Dataset Information

Visiting Scholars Program to enhance career development among early-career KL2 investigators in Clinical and Translational Science: Implications from a quality improvement assessment.

ABSTRACT: CTSI Career Development Award (KL2) programs provide junior faculty with protected time and multidisciplinary, mentored research training in clinical and translational science research. The KL2 Visiting Scholars Program was developed to promote collaborative cross-CTSA training, leverage academic strengths at host CTSAs, and support the career development of participating scholars through experiential training and the development of new partnerships. This manuscript provides a detailed programmatic description and reports outcomes from post-visit and outcomes surveys. Since 2016, 12 scholars have completed the program, with 6 scheduled to complete it in 2021. Post-visit surveys (n = 12) indicate all scholars reported the program valuable to career development, 11 reported benefit for research development, and 11 expansion of collaborative networks. Outcomes surveys (n = 11) revealed subsequent scholar interaction with host institution faculty for 10 scholars, 2 collaborative grant submissions (1 funded), 2 planned grant submissions, 1 published collaborative manuscript, and 3 planned manuscript/abstract submissions. The Visiting Scholars Program is a cost- and time-efficient program that leverages the academic strengths of CTSAs. The program enhanced KL2 scholar training by expanding their professional portfolio, promoting research development, and expanding collaborative networks. Resources to support the program are shared in this report to expedite the development of similar programs at regional and national levels.

SUBMITTER: Robb SL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8057478 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionTo implement and evaluate a blended online and in-person training to help mentors of early-career researchers appreciate the complexities of Tobacco Regulatory Science (TRS), refine TRS mentoring skills, and become acquainted with resources for providing effective guidance to TRS mentees.MethodsTRS mentors engaged in a two-part pilot test of the training program. Authors evaluated both the online and in-person training using retrospective pre-post evaluations, which measure learning at the conclusion of a training program, and post-program focus groups. Twenty learners completed the online training, and 16 learners attended the in-person training module. Nine participants completed evaluations for the online module, and 12 participants completed evaluations for the in-person module.ResultsProgram assessments revealed that participants found that the training achieved its overall goals. The majority of respondents (87.5%) rated the online portion of the training as valuable. For the in-person training, participants reported statistically significant improvements regarding confidence in: helping mentees to identify skills and training to effectively pursue TRS, assisting mentees in weighing career trajectories, and guiding mentees in conducting research responsive to TRS regulatory priorities.ConclusionsThe novel mentoring program was well received by faculty seeking to strengthen skills for mentoring early-career TRS researchers to navigate the complex landscape of TRS, explore diverse funding opportunities, and discern potential career trajectories. It provided unique content to address issues outside the traditional tobacco research training curriculum and offered specific information on regulatory policies, priorities, and opportunities.ImplicationsThis research documents the deployment and evaluation of a blended online and in-person training program for investigators mentoring early-career researchers working in TRS. Our assessment discovered that participants found the training to be valuable to their overall mentoring objectives. The training comprises a novel curriculum for investigators engaged in mentoring early-career researchers in a unique field, thus filling a deficit in the published literature by presenting a curriculum that has been customized to the unique needs of TRS mentors.

Project description:BackgroundEvaluating outcomes of the clinical and translational research (CTR) training of a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hub (eg, the KL2 program) requires the selection of reliable, accessible, and standardized measures. As measures of scholarly success usually focus on publication output and extramural funding, CTSA hubs have started to use bibliometrics to evaluate the impact of their supported scholarly activities. However, the evaluation of KL2 programs across CTSAs is limited, and the use of bibliometrics and follow-on funding is minimal.ObjectiveThis study seeks to evaluate scholarly productivity, impact, and collaboration using bibliometrics and federal follow-on funding of KL2 scholars from 3 CTSA hubs and to define and assess CTR training success indicators.MethodsThe sample included KL2 scholars from 3 CTSA institutions (A-C). Bibliometric data for each scholar in the sample were collected from both SciVal and iCite, including scholarly productivity, citation impact, and research collaboration. Three federal follow-on funding measures (at the 5-year, 8-year, and overall time points) were collected internally and confirmed by examining a federal funding database. Both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were computed using SPSS to assess the bibliometric and federal follow-on funding results.ResultsA total of 143 KL2 scholars were included in the sample with relatively equal groups across the 3 CTSA institutions. The included KL2 scholars produced more publications and citation counts per year on average at the 8-year time point (3.75 publications and 26.44 citation counts) than the 5-year time point (3.4 publications vs 26.16 citation counts). Overall, the KL2 publications from all 3 institutions were cited twice as much as others in their fields based on the relative citation ratio. KL2 scholars published work with researchers from other US institutions over 2 times (5-year time point) or 3.5 times (8-year time point) more than others in their research fields. Within 5 years and 8 years postmatriculation, 44.1% (63/143) and 51.7% (74/143) of KL2 scholars achieved federal funding, respectively. The KL2-scholars of Institution C had a significantly higher citation rate per publication than the other institutions (P<.001). Institution A had a significantly lower rate of nationally field-weighted collaboration than did the other institutions (P<.001). Institution B scholars were more likely to have received federal funding than scholars at Institution A or C (P<.001).ConclusionsMulti-institutional data showed a high level of scholarly productivity, impact, collaboration, and federal follow-on funding achieved by KL2 scholars. This study provides insights on the use of bibliometric and federal follow-on funding data to evaluate CTR training success across institutions. CTSA KL2 programs and other CTR career training programs can benefit from these findings in terms of understanding metrics of career success and using that knowledge to develop highly targeted strategies to support early-stage career development of CTR investigators.

Project description:BackgroundTo ensure a next generation of female leaders in academia, we need to understand challenges they face and factors that enable fellowship-prepared women to thrive. We surveyed woman graduates of the Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program (CSP) from 1976 to 2011 regarding their experiences, insights, and advice to women entering the field.MethodsWe surveyed every CSP woman graduate through 2012 (n = 360) by email and post. The survey, 12 prompts requiring open text responses, explored current work situation, personal definitions of success, job negotiations, career regrets, feelings about work, and advice for others. Four independent reviewers read overlapping subsets of the de-identified data, iteratively created coding categories, and defined and refined emergent themes.ResultsOf the 360 cohort, 108 (30%) responded. The mean age of respondents was 45 (range 32 to 65), 85% are partnered, and 87% have children (average number of children 2.15, range 1 to 5). We identified 11 major code categories and conducted a thematic analysis. Factors common to very satisfied respondents include personally meaningful work, schedule flexibility, spousal support, and collaborative team research. Managing professional-personal balance depended on career stage, clinical specialty, and children's age. Unique to women who completed the CSP prior to 1995 were descriptions of "atypical" paths with career transitions motivated by discord between work and personal ambitions and the emphasis on the importance of maintaining relevance and remaining open to opportunities in later life.ConclusionsWomen CSP graduates who stayed in academic medicine are proud to have pursued meaningful work despite challenges and uncertain futures. They thrived by remaining flexible and managing change while remaining true to their values. We likely captured the voices of long-term survivors in academic medicine. Although transferability of these findings is uncertain, these voices add to the national discussion about retaining clinical researchers and keeping women academics productive and engaged.

Dataset Information

Visiting Scholars Program to enhance career development among early-career KL2 investigators in Clinical and Translational Science: Implications from a quality improvement assessment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets