scholarly journals The Impact of Grantsmanship Self-Efficacy on Early Stage Investigators of The National Research Mentoring Network Steps Toward Academic Research (NRMN STAR )

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-82
Author(s):  
Roland J. Thorpe, Jr ◽  
Jamboor K. Vishwanatha ◽  
Eileen M. Harwood ◽  
Edward L. Krug ◽  
Thad Unold ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Change Score ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Research Experience ◽  
Postdoctoral Training ◽  
The Impact

The NRMN STAR program was created to address the persistent underrepresenta­tion in grant submissions and receipt of National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards by racial/ethnic minority groups. In our current study, we assessed program impact on trainees’ self-efficacy related to grant writing. The program was conducted with two cohorts: one in June 2014 and one in June 2015. We used a 19-item grant writing self-efficacy scale drawn from the 88-item Clinical Research Assessment Inventory of three domains (conceptualizing, designing, and funding a study) to predict whether self-efficacy influences researchers’ grant submissions. Trainees were assessed prior to and following program completion with subsequent assessments at 6 and 12 months beyond participation. The majority of trainees were Black (62%), female (62%), and had obtained a PhD (90%). More than half (52%) were assistant professors and 57% had none or <1 year of research experience beyond postdoctoral training. However, 24% of trainees reported no postdoctoral research training. NRMN STAR trainees’ self-efficacy significantly improved on all three domains exhibiting a 2.0-point mean change score on two domains (conceptualizing and design) and 3.7 point mean change score on the domain, funding a study. Findings suggest that NRMN’s STAR provides impactful, confidence-building training for diverse, early stage investigators with little-to-no skills, experiences, or low self-efficacy in writing research grants. Ethn Dis. 2020;30(1):75-82; doi:10.18865/ed.30.1.75 

The Association Between NRMN STAR Grantsmanship Self-Efficacy and Grant Submission

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 559-566
Author(s):  
Harlan P. Jones ◽  
Jamboor K. Vishwanatha ◽  
Edward L. Krug ◽  
Eileen Harwood ◽  
Kristin Eide Boman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Professional Development ◽  
Sex Education ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Development Program ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Academic Rank ◽  
Training Institution ◽  
Federal Grant

Background: Eliminating the NIH fund­ing gap among underrepresented minori­ties (URMs) remains a high priority for the National Institutes of Health. In 2014, the National Research Mentoring Network1 Steps Toward Academic Research (NRMN STAR) program recruited postdoctoral, early-stage and junior faculty to participate in a 12-month grant writing and professional development program. The expectation of the program was to increase the number of grant submissions and awards to URM re­searchers. Although receiving a grant award is the gold standard of NRMN STAR, instill­ing confidence for postdocs and early-stage faculty to submit an application is a critical first step. Based on our previous study, a sustained increase in trainee self-efficacy score over a 24-month period was observed after completing NRMN STAR.Methods: The current study sought to determine the association between self-efficacy score and grant submissions among two cohorts of trainees. Grantsmanship Self-Efficacy was measured using a 19-item questionnaire previously described by and used in our own work, which was originally adapted from an 88-item Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory.2 A binary variable was created to identify trainees who submit­ted an initial or revised proposal vs those who abandoned their proposal or were still writing. Trainees were assessed prior to and following program completion with subsequent assessments at 6 and 12 months beyond participation.Results: As of June 20, 2019, 12 of the 21 (57%) trainees had submitted a grant proposal (eg, NIH, other federal or non-federal grant). For every point increase in 12-month post assessments, Grantsmanship Self-Efficacy scores across all domains had a 44% higher prevalence of submitting a grant after controlling for race, sex, education  level, academic rank, research experience, duration of postdoctoral training, institution type, and NRMN STAR cohort.  Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that NRMN STAR had a positive impact on trainees’ confidence in grant writing and professional development activities, which resulted in higher grant submis­sion rates.Ethn Dis. 2021;31(4):559-566; doi:10.18865/ed.31.4.559

scholarly journals How does the outcome of research training fellowships funded via the NHS compare with that from competitively funded fellowships from the MRC and other charities: a cross-sectional retrospective survey of trainees undertaking research training in the West Midlands

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. e019630
Author(s):  
Charlotte Maybury ◽  
Matthew David Morgan ◽  
Russell Smith ◽  
Lorraine Harper
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Training ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Clinical Work ◽  
Research Experience ◽  
The West ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
West Midlands ◽  
The Impact

ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate the impact of research training funded via the National Health Service (NHS) on medical trainees compared with traditional clinical research training fellowships (CRTFs).Design, setting and participantsOnline survey of 221 clinical trainees who had completed a period of research during their clinical training between 2009 and 2015 in the West Midlands.Main outcome measuresResearch outcomes.ResultsOverall response rate was 59%, of whom 72 participants were funded by CRTFs and 51 funded by the NHS. Although participants with CRTFs were more likely to be awarded a higher degree compared with those on NHS-administered funding (66/72 CRTFs and 37/51 NHS, P=0.005), similar proportions of NHS-funded and CRTF-funded participants entered clinical lecturer posts on completing initial research training (8/51 NHS and 16/72 CRTF, P=0.37). 77% of participants had three or more publications (CRTF 57 and NHS 39, P=0.72). 57 participants had completed clinical training; similar proportions of CRTF-funded and NHS-funded trainees had research included in their consultant contract (12/22 NHS and 14/26 CRTF, P=0.96) or were appointed to academic posts (3 of 25 NHS funded and 6 of 32 CRTF, P>0.05). 95% of participants would recommend to colleagues and 82% of participants felt the research experience improved their provision of clinical care with no difference between CRTF-funded and NHS-funded participants (P=0.49). Continuing to participate in clinical work during the research reduced reports of trainee difficulty on returning to clinical work (23/108 continued clinical work vs 12/22 no clinical work, P=0.001).ConclusionResearch training funded by the NHS provides a quality experience and contributes to the clinical academic capacity within the UK. More needs to be done to support NHS participants to successfully achieve a higher degree.

Impact of Pharmacy Residency Research Training on Residents’ Actual Versus Perceived Ability and Interest to Identify and Solve Practice-Related Problems

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 421-426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole R. Pinelli ◽  
Andrea N. Sikora ◽  
Leigh A. Witherspoon ◽  
Kamakshi V. Rao ◽  
Denise H. Rhoney
Keyword(s):  
Residency Training ◽  
Research Productivity ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Pharmacy Practice ◽  
Research Experience ◽  
Perceived Ability ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
The Impact

Purpose: The American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) requires that accredited residency programs provide pharmacy residents the opportunity to perform a practice-based project. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of pharmacy residency research training on residents’ actual versus perceived ability to solve practice-related problems in their professional careers. Methods: This cross-sectional study surveyed postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) pharmacy practice residents who completed training at a large academic medical center between 2007 and 2013. The survey consisted of 3 areas of assessment, that is, (1) general demographics, (2) perceived research abilities, and (3) self-reported research productivity. Results: A total of 39 residents were eligible; of those, 27 completed the survey (69.2% response rate). Participants reported low perceived ability for conductance of some research activities including study design development, implementation, and publication. No association between perceived research ability and self-reported research productivity was found. Research experience prior to residency training strongly predicted for subsequent publication after completion of PGY1 residency training ( P < .0001). Conclusions: New training mechanisms may be needed to optimize research training that will provide residents with greater emphasis on areas of perceived deficiency.

scholarly journals 3403 Understanding the career pathways of scholars participating in Scholar Programs and Academy

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (s1) ◽  
pp. 76-76
Author(s):  
Tanha Patel ◽  
Sabina Gesell ◽  
Doug Easterling
Keyword(s):  
Career Development ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Leadership Role ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Research Experience ◽  
Research Career ◽  
Program Administrators ◽  
Career Trajectories ◽  
Research Careers ◽  
The Impact

