Variations of a group coaching intervention to support early-career biomedical researchers in Grant proposal development: a pragmatic, four-arm, group-randomized trial

Background Funded grant proposals provide biomedical researchers with the resources needed to build their research programs, support trainees, and advance public health. Studies using National Institutes of Health (NIH) data have found that investigators from underrepresented groups in the biomedical workforce are awarded NIH research grants at disproportionately lower rates. Grant writing training initiatives are available, but there is a dearth of rigorous research to determine the effectiveness of such interventions and to discern their essential features. Methods This 2 × 2, unblinded, group-randomized study compares the effectiveness of variations of an NIH-focused, grant writing, group coaching intervention for biomedical postdoctoral fellows and early-career faculty. The key study outcomes are proposal submission rates and funding rates. Participants, drawn from across the United States, are enrolled as dyads with a self-selected scientific advisor in their content area, then placed into coaching groups led by senior NIH-funded investigators who are trained in the intervention’s coaching practices. Target enrollment is 72 coaching groups of 4–5 dyads each. Groups are randomized to one of four intervention arms that differ on two factors: [1] duration of coaching support (regular dose = 5 months of group coaching, versus extended dose = regular dose plus an additional 18 months of one-on-one coaching); and [2] mode of engaging scientific advisors with the regular dose group coaching process (unstructured versus structured engagement). Intervention variations were informed by programs previously offered by the NIH National Research Mentoring Network. Participant data are collected via written surveys (baseline and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after start of the regular dose) and semi-structured interviews (end of regular dose and 24 months). Quantitative analyses will be intention-to-treat, using a 2-sided test of equality of the effects of each factor. An inductive, constant comparison analysis of interview transcripts will be used to identify contextual factors -- associated with individual participants, their engagement with the coaching intervention, and their institutional setting – that influence intervention effectiveness. Discussion Results of this study will provide an empirical basis for a readily translatable coaching approach to supporting the essential grant writing activities of faculty, fellows, and other research trainees, including those from underrepresented groups.

Roles of Academic Writers in a Department: Benefits, Structures, and Funding

Background and Objectives: Despite the prevalence of published opinions about the use of professional academic writers to help disseminate the results of clinical research, particularly opinions about the use of ghost writers, very little information has been published on the possible roles for professional writers within academic medical departments or the mechanisms by which these departments can hire and compensate such writers. To begin addressing this lack of information, the Association of Departments of Family Medicine hosted an online discussion and a subsequent webinar in which we obtained input from three departments of family medicine in the United States regarding their use of academic writers. This discussion revealed three basic models by which academic writers have benefitted these departments: (1) grant writing support, (2) research and academic support for clinical faculty, and (3) departmental communication support. Drawing on specific examples from these institutions, the purpose of this paper is to describe the key support activities, advantages, disadvantages, and funding opportunities for each model for other departments to consider and adapt.

Activating Activists

The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the pedagogical and practical importance of learning skills around political advocacy and community engagement in prison-based classes. The primary focus of the exercises described here is upon engaging students in exercises that develop their skills in advocating for social policies that affect them directly. Learning objectives include understanding the challenges of community organizing and consensus-building, developing policy proposal- and grant-writing skills, and developing skills around public messaging.

Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices

A large part of governmental research funding is currently distributed through the peer review of project proposals. In this paper, we argue that such funding systems incentivize and even force researchers to violate five moral values, each of which is central to commonly used scientific codes of conduct. Our argument complements existing epistemic arguments against peer-review project funding systems and, accordingly, strengthens the mounting calls for reform of these systems.

Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts: Stepping-stones to Innovation and Equity in Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery

The Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts (CORE) grant program coordinates research funding initiatives across the subspecialties of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery. Modeled after National Institutes of Health study sections, CORE grant review processes provide comprehensive reviews of scientific proposals. The organizational structure and grant review process support grant-writing skills, attention to study design, and other components of academic maturation toward securing external grants from the National Institutes of Health or other agencies. As a learning community and a catalyst for scientific advances, CORE evaluates clinical, translational, basic science, and health services research. Amid the societal reckoning around long-standing social injustices and health inequities, an important question is to what extent CORE engenders diversity, equity, and inclusion for the otolaryngology workforce. This commentary explores CORE’s track record as a stepping-stone for promoting equity and innovation in the specialty. Such insights can help maximize opportunities for cultivating diverse leaders across the career continuum.

ESPO and Social Research, Policy, and Practice Section Symposium: It’s a Practice, Not an End State: Centering Equity in Gerontological Research and Policy

Social, economic, and health inequities shape the experience of aging, reflecting a landscape of unequal resources, opportunities, and stressors that accumulate over the life-course. These inequities are not accidental, but rather reflect systems of power that act through institutions, policies, and people to simultaneously privilege some groups and disadvantage others based on socially constructed categories. These systems include, but are not limited to, racism, ageism, and capitalism. The unequal and unjust distribution of resources and opportunities over the lifespan results in health, social, and economic disparities in older adulthood. For example, Black older adults are at higher risk of experiencing chronic disease burden and shorter life expectancy than white older adults due to greater economic disinvestment, interpersonal and systemic racial discrimination, and lower health services access over the life course. This symposium features three leading scholars whose work centers racial and health equity in later life. The symposium will engage with issues related to long-term services and supports infrastructure, community-engaged and culturally relevant programs and education, and research activities (e.g., recruitment, study design, grant writing, dissemination). Panelists will also discuss their research agendas and recent scholarship, career trajectories, insights, and practices. We hope symposium attendees will identify opportunities and strategies for focusing on elimination of health disparities across the life-course in their own work. We believe this symposium can serve as an opportunity for SRPP members and emerging scholars and practitioners to center equity, highlight intersectionality, and amplify our colleagues at the forefront of addressing inequity through their work.

Use of an Individualized Development Plan to Identify Career Development Needs in Prospective Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Fellows

Background: Mentorship is a key aspect of leadership development for orthopaedic surgeons, but there are few formalized mentorship programs in medical training. The individualized development plan (IDP) is a tool that potentially improves mentorship opportunities through identifying specific competency deficiencies and facilitating communication with mentors. Purpose: To assess the views of prospective orthopaedic surgery sports medicine fellows on the skills necessary for career development and the utility of an IDP for longitudinal career mentorship during a sports medicine fellowship. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Candidates who interviewed for an orthopaedic surgery sports medicine fellowship voluntarily completed an anonymous IDP as well as a survey to assess their perceptions of the IDP tool to define their career goals and its use for longitudinal mentorship. The IDP included quantitative and qualitative responses for the self-assessment of multiple skill domains (general research, teaching, professional, interpersonal, leadership, and management) using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = needs improvement, 5 = highly proficient). Quantitative results were analyzed using analysis of variance and Student t test. Results: A total of 25 candidates completed the IDP and survey. The mean ± standard deviation composite score of all skill domains was 3.62 ± 0.91. The candidates’ greatest deficit was in grant writing (2.28 ± 0.94; P < .01), while their greatest strength was getting along with others (4.52 ± 0.65; P < .01). Candidates identified, as short-term goals, obtaining a fellowship training position, completion of research/academic projects, and improvement of surgical skills; their common long-term goals included having a role in an academic institution, professional society, and/or research and innovation environment. The majority of participants agreed that the IDP is a valuable tool to characterize career and personal goals (74%) and facilitate longitudinal fellowship mentorship (83.3%). Conclusion: The majority of candidates valued the IDP for their short- and long-term goals. Program implementation of an IDP could be beneficial in allowing trainees to effectively identify areas of weakness and strengths while facilitating efficient communication of these needs to mentors.

A student-centered seminar course as a complementary approach to a traditional journal club

Graduate physiology programs strive to provide students with in-depth expertise in a particular academic discipline, often facilitating this process in the form of a departmental seminar course. Within the Department of Physiology and Biophysics at the University of California Irvine (UCI), students are required to attend a seminar course, most often designed as a journal club, each quarter until they are ready to graduate. While this format may work well in departments where research topics are closely related, it has historically been less successful in UCI's Department of Physiology and Biophysics, where wide-ranging interests make for little overlap in foundational knowledge, limiting meaningful engagement with the material or with peers in the class. In this paper, we describe a complementary approach of developing a syllabus around student interests and covering topics that are critical for student success but often omitted from graduate curricula, such as interview skills, grant writing, and scientific communication. Results from our pre-class survey motivated this approach to the class, and our retrospective survey demonstrated the substantial differences in student engagement, enthusiasm, and perceived benefits of this course relative to the journal club style course. We hope that the success of our course may serve as an exemplar for strategies to engage students more effectively and provide critical training in diverse skillsets that will help students after graduation.

Randomized Controlled Study to Test the Effectiveness of Developmental Network Coaching in the Career Advancement of Diverse Early-Stage Investigators (ESIs): Implementation Challenges and Lessons Learned

Introduction: Adding developmental networks (DN) to grant-writing coaching can significantly enhance ESIs’ research careers. Herein, we present study design, ESIs’ characteristics and encountered challenges/lessons learned and their resolutions when deploying/implementing (a) NCR algorithm(s), (b) recruitment/retention and (c) implementing DN intervention. Methods: Nested Cluster Randomization (NCR) design governs this study implementation. The sample size is 220 ESIs intending to submit an NIH K, R, U, and/or Minority Supplement application(s). Primary outcome: intensity/sustainability of grant submission(s)/funding(s), measured by time to/between application(s). Outcome(s) analyses modes: summaries, Kaplan Meir and Cox proportional hazard models as a function of randomization groups and other predictors of outcomes. Results: In the present study, we recruited two cohorts of ESIs (N = 85): 39% African Americans, 18% Latinx, 18% Whites, 20% Asians and 6% Hawaiian/Pacific Islander/other ethnicities; 65% are women; 73% are assistant professors, 4% are Associate Professors and 23% are instructors/scientists/post-doctoral. Participants’ disciplines: 32% basic/biomedical, 36% clinical/translational and 32% social/behavioral. Proposal(s) mechanisms: 61% research grants (R series), 31% career development (K series), 7% support of competitive research (SCORE) and 1% National Science Foundation applications. NCR did produce balance in the distribution of ESIs’ demographics, sex at birth, ethnicity, professional appointments, background disciplines, and mechanism of sought funding. Lessons learned/challenges: NCR implementation was methodologically challenged during implementation by added constraints (e.g., assigning coaches to the same randomization arm of their participants as well as blinding them to ESIs’ randomization group). Recruitment and retention were hampered by the COVID-19 pandemic and more progressive and innovative strategies were needed to heighten the visibility and outreach of this program. DN delivery was also affected by the pandemic and monitoring of ESIs’ engagement and facilitation of communications interventions were needed. Resolution of these challenges effectively reconfigured NCR algorithms, recruitment/retention plans, and DN intervention delivery. We intend to recruit an additional 135 ESIs focusing on underrepresented scholars from RCMIs, CTSAs, and other programs. COVID-19 rendered this program 100% virtual, with recruitment/retention challenges and substantial disruption of ESIs’ research. We may extend the grant writing period, coaching, and Mock Study Section support.