Excellence in Radiation Research for the 21st Century (EIRR21): description of an innovative research training program

Curricula, Teaching Methods, and Success Metrics of Clinician-Scientist Training Programs: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

To describe the literature on clinician-scientist training programs to inform the development of contemporary and inclusive training models.

METHOD

The authors conducted a scoping review, searching the PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Embase databases from database inception until May 25, 2020. Studies presenting primary research that described and evaluated clinician-scientist training programs were identified for data abstraction. On the basis of deductive and inductive methods, information about program characteristics, curricula, teaching strategies, and success metrics was extracted. The extracted variables were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

From the initial 7,544 citations retrieved and 4,974 unique abstracts screened, 81 studies were included. Of the 81 included studies, 65 (80.2%) were published between 2011 and 2020, 54 (66.7%) were conducted in the United States, and 64 (79.0%) described programs that provided broad clinician-scientist training. Few programs provided funding or protected research time or specifically addressed needs of trainees from underrepresented minority groups. Curricula emphasized research methods and knowledge dissemination, whereas patient-oriented research competencies were not described. Most programs incorporated aspects of mentorship and used multiple teaching strategies, such as direct and interactive instruction. Extrinsic metrics of success (e.g., research output) were dominant in reported program outcomes compared with markers of intrinsic success (e.g., career fulfillment).

CONCLUSIONS

Although programs are providing clinician-scientists with practical skills training, opportunities exist for curricular and pedagogic optimization that may better support this complex career path. Training programs for clinician-scientists can address contemporary issues of wellness and equity by reconsidering metrics of program success and evolving the core tenets of their education models to include equity, diversity, and inclusion principles and patient-oriented research competencies.

Strategic Training in Transdisciplinary Radiation Science for the 21st Century (STARS21): 15-Year Evaluation of an Innovative Research Training Program

PURPOSE

To evaluate the 15-year impact of a transdisciplinary research training program for graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and clinical trainees focused on radiation science, entitled Strategic Training in Transdisciplinary Radiation Science for the 21st Century (STARS21) with a primary objective to build capacity in radiation research.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Alumni (n = 128) and mentors (n = 41) who participated in STARS21 between 2003 and 2018 were sent an anonymized online survey designed to evaluate the program. Twelve alumni and 7 mentors also volunteered to participate in semistructured interviews. The transcribed interviews were coded and analyzed using NVivo12-Pro software. Alumni employment and publications were assessed from program records and by web-based search queries.

RESULTS

Alumni are located in 11 countries, and nearly 90% are employed in a research-oriented career and continue to publish in radiation medicine- or cancer-related fields. Of those invited, 46 alumni (36%) and 12 mentors (29%) completed the online survey. Approximately 87% of alumni valued interdisciplinary collaboration, and 80% indicated that STARS21 had encouraged them to pursue such collaborations. Alumni emphasized that STARS21 assisted their career development, and the majority of alumni and mentors would recommend STARS21 to other trainees (4.48 and 4.58, respectively; 5 = strongly agree). The time invested in the program was perceived by mentors as worthwhile for the knowledge and skills gained by trainees (4.67; 5 = strongly agree), and 64% of mentors indicated that these benefits were associated with improved trainee research productivity. From the alumni and mentor perspectives, the valuable skills acquired from STARS21 included scientific communication (85% and 83%, respectively) and networking (83% and 92%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

STARS21 is an innovative research training program that promotes interdisciplinary collaboration in radiation medicine research, which is valued by alumni and mentor respondents. Alumni can acquire important skill sets for career development, with a large proportion of alumni currently engaged in radiation research around the world.

Are researcher development interventions, alone or in any combination, effective in improving researcher behavior? A systematic review

Academic institutions funded by the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program of the National Institutes of Health were challenged recently by the Institute of Medicine to expand traditional mentoring of graduate and postdoctoral scholars to include training and continuing education for faculty, professional staff, and community partners. A systematic review was conducted to determine whether researcher development interventions, alone or in any combination, are effective in improving researcher behavior. PubMed, CINAHL, and Education Research Complete databases and select journals were searched for relevant articles published from January 2000 through October 2012. A total of 3,459 papers were identified, and 114 papers were retrieved for in-depth analysis. None included randomization. Twenty-two papers reported subjects with professional degrees, interventions, and outcomes. Interventions were meetings, outreach visits, colleague mediation, audit and feedback, and multifaceted interventions. Most studies reported multifaceted interventions (68.2%), often involving mentored learning experiences, and meetings. All studies reported a change in performance, including numbers of publications or grant applications. Nine studies reported changes in competence, including writing, presentation, or analytic skills, and performance in research practice (40.9%). Even as, the quality of evidence was weak to establish causal linkages between researcher development and improved researcher behavior, nearly all the projects (81.8%) received funding from governmental agencies, professional societies, or other organizations. Those who design researcher development activities and those who evaluate the programs are challenged to develop tools and conduct studies that measure the effectiveness, costs, and sustainability of researcher development in the CTSA Program.

Standing on the shoulders of giants: results from the Radiation Oncology Academic Development and Mentorship Assessment Project (ROADMAP)

PURPOSE

To analyze survey information regarding mentorship practices and cross-correlate the results with objective metrics of academic productivity among academic radiation oncologists at US Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited residency training programs.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

An institutional review board-approved survey for the Radiation Oncology Academic Development and Mentorship Assessment Project (ROADMAP) was sent to 1031 radiation oncologists employed at an ACGME-accredited residency training program and administered using an international secure web application designed exclusively to support data capture for research studies. Data collected included demographics, presence of mentorship, and the nature of specific mentoring activities. Productivity metrics, including number of publications, number of citations, h-index, and date of first publication, were collected for each survey respondent from a commercially available online database, and m-index was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 158 academic radiation oncologists completed the survey, 96 of whom reported having an academic/scientific mentor. Faculty with a mentor had higher numbers of publications, citations, and h- and m-indices. Differences in gender and race/ethnicity were not associated with significant differences in mentorship rates, but those with a mentor were more likely to have a PhD degree and were more likely to have more time protected for research. Bivariate fit regression modeling showed a positive correlation between a mentor's h-index and their mentee's h-index (R2=0.16; P<.001). Linear regression also showed significant correlates of higher h-index, in addition to having a mentor (P=.001), included a longer career duration (P<.001) and fewer patients in treatment (P=.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Mentorship is widely believed to be important to career development and academic productivity. These results emphasize the importance of identifying and striving to overcome potential barriers to effective mentorship.