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The Wake Forest Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) put in place a KL2 program in 2007 and introduced an 18-month Translational Research Academy (TRA) in 2010. The TRA provides education and leadership development training, research support services, mentoring, and networking opportunities to 15-20 early-career clinical and translational researchers, including those receiving KL2 awards. The KL2 and TRA programs make up the Mentored-Career Development Core that is administered by the Wake Forest CTSA Education Program. Over the years, the program administrators have collected feedback from the graduates on what they liked and did not like about the programs. However, a comprehensive evaluation to understand the impact of the trainings on helping scholars advance their research and their research careers was not conducted. The purpose of this evaluation was to assess if and how the KL2 and TRA programs are helping scholars advance their research and career in research. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with 11 selected CTSI scholars from both KL2 and TRA programs. The interviews focused on 4 key areas: expectations coming into the program, role the program played in their career development over time, what else could/should have program done to support them and their research, and which of the other CTSI services were valuable in their career development. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Even though scholars joined the program as an early-career researcher, the amount of experience in research they had varied and so did their areas of interest. The participants in the program also included both clinician and basic researchers. Scholars came into the program with different level of expectations and drive to use this program as a platform to lift their research careers. The conversations during these interviews gave an insight on career trajectories that the scholars have taken before and after joining the academy. For example, among the scholars that had graduated from the programs, 5 of the 6 had received a career development award, all 6 had their own grants to support their research, 3 had received professional promotions, and all 6 have an administrative leadership role they play, in addition to focusing on their research career. The information on where the scholars were at the beginning and the pathway they have taken to get to where they are now allowed us to better understand what aspects of the program was most valuable. The scholars noted that sessions around grant writing and developing specific aims were very helpful. Among the services provided, having a grant editor support was something that everyone noted as the most important service to them, even after leaving the program. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The impact of the interviews and candid feedback provided by the scholars have been immensely valuable to program administrators to really understand the impact the program (and which components specifically) is having for the scholars. Looking at the career trajectories of the scholars, it was noted that scholars coming in to the academy with some experience doing research and ability to continue engaging in research benefited the most from what the program had to offer. Scholars that were still very early in their research career gained knowledge but were not always able to apply it because they were not working towards a grant at the time. Using the data on career trajectories, recommendations for improving the program, and other CTSI services that were most valuable, the program administrators decided to redesign the curriculum. The new version of the program is now tailored for scholars who have research experience and are working towards a career development grant such as a K or R. This will allow them to have a curriculum that is more intense and hands-on with an expectation that the scholars will submit the application towards the end of the program. A separate program is being developed for early-career researchers who are still setting their foot into t field to provide them basic research competencies through ad hoc courses and seminars.

scholarly journals Benchmarking: An International Comparison

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Greg Tower ◽  
Brenda Ridgewell
Keyword(s):  
Visual Arts ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Tertiary Education ◽  
Peer Assessment ◽  
Research Performance ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

The study examines the impact of national research assessment exercises for the accounting and visual arts disciplines. Analysis is also made of the impact of a national research quality assessment exercise of New Zealand and UK initiatives (Tertiary Education Commission. 2004; RAE, 2001) and well as the proposed Australian RQF (2005). We find that whilst the definition of research is broad enough to include most of the activities of accounting and finance, and visual arts academia the actual measures of research performance may be problematic. The need to clearly demonstrate quality peer review is the largest hurdle especially for visual arts academics with their individualist and independent mindset. Whilst visual arts and, accounting and finance academia research performance activity was ranked low in both the UK and NZ, we conclude that that the focus on output quality and peer assessment offers a potentially broader and more accurate depiction of activity. Obtaining a balanced broader assessment of both traditional performance measures such as research publications of accounting and finance along with the more creative elements of visual arts such as exhibitions is paramount. We also make a call for more research training for both disciplines to assist them in the recognition of quality research productivity.

Expanding Global Health Engagement through Fogarty Fellowship Programs

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison A. Henry ◽  
Donna J. Ingles ◽  
Liping Du ◽  
Sten H. Vermund ◽  
Douglas C. Heimburger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Training Programs ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
The United States ◽  
Senior Author ◽  
Global Health Research ◽  
Research Experience ◽  
Middle Income

Training the next generation of global health researchers is vital for sustainable research partnerships and global health equity. The Fogarty International Center (National Institutes of Health) supports postdoctoral fellows and professional/graduate students in long-term, hands-on mentored research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We surveyed 627 alumni (58% from the United States, 42% from LMICs) from three sequential Fogarty-sponsored global health research training programs (response rate: N = 257, 41%). Publications in the Index Medicus were used to ascertain scholarly output. Most alumni (63%) reported remaining engaged in LMICs and/or worked in academic/research careers (70%). Since completing their Fogarty fellowship, 144 alumni (56%) had received 438 new grants as principal investigator (PI), co-/multi-PI, or site PI. The 257 responding alumni had 5,318 publications during and since their Fogarty fellowships; 2,083 (39%) listed the Fogarty trainee as the first or senior author. These global health training programs highlight the value of LMIC research experience in nurturing the global health research workforce.

scholarly journals Comparisons and Approaches of PREP Programs at Different Stages of Maturity: Challenges, Best Practices and Benefits

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-64
Author(s):  
Nancy B. Schwartz ◽  
Laurie E. Risner ◽  
Miriam Domowicz ◽  
Victoria H. Freedman
Keyword(s):  
Learning Style ◽  
Graduate School ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Biomedical Science ◽  
Research Experience ◽  
Perfect Model ◽  
Science Community ◽  
Baccalaureate Graduates ◽  
Phd Program

Programs (PREP) are designed to provide research training and educational oppor­tunities for recent baccalaureate graduates from targeted groups defined by NIH who would benefit by academic enhancements between the completion of undergraduate studies and admission to a PhD program. These programs offer exposure to the biomedical science community in a way that helps post-undergraduate individu­als visualize future careers as well-trained, enthusiastic leaders in biomedical research who represent and will promote diversity in science. Specifically, PREPs provide the preparation and skills required for en­trance into, and successful completion of, a PhD program via in-depth exposure to a research setting, which helps to refine the post-undergraduate’s research interests, assists in providing a realistic understand­ing of the end results one can expect from research, and offers a forum for discussion with lab peers and mentors about possible career paths. Beyond the lab, PREPs offer programmatic activities to develop ana­lytical, writing, and oral presentation skills necessary for a competitive graduate school application and success in graduate school thereafter. Individual mentoring increases the post-undergraduate’s confidence and familiarity with members of the research community, so that pursuit of a PhD be­comes a realistic and less-intimidating path. Interventions and developmental activities are matched to the background preparation, research experience, and learning style of each post-undergraduate. As with all train­ing programs, there is no perfect model and each program must fit in and adapt to their respective institutional environments and cultures. Thus, in this article, we provide perspectives and approaches developed by a long-standing program in existence almost since the beginning of the PREP program along with one PREP at an early stage of maturity, having just been through one renewal. Ethn Dis. 2020;30(1):55-64; doi:10.18865/ed.30.1.55

scholarly journals 3563 Clinical research training methods that improve self-efficacy in clinical research domains

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (s1) ◽  
pp. 64-64
Author(s):  
Mathew Sebastian ◽  
Matthew Robinson ◽  
Leanne Dumeny ◽  
Kyle Dyson ◽  
Wayne T. McCormack ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Research ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Major Influence ◽  
Training Methods ◽  
Research Experience ◽  
Research Skills ◽  
Primary Methods ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Research Domains

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The study aims to determine the current clinical research training interventions of MD-PhD programs and how effective they are in promoting clinical research self-efficacy. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A national survey of MD-PhD trainees was conducted in 2018 to identify clinical research training methods and self-efficacy for clinical research skills. MD-PhD program directors and coordinators from 108 institutions were asked to distribute the survey to their students. Responses were received from 61 institutions (56.5%). Responses were obtained from 647 MD-PhD students in all years of training, representing 17.9% of the 3613 possible participants at the 61 medical schools represented. No compensation was provided for this study. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The primary methods of clinical research training reported by students included didactics, mentored clinical research, didactics plus mentored clinical research, didactics plus clinical research practicum, and didactics plus mentored clinical research plus clinical research practicum. A quarter of all participants reported having no clinical research training. Clinical research self-efficacy was then correlated with the amount of clinical research training. Students exposed to no clinical research had the lowest self-efficacy in clinical research skills and students experiencing didactics plus mentored clinical research plus clinical research practicum had the highest perceived self-efficacy in clinical research domains. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This is one of the first studies assessing clinical research training methods for MD-PhD students and assessing their efficacy. We found that of all students questioned, 25% mentioned had not received any type of clinical research training. The remaining students identified 5 research training methods that institutions currently use. This work highlights the importance of clinical research experience students need to improve their self-efficacy, a major influence on research career outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document