Grant Success for Early-Career Faculty in Patient-Oriented Research: Difference-in-Differences Evaluation of an Interdisciplinary Mentored Research Training Program

Supporting early-career women researchers: lessons from a global mentorship programme

Mentorship is an important contributor to strengthening research capacity among health researchers. Formal mentorship programmes, targeting women mentees can help mitigate some of the gendered power dynamics and can also help early career researchers learn from others' experiences of navigating these challenges. In 2020, the UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction at the World Health Organization launched a mentorship programme geared towards early career women researchers. This paper describes the process of designing and implementing a mentorship programme for early career women sexual and reproductive health and rights researchers from low- and middle-income countries including valuable lessons learned vis-à-vis existing evidence. Some of these findings have been incorporated into iterations of the programme launched in 2022. Critical points include: ensuring considerations for language and geographical distribution; allowing mentees to participate in the matching process; providing training and opportunities to network and learn from other participants; offering the support and structure for developing these relationships. Providing women researchers with the tools - through mentorship - to navigate the unique challenges they face in their career journeys, can have a lasting impact on research capacity. Countries and institutions committed to strengthening research capacity need to focus on the holistic growth and motivation of individuals in a way that ensures gender equality.

Inter-Rater Reliability of the Mentor Behavioral Interaction Rubric

An objective assessment of a mentor's behavioral skills is needed to assess the effectiveness of mentor training interventions in academic settings. The Mentor Behavioral Interaction (MBI) Rubric is a newly developed, content-valid, observational measure of a mentor's behavioral skill during single-episode interactions with a mentee. The purpose of this study was to assess the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of the MBI Rubric when used to assess video-recorded mentor-mentee interactions. Three of a pool of four faculty raters with expertise in mentor training synchronously rated 26 videos of mentor-mentee interactions using structured guidelines. The MBI Rubric includes six items (Part 1), each with ratings on a 3- or 4-point scale, and ten yes/no items (Part 2) that characterize the content of the interaction. After initial individual ratings were completed, the three raters met, reviewed disagreements, and reached decisions about final item scores by either consensus or majority vote. Mean total Part 1 scores ranged between 1.42-2.69. IRRs ranged from good (Part 1 IRR=0.67) to excellent (Part 2 IRR=0.83). No training effects were observed, with no decrease (i.e., showing less variability) in inter-rater standard deviations over time. Rater effects in initial individual scoring were observed, with a significant difference between one vs. the other three raters on Part 1 individual scores, with no effects for Part 2 scores. Raters tended to score lower on initial individual scores than the final score for both Part 1 and 2. The MBI Rubric is the first observational measure to assess single episodes of video-recorded mentor-mentee interactions and has demonstrated content validity, and now inter-rater reliability. It may be used in parallel with other instruments to measure the efficacy of mentor training. Limitations include possible ceiling effects, and resource-intensive administration in terms of rater expertise and time. Future work will assess the responsiveness of the Rubric to change in mentor skill and construct validity.

A Scoping Review of Health Care Faculty Mentorship Programs in Academia: Implications for Program Design, Implementation, and Outcome Evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Formal mentoring programs have direct benefits for academic health care institutions, but it is unclear whether program designs use recommended components and whether outcomes are being captured and evaluated appropriately. The goal of this scoping review is to address these questions.

METHODS

We completed a literature review using a comprehensive search in SCOPUS and PubMed (1998-2019), a direct solicitation for unpublished programs, and hand-searched key references, while targeting mentor programs in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Canada. After three rounds of screening, team members independently reviewed and extracted assigned articles for 40 design data items into a comprehensive database.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight distinct mentoring programs were represented in the data set. The team members clarified specific mentor roles to assist the analysis. The analysis identified mentoring program characteristics that were properly implemented, including identifying program goals, specifying the target learners, and performing a needs assessment. The analysis also identified areas for improvement, including consistent use of models/frameworks for program design, implementation of mentor preparation, consistent reporting of objective outcomes and career satisfaction outcomes, engagement of program evaluation methods, increasing frequency of reports as programs as they mature, addressing the needs of specific faculty groups (eg, women and minority faculty), and providing analyses of program cost-effectiveness in relation to resource allocation (return on investment).

