Dataset Information

Multidisciplinary Mentoring Programs to Enhance Junior Faculty Research Grant Success.

ABSTRACT: PROBLEM:Junior faculty face challenges in establishing independent research careers. Declining funding combined with a shift to multidisciplinary, collaborative science necessitates new mentorship models and enhanced institutional support. APPROACH:Two multidisciplinary mentorship programs to promote grant success for junior faculty were established at the Duke University School of Medicine beginning in 2011. These four-month programs-the Path to Independence Program (PtIP) for National Institutes of Health (NIH) R applicants and the K Club for NIH K applicants-use multiple senior faculty mentors and professional grant-writing staff to provide a 20-hour joint curriculum comprising a series of lectures, hands-on workshops, career development counseling, peer groups, and an internal study section. In March 2016, the authors analyzed the success rate for all NIH grants submitted by participants since program enrollment. In a 2015 postprogram survey, participants rated their feelings of support and competency across six skill factors. OUTCOMES:From October 2011 to March 2016, the programs engaged 265 senior faculty mentors, 145 PtIP participants, and 138 K Club participants. Success rates for NIH grant applications were 28% (61 awards/220 decisions) for PtIP participants-an increase over the 2010 Duke University junior faculty baseline of 11%-and 64% (38/59) for K Club participants. Respondents reported significantly increased feelings of support and self-ratings for each competency post program. NEXT STEPS:The authors plan to expand the breadth of both the mentorship pool and faculty served. Broad implementation of similar programs elsewhere could bolster success, satisfaction, and retention of junior faculty investigators.

SUBMITTER: Freel SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5589470 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Multidisciplinary Mentoring Programs to Enhance Junior Faculty Research Grant Success.

Freel Stephanie A SA Smith Paige C PC Burns Ebony N EN Downer Joanna B JB Brown Ann J AJ Dewhirst Mark W MW

Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 20171001 10

<h4>Problem</h4>Junior faculty face challenges in establishing independent research careers. Declining funding combined with a shift to multidisciplinary, collaborative science necessitates new mentorship models and enhanced institutional support.<h4>Approach</h4>Two multidisciplinary mentorship programs to promote grant success for junior faculty were established at the Duke University School of Medicine beginning in 2011. These four-month programs-the Path to Independence Program (PtIP) for Na ...[more]

PMID: 28272113

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA diverse research workforce is essential for catalyzing biomedical advancements, but this workforce goal is hindered by persistent sex and racial/ethnic disparities among investigators receiving research grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In response, the NIH-funded National Research Mentoring Network implemented a Grant Writing Coaching Program (GCP) to provide diverse cohorts of early-career investigators across the United States with intensive coaching throughout the proposal development process. We evaluated the GCP's national reach and short-term impact on participants' proposal submissions and funding outcomes.MethodsThe GCP was delivered as six similar but distinct models. All models began with an in-person group session, followed by a series of coaching sessions over 4 to 12 months. Participants were surveyed at 6-, 12- and 18-months after program completion to assess proposal outcomes (submissions, awards). Self-reported data were verified and supplemented by searches of public repositories of awarded grants when available. Submission and award rates were derived from counts of participants who submitted or were awarded at least one grant proposal in a category (NIH, other federal, non-federal).ResultsFrom June 2015 through March 2019, 545 investigators (67% female, 61% under-represented racial/ethnic minority, URM) from 187 different institutions participated in the GCP. Among them, 324 (59% of participants) submitted at least one grant application and 134 (41% of submitters) received funding. A total of 164 grants were awarded, the majority being from the NIH (93, 56%). Of the 74 R01 (or similar) NIH research proposals submitted by GCP participants, 16 have been funded thus far (56% to URM, 75% to women). This 22% award rate exceeded the 2016-2018 NIH success rates for new R01s.ConclusionInter- and intra-institutional grant writing coaching groups are a feasible and effective approach to supporting the grant acquisition efforts of early-career biomedical investigators, including women and those from URM groups.

