Visiting Scholars Program to enhance career development among early-career KL2 investigators in Clinical and Translational Science: Implications from a quality improvement assessment.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Robb SL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8057478 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Introduction and methodsThe Rockefeller Clinical Scholars (KL2) Program began in 1976 and transitioned into a 3-year Master's degree program in 2006 when Rockefeller joined the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program. The program consists of ~15 trainees supported by the CTSA KL2 award and University funds. It is designed to provide an optimal environment for junior translational investigators to develop team science and leadership skills by designing and performing a human subjects protocol under the supervision of a distinguished senior investigator mentor and a team of content expert educators. This is complemented by a tutorial focused on important translational skills.ResultsSince 2006, 40 Clinical Scholars have graduated from the programs and gone on to careers in academia (72%), government service (5%), industry (15%), and private medical practice (3%); two (5%) remain in training programs. 39/40 remain in translational research careers with 23 NIH awards totaling $23 million, foundation and philanthropic support of $20.3 million, and foreign government and foundation support of $6 million. They have made wide ranging scientific discoveries and have endeavored to translate those discoveries into improved human health.ConclusionThe Rockefeller Clinical Scholars (KL2) program provides one model for translational science training.
| S-EPMC5812696 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionNIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) include KL2 mentored career development awards for faculty commencing clinical and translational research. A survey of KL2 leaders revealed program practices, curricular elements and compelling data about scholar characteristics and outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a literature review, framed the survey construct, and obtained input from across the CTSA consortium. A REDCap survey was emailed in fall 2016 to 61 active programs.ResultsFifty-five programs (90.2%) responded. Respondents had been funded from 3 to 11 years, including 22 "mature" hubs funded for ā„8 years. Program cohort sizes were 56% "small", 22% "medium", and 22% "large." Hubs offer extensive competency-aligned training opportunities relevant to clinical and translational research, including graduate degrees, mentorship, and grant-writing. Seventy-two percent of hubs report parallel "KL2-equivalent" career development programs. All hubs share their training and facilitate intermingling with other early stage investigators. A total of 1,517 KL2 scholars were funded. KL2 awardees are diverse in their disciplines, research projects, and representation; 54% are female and 12% self-identified as underrepresented in biomedical research. Eighty-seven percent of scholars have 2-3 mentors and are currently supported for 2-3 years. Seventy-eight percent of alumni remain at CTSA institutions in translational science. The most common form of NIH support following scholars' KL2 award is an individual career development award.ConclusionsThe KL2 is a unique career development award, shaped by competency-aligned training opportunities and interdisciplinary mentorship that inform translational research pathways. Tracking both traditional and novel outcomes of KL2 scholars is essential to capture their career trajectories and impact on health.
| S-EPMC7103475 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDespite the central importance of cross-disciplinary collaboration in the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) network and the implementation of various programs designed to enhance collaboration, rigorous evidence for the efficacy of these approaches is lacking. We conducted a novel randomized controlled trial (RCT; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05395286) of a promising approach to enhance collaboration readiness and behavior among 95 early career scholars from throughout the CTSA network.MethodsParticipants were randomly assigned (within two cohorts) to participate in an Innovation Lab, a week-long immersive collaboration experience, or to a treatment-as-usual control group. Primary outcomes were change in metrics of self-reported collaboration readiness (through 12-month follow-up) and objective collaboration network size from bibliometrics (through 21 months); secondary outcomes included self-reported number of grants submitted and, among Innovation Lab participants only, reactions to the Lab experience (through 12 months).ResultsShort-term reactions from Innovation Lab participants were quite positive, and controlled evidence for a beneficial impact of Innovation Labs over the control condition was observed in the self-reported number of grant proposals in the intent-to-treat sample. Primary measures of collaboration readiness were near ceiling in both groups, limiting the ability to detect enhancement. Collaboration network size increased over time to a comparable degree in both groups.ConclusionsThe findings highlight the need for systematic intervention development research to identify efficacious strategies that can be implemented throughout the CTSA network to better support the goal of enhanced cross-disciplinary collaboration.
| S-EPMC10877513 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionHigh impact biomedical research is increasingly conducted by large, transdisciplinary, multisite teams in an increasingly collaborative environment. Thriving in this environment requires robust teamwork skills, which are not acquired automatically in the course of traditional scientific education. Team science skills training does exist, but most is directed at clinical care teams, not research teams, and little is focused on the specific training needs of early-career investigators, whose early team leadership experiences may shape their career trajectories positively or negatively. Our research indicated a need for team science training designed specifically for early-career investigators.MethodsTo address this need, we designed and delivered a 2-day workshop focused on teaching team science skills to early-career investigators. We operationalized team science competencies, sought the advice of team science experts, and performed a needs assessment composed of a survey and a qualitative study. Through these multiple approaches, we identified and grouped training priorities into three broad training areas and developed four robust, hands-on workshop sessions.ResultsAttendees comprised 30 pre- and post-doc fellows (TL1) and early-career faculty (KL2 and K12). We assessed impact with a pre- and post-workshop survey adapted from the Team Skills Scale. Results from the pre- and post-test Wilcoxon signed-rank analysis (n = 25) showed statistically significant improvement in team science skills and confidence. Open-ended responses indicated that the workshop focus was appropriate and well targeted to the trainees' needs.ConclusionsAlthough team science education is still very much in its infancy, these results suggest that training targeted to early-career investigators improves team skills and may foster improved collaboration.
| S-EPMC6799325 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo understand the factors that facilitate career success for career development awardees in clinical and translational science and reconceptualize understand ing of career success for this population.MethodIn 2013-2014, the authors conducted semistructured interviews with former NIH KL2 or K12 scholars from nine Clinical and Translational Science Award-funded institutions. Participants either had or had not secured independent funding at least two years after the end of their last K award. Questions covered the factors that facilitate or hinder junior investigators' transition to independent funding. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and the transcripts were analyzed thematically.ResultsForty individuals participated, with equal representation by men and women and by independently and not independently funded investigators. Personal factors that facilitated success included networks, persistence and resilience, initiative, autonomy, and personal and professional balance. Organizational factors included appropriate mentorship, protected research time, and institutional resources and support.Even independently funded participants described challenges regarding career direction. Five participants without independent funding modeled a broad spectrum of successful career paths, having assumed leadership positions not reliant on grant funding. Alternative definitions of career success included improving public health, enjoying work, seeing mentees succeed, and receiving external acknowledgment of successes.ConclusionsAwareness of the factors that facilitate or hinder career success can help junior faculty, mentors, and institutional leaders support career development in clinical and translational science. New definitions of career success are needed, as are career paths for faculty who want to engage in research in roles other than principal investigator.
| S-EPMC4811729 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7249929 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We surveyed awardees of the Minority HIV Investigator Mentoring Program (MHIMP) of the AIDS Clinical Trials Group. Most reported clinical specialization in infectious diseases or HIV medicine (86%), and all but 1 (95%) are engaged in medical/health sciences research. The MHIMP helped retain early-career minority investigators in HIV/AIDS-related research.
| S-EPMC6419986 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8515229 | biostudies-literature
Project description:From 2004 to 2012, the Fogarty International Clinical Research Scholars/Fellows Program (FICRS-F) provided 1-year research training opportunities for U.S. and international doctoral "Scholars" and postdoctoral "Fellows" at low- and middle-income country (LMIC) centers. We collected data prospectively and then surveyed a representative sample of 100 alumni (94% response), assessing Program impacts on their careers and collaborations. Frequently, collaborations continued beyond the formal training period with U.S.- (63%) and site-based mentors (66%). U.S. Fellows reported the highest post-training focus on research (88 on a 100-point scale), and the highest Program impact on competitiveness for career or training positions and choices of post-training topics and institutions (95 points). Interest in global health research increased markedly during the training period, especially for LMIC trainees, and was sustained post-training. LMIC alumni reported a significantly higher focus on global health and research than did U.S. alumni. Alumni reported that their mentored research training had a substantial impact on their career trajectories.
| S-EPMC4559713 | biostudies-literature
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 (nā=ā360) 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.
| S-EPMC7403242 | biostudies-literature