CONCLUSION

The review found that several mentor program design, implementation, outcome, and evaluation components are poorly aligned with recommendations, and content for URM and women faculty members is underrepresented. The review should provide academic leadership information to improve these discrepancies.

Development and Content Validity Testing of the Mentor Behavioral Interaction Rubric

Many mentor training interventions in higher education focus on improving interactions between mentors and mentees. Existing measures of interactions are based on reported perceptions of the mentor or mentee. However, there are currently no objective assessments of the mentor's behavioral skill. The purpose of this study was to develop a Mentor Behavioral Interaction (MBI) Rubric as a measure of a mentor's behavioral skill during single-episode interactions with a mentee. Subsequently, the content validity was assessed. The six items (Part 1), evaluated by five mentoring experts as quantifiable behaviors in any mentor-mentee interaction, were based on the Mentoring Competency Assessment (Fleming et al., 2013). The experts developed scoring criteria (highest, middle, and lowest performance) for each item, and created another eleven items (Part 2) to characterize the content (yes/no) of the interaction. Seven content experts rated the items and scoring criteria using a scale ranging from very (4) to not relevant (1) (Lynn, 1986). Five of the six Part 1 items and scoring criteria, and nine of the eleven Part 2 items had item content validity indices (I-CVI) ≥ 0.86. The Part 1 "motivates" item and scoring, and the Part 2 "personal/professional preferences" item were revised based on expert recommendations. One Part 2 item was deleted. Average scale content validity indices (S-CVI/Ave) were ≥ 0.90. The MBI Rubric is the first measure developed to assess single episodes of videoed mentor-mentee interactions. The Rubric may be used with other measures to assess the effectiveness of mentor training. Limitations include: evaluation of the mentor's behavior without accounting for the mentee's behavior; inability to infer cognitive processes; and focus on the quality of one interaction, rather than the effectiveness of the relationship over time. Future work will assess inter-rater reliability, sensitivity to change, and construct validity for the Rubric.

Strengthening the clinical academic pathway: a systematic review of interventions to support clinical academic careers for doctors and dentists

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate existing evidence on interventions intended to increase recruitment, retention and career progression within clinical academic (CA) careers, including a focus on addressing inequalities.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, PsycINFO and Education Resource Information Center searched October 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

Eligible studies included qualified doctors, dentists and/or those with a supervisory role. Outcomes were defined by studies and related to success rates of joining or continuing within a CA career.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Abstract screening was supported by machine learning software. Full-text screening was performed in duplicate, and study quality was assessed. Narrative synthesis of quantitative data was performed. Qualitative data were thematically analysed.

RESULTS

148 studies examined interventions; of which 28 were included in the quantitative synthesis, 17 in the qualitative synthesis and 2 in both. Studies lacked methodological rigour and/or were hindered by incomplete reporting. Most were from North America. No study included in the syntheses evaluated interventions aimed at CA dentists.Most quantitative evidence was from multifaceted training programmes. These may increase recruitment, but findings were less clear for retention and other outcomes. Qualitative studies reported benefits of supportive relationships, including peers and senior mentors. Protected time for research helped manage competing demands on CAs. Committed and experienced staff were seen as key facilitators of programme success. Respondents identified several other factors at a programme, organisational or national level which acted as facilitators or barriers to success. Few studies reported on the effects of interventions specific to women or minority groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing research is limited by rigour and reporting. Better evaluation of future interventions, particularly those intended to address inequalities, is required. Within the limits of the evidence, comprehensive multifaceted programmes of training, including protected time, relational and support aspects, appear most successful in promoting CA careers.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/mfy7a.