Project description:ImportanceBecause mentorship is critical for professional development and career advancement, it is essential to examine the status of mentorship and identify challenges that junior surgical faculty (assistant and associate professors) face obtaining effective mentorship.ObjectiveTo evaluate the mentorship experience for junior surgical faculty and highlight areas for improvement.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative study was an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study including an anonymous survey on mentorship followed by semistructured interviews to expand on survey findings. Junior surgical faculty from 18 US academic surgery programs were included in the anonymous survey and interviews. Survey responses between "formal" (assigned by the department) vs "informal" (sought out by the faculty) mentors and male vs female junior faculty were compared using χ2 tests. Interview responses were analyzed for themes until thematic saturation was achieved. Survey responses were collected from November 2022 to August 2023, and interviews conducted from July to December 2023.ExposureMentorship from formal and/or informal mentors.Main outcomes and measuresSurvey gauged the availability and satisfaction with formal and informal mentorship; interviews assessed broad themes regarding mentorship.ResultsOf 825 survey recipients, 333 (40.4%) responded; 155 (51.7%) were male and 134 (44.6%) female. Nearly all respondents (319 [95.8%]) agreed or strongly agreed that mentorship is important to their surgical career, especially for professional networking (309 respondents [92.8%]), career advancement (301 [90.4%]), and research (294 [88.3%]). However, only 58 respondents (18.3%) had a formal mentor. More female than male faculty had informal mentors (123 [91.8%] vs 123 [79.4%]; P = .003). Overall satisfaction was higher with informal mentorship than formal mentorship (221 [85.0%] vs 40 [69.0%]; P = .01). Most male and female faculty reported no preferences in gender or race and ethnicity for their mentors. When asked if they had good mentor options if they wanted to change mentors, 141 (47.8%) responded no. From the interviews (n = 20), 6 themes were identified, including absence of mentorship infrastructure, preferred mentor characteristics, and optimizing mentorship.Conclusions and relevanceAcademic junior surgical faculty agree mentorship is vital to their careers. However, this study found that few had formal mentors and almost half need more satisfactory options if they want to change mentors. Academic surgical programs should adopt a framework for facilitating mentorship and optimize mentor-mentee relationships through alignment of mentor-mentee goals and needs.

Project description:IntroductionThe effectiveness of community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships to address health inequities is well documented. CBPR integrates knowledge and perspectives of diverse communities throughout the research process, following principles that emphasize trust, power sharing, co-learning, and mutual benefits. However, institutions and funders seldom provide the time and resources needed for the critical stage of equitable partnership formation and development.MethodsSince 2011, the Detroit Urban Research Center, collaborating with other entities, has promoted the development of new community-academic research partnerships through two grant programs that combine seed funding with capacity building support from community and academic instructors/mentors experienced in CBPR. Process and outcomes were evaluated using mixed methods.ResultsFrom 2011 to 2021, 50 partnerships received grants ranging from $2,500 to $30,000, totaling $605,000. Outcomes included equitable partnership infrastructure and processes, innovative pilot research, translation of findings to interventions and policy change, dissemination to multiple audiences, new proposals and projects, and sustained community-academic research partnerships. All partnerships continued beyond the program; over half secured additional funding.ConclusionsKeys to success included participation as community-academic teams, dedicated time for partnership/relationship development, workshops to develop equity-based skills, relationships, and projects, expert community-academic instructor guidance, and connection to additional resources. Findings demonstrate that small amounts of seed funding for newly forming community-academic partnerships, paired with capacity building support, can provide essential time and resources needed to develop diverse, inclusive, equity-focused CBPR partnerships. Building such support into funding initiatives and through academic institutions can enhance impact and sustainability of translational research toward advancing health equity.

Dataset Information

Multidisciplinary Mentoring Programs to Enhance Junior Faculty Research Grant Success.

Publications

Multidisciplinary Mentoring Programs to Enhance Junior Faculty Research Grant Success.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets