Cancer research in the UK: A policy review of the junior academic clinical faculty.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sullivan R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5543842 | biostudies-other | 2008 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:Gender stereotypes in science impede supportive environments for women. Research suggests that women's perceptions of these environments are influenced by stereotype threat (ST): anxiety faced in situations where one may be evaluated using negative stereotypes. This study developed and tested ST metrics for first time use with junior faculty in academic medicine.Under a 2012 National Institutes of Health Pathfinder Award, Stanford School of Medicine's Office of Diversity and Leadership, working with experienced clinicians, social scientists, and epidemiologists, developed and administered ST measures to a representative group of junior faculty.174 School of Medicine junior faculty were recruited (62% women, 38% men; 75% assistant professors, 25% instructors; 50% white, 40% Asian, 10% underrepresented minority). Women reported greater susceptibility to ST than did men across all items including ST vulnerability (p < 0.001); rejection sensitivity (p = 0.001); gender identification (p < 0.001); perceptions of relative potential (p = 0.048); and, sense of belonging (p = 0.049). Results of career-related consequences of ST were more nuanced. Compared with men, women reported lower beliefs in advancement (p = 0.021); however, they had similar career interest and identification, felt just as connected to colleagues, and were equally likely to pursue careers outside academia (all p > 0.42).Innovative ST metrics can provide a more complete picture of academic medical center environments. While junior women faculty are susceptible to ST, they may not yet experience all of its consequences in their early careers. As such, ST metrics offer a tool for evaluating institutional initiatives to increase supportive environments for women in academic medicine.
| S-EPMC4790213 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC11375519 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ProblemJunior 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.ApproachTwo 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.OutcomesFrom 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 stepsThe 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.
| S-EPMC5589470 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Clinical study reports (CSRs) have been increasingly utilised within academic research in recent years. European Medicines Agency (EMA) Policy 0070 'Phase 1,' which came into effect in January 2015, requires the publication of regulatory documents such as CSRs from central applications in an anonymised format. EMA Policy 0070 requires sponsors to demonstrate careful consideration of data utility within anonymised CSRs published within the scope of the policy, yet the concept of data utility is not clearly defined in the associated anonymisation guidance. OBJECTIVE:To review the use of data from CSRs in published academic research and to hypothesise the potential data utility of CSRs anonymised under the objectives of EMA Policy 0070 for future academic research. METHODS:Review of the objectives, research methodologies and findings of academic research reports using unpublished data from CSRs (prior to EMA Policy 0070). Semi-structured interviews with authors of academic research reports, including questions related to data utility of anonymised CSRs published under EMA Policy 0070. RESULTS:Thirteen academic research reports were identified and reviewed. The research purposes ranged from assessment of reporting bias, comparison of methods and results with published data sources, detailed evaluation of harms and adverse events, re-analysis and novel analyses including systematic reviews and meta-analysis. All of the examples identified required access to the methods and results sections of CSRs (including aggregated summary tables) and research purposes relating to evaluation of adverse events also required access to participant narratives. Retaining anonymised participant narratives relating to interventions, findings and events, while maintaining an acceptably low risk of participant re-identification, may provide an important gain in data utility and further understanding of drug safety profiles. CONCLUSIONS:This work provides an initial insight into the previous use of CSR data and current practices for including regulatory data in academic research. This work also provides early guidance to qualitatively assess and document data utility within anonymised CSRs published under EMA Policy 0070.
| S-EPMC6833240 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Career development award programs often require formal establishment of mentoring relationships. The authors sought to gain a nuanced understanding of mentoring from the perspective of a diverse national sample of faculty clinician-researchers who were all members of formal mentoring relationships.Between February 2010 and August 2011, the authors conducted semistructured, in-depth telephone interviews with 100 former recipients of National Institutes of Health mentored career development awards and 28 of their mentors. Purposive sampling ensured a diverse range of viewpoints. Multiple analysts thematically coded verbatim transcripts using qualitative data analysis software.Three relevant themes emerged: (1) the numerous roles and behaviors associated with mentoring in academic medicine, (2) the improbability of finding a single person who can fulfill the diverse mentoring needs of another individual, and (3) the importance and composition of mentor networks. Many respondents described the need to cultivate more than one mentor. Several participants discussed the use of peer mentors, citing benefits such as pooled resources and mutual learning. Female participants generally acknowledged the importance of having at least one female mentor. Some observed that their portfolio of mentors needed to evolve to remain effective.Those who seek to promote the careers of faculty in academic medicine should focus on developing mentoring networks rather than on hierarchical mentoring dyads. The members of each faculty member's mentoring team or network should reflect the protégé's individual needs and preferences, with special attention toward ensuring diversity in terms of area of expertise, academic rank, and gender.
| S-EPMC3610810 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Junior faculty in many universities must go through the promotion process to advance from entry level, e.g., assistant professorship to associate Professor, and ultimately to professorship. The process may often be stressful for some junior faculty, mostly due to some uncertainty about how to optimise their chances of successful promotion. In this paper, we summarise some strategies that would enhance their chances of a smooth promotion based on experiences from junior faculty and senior faculty who have served on tenure and promotion committees. These strategies include understanding the promotion process at your institution; optimizing publications as first or senior author, securing research funding as principal investigator, teaching effectively, providing service efficiently; developing good time management and priority setting skills, finding excellent mentors, and targeting opportunities for collaboration. We also encourage junior faculty to be pro-active about promotion.
