior faculty and fellows before the course was initiated. Outcome measures included the number and impact factor of published manuscripts. A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to assess outcome measures. Of the 118 attendees, 26 (22.0%) were junior faculty, 35 (29.66%) were clinical fellows, and 28 (23.7%) were research fellows, other research staff, or students. For each 3-year course series, an average of 20 participants completed the post-course surveys, of which 72% were clinical fellows, 22% were assistant professors, and 5% were instructors. The data revealed a statistically significant change in the participant's overall confidence in skills related to research, education, and leadership when comparing the cumulative results from the pre-to-post course surveys (p < 0.001). Specifically, participants noted improved confidence in their skills related to clinical and translation research (p < 0.001) and leadership and academic career advancement (p = 0.001). Additionally, junior faculty and clinical fellows who attended the course had a higher number of publications during the course period compared with controls (p = 0.003 and p = 0.008, respectively). This subspecialty-tailored, departmental training program was effective in increasing junior faculty and clinical fellows' confidence in skills related to career advancement and research and in the number of peer-reviewed publications.


2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 226-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carrie L. Byington ◽  
Erin Rothwell ◽  
Trent Matheson ◽  
Rebecca Childs ◽  
Erin Wachs ◽  
...  

IntroductionThe National Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium 2.0 has developed common metrics as a collaborative project for all participating sites. Metrics address several important aspects and functions of the consortium, including workforce development. The first workforce development metrics to be proposed for all CTSA hubs include the proportion of CTSA-supported trainees and scholars with sustainable careers in translational research and the diversity and inclusiveness of programs.Methods and resultsThe University of Utah Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS), a CTSA hub, has been actively engaged in mentoring translational scientists for the last decade. We have developed programs, processes, and institutional policies that support translational scientists, which have resulted in 100% of our KL2 scholars remaining engaged in translational science and in increasing the inclusion of individuals under-represented in medicine in our research enterprise. In this paper, we share details of our program and what we believe are evidence-based best practices for developing sustainable translational research careers for all aspiring junior faculty members.ConclusionsThe University of Utah Center for Clinical and Translational Science has been integral in catalyzing interactions across the campus to reverse the negative trends seen nationally in sustaining clinician scientists. Our programs and processes can serve as a model for other institutions seeking to develop translational scientists.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document