| S-EPMC7002385 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There has been a substantially increased interest in biomedical research impact assessment over the past 5 years. This can be studied by a number of methods, but its influence on clinical guidelines must rank as one of the most important. In cancer, there are 43 UK guidelines (and associated Health Technology Assessments) published (up to October 2006) across three series, each of which has an evidence base in the form of references, many of which are papers in peer-reviewed journals. These have all been identified and analysed to determine their geographical provenance and type of research, in comparison with overall oncology research published in the peak years of guideline references (1999-2001). The UK papers were cited nearly three times as frequently as would have been expected from their presence in world oncology research (6.5%). Within the United Kingdom, Edinburgh and Glasgow stood out for their unexpectedly high contributions to the guidelines' scientific base. The cited papers from the United Kingdom acknowledged much more explicit funding from all sectors than did the UK cancer research papers at the same research level.
| S-EPMC2441955 | biostudies-other
Project description:The Summer Institute Program to Increase Diversity (SIPID) in Health-Related Research is a career advancement opportunity sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Three mentored programs address difficulties experienced by junior investigators in establishing independent research careers and academic advancement. Aims are to increase the number of faculty from under-represented minority groups who successfully compete for external research funding. Data were collected using a centralized data-entry system from three Summer Institutes. Outcomes include mentees' satisfaction rating about the program, grant and publications productivity and specific comments. Fifty-eight junior faculty mentees (38% male) noticeably improved their rates of preparing/submitting grant applications and publications, with a 18-23% increase in confidence levels in planning and conducting research. According to survey comments, the training received in grantsmanship skills and one-on-one mentoring were the most valuable program components. The SIPID mentoring program was highly valued by the junior faculty mentees. The program will continue in 2011-2014 as PRIDE (PRogram to Increase Diversity among individuals Engaged in health-related research). Long-term follow-up of current mentees will be indexed at five years post training (2013). In summary, these mentoring programs hope to continue increasing the diversity of the next generation of scientists in biomedical research.
| S-EPMC4324679 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the highly competitive environment of academic medicine, junior faculty investigators face high attrition rates due to challenges in finding effective mentorship, securing grant funding, and obtaining resources to support their career development and research productivity. The purpose of this study was to describe the centralized, cost-sharing design of the Independent Investigator Incubator (I3) program as a novel approach to junior faculty mentoring and to evaluate quantitative outcomes for program improvement.MethodsIn September 2014, the I3 pilot program, a comprehensive mentorship program targeting junior faculty pursuing research careers, was launched. Participants included junior faculty during the crucial first three years of their research careers or during their transition from career development awards to more independent research. Following initial screening, the I3 mentees were paired with a senior faculty "super-mentor" with expertise in either basic science or clinical research. Mentees were provided with robust traditional one-on-one mentoring, targeted feedback from a super-mentor review committee, as well as biostatistician and grant writing support. To assess the effectiveness of the I3 program, we tracked outcome measures via baseline and 12-month mentee surveys. Data collected assessed program diversity, mentee self-assessments, evaluation of the mentoring relationship, scholarship and productivity metrics. Raw data were analyzed using a paired t-test in Excel (P < 0.05).ResultsResults of the baseline mentee self-assessment survey found that the I3 mentees indicated common "perceive deficits" including navigating the organizational and institutional culture, clear direction in achieving promotion and tenure, among others. When baseline mentee survey responses were compared to 12-month responses, we identified strong "perceived growth" in categories, such as Research and Interpersonal Skills and Career Development Skills. Further, productivity metrics at 12-months revealed that roughly 80% of I3 mentees successfully published a manuscript(s). The I3 program has helped generate roughly $12.1 million dollars in investigator-initiated funding after two years in the program.ConclusionThe I3 program allows for shared costs between institutions and increased availability of successful subject matter experts. Study results imply that the I3 mentoring program provides transformative mentorship for junior faculty. Using our findings, we developed courses and an annual "snapshot" of mentee performance for mentors.
| S-EPMC6080403 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveStrategies are needed to improve policy makers' evidence-informed decision making and the availability of evidence-based, state-supported services. This study examined whether academic-policy partnerships could promote these outcomes.MethodsData from two national surveys of state mental health agency representatives were used to compare barriers to implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) and policy makers' use of child mental health research in states with strong academic-policy partnerships in workforce training or in program implementation/evaluation (IE) with barriers in states with no or limited partnerships in these areas.ResultsStrong IE partnerships were associated with more confidence in research use and fewer issues with provider readiness and capacity but with more issues with EBP fidelity. Strong training partnerships were associated with fewer endorsements of lack of time as a barrier to research use.ConclusionsAcademic-policy partnerships had some benefit for states' research use and EBP implementation. Because these partnerships may reduce barriers, further research should explore characteristics of effective collaborations.
| S-EPMC8410622 | biostudies-literature