Impact of the Oklahoma IDeA Network of Biomedical Research Excellence research support and mentoring program for early-stage faculty

The Oklahoma IDeA Network of Biomedical Research Excellence (OK-INBRE) provides a formalized mentoring program and grant awards to new and early-stage faculty throughout Oklahoma. The OK-INBRE Research Project Investigator (RPI) award program has supported 30 faculty from both research-intensive universities and primarily undergraduate institutions (PUIs) over the past 15 yr. To examine the impact of this program, we assessed the career trajectory of OK-INBRE RPI awardees and compared their productivity with a control group of applicants who applied for but did not receive an RPI award. A mixed-methods approach was employed to assess longitudinal programmatic impact. Regression analyses were conducted to estimate the effect of an RPI award on faculty productivity, controlling for institutional affiliation. Key informant interviews were conducted to capture qualitative information about satisfaction and additional outcomes. OK-INBRE RPI awardees had a higher number in total and mean number of publications. In achieving extramural funding, RPI awardees were 12.5 times (P = 0.005) as likely to receive a grant award of any type and 4.5 times (P = 0.06) as likely to receive a subsequent federal grant as those in the control group. Many RPI awardees attributed their career success to OK-INBRE, but they also helped to identify barriers to advancement or productivity associated with their specific home institutions. The combined data indicate that OK-INBRE plays a significant role in launching new and early-stage investigators on a path toward independent research careers, which will in turn have a positive impact on the future of the biomedical research enterprise in Oklahoma.NEW & NOTEWORTHY The Oklahoma IDeA Network of Biomedical Research Excellence (OK-INBRE) has been offering a formalized mentoring program and grant awards to new and early-stage faculty throughout Oklahoma for the past 15 yr. The program has been shown to play a significant role in launching participants on a path toward productive research careers, which will in turn be impactful on the biomedical research enterprise in Oklahoma.

Student-led research team-building program may help junior faculty increase productivity in competitive biomedical research environment

BACKGROUND

Interdisciplinary research teams can increase productivity among academic researchers, yet many junior investigators do not have the training or financial resources to build productive teams. We developed and tested the acceptability and feasibility of three low-cost services to help junior faculty build and maintain their own research teams.

METHODS

At an urban academic medical centre, we implemented three types of consultation services: 1) giving talks on evidence-based best practices for building teams; 2) providing easy-to-use team building resources via email; and 3) offering a year-long consultation service-co-led by students-that taught faculty to build and maintain research teams. Our primary outcome was the number of faculty who used each service. For the yearlong consultation service, we asked faculty participants to complete three online self-assessments to rate their leadership confidence, the team's performance, and which of the consultation components were most helpful. We used descriptive statistics to evaluate faculty assessment scores at three timepoints by comparing median scores and interquartile ranges.

RESULTS

We gave 31 talks on team building to 328 faculty and postdoctoral fellows from 2014 to 2020. Separately, 26 faculty heard about our research team building expertise and requested materials via email. For the consultation service, we helped build or enhance 45 research teams from 2014 to 2020. By the end of the consultation, 100% of the faculty reported they were still maintaining their team. In the initial survey, the majority of participants (95.7%, n = 22) reported having no or few experiences in building teams. Further, when asked to rate their team's performance at 12-months, faculty highly rated many elements of both teamwork and taskwork, specifically their team's productivity (6/7 points), morale (6/7 points), and motivation (6/7 points). By the end of the program, faculty participants also highly rated two components of the consultation program: recruitment assistance (7/10 points) and provision of team management tools (7/10 points).

CONCLUSIONS

For participating faculty, our program provided valued guidance on recruitment assistance and team management tools. The high demand for team-building resources suggests that junior faculty urgently need better training on how to develop and manage their own team.

Measuring organizational mentoring climate: Importance and availability scales

INTRODUCTION

Although organizational climate may affect faculty's mentoring behaviors, there has not been any way to measure that climate. The purpose of this study was to test the reliability and validity of two novel scales to measure organizational mentoring climate importance and availability at two public research universities.

METHODS

We developed 36 content-valid mentoring climate items in four dimensions: Structure, Programs/Activities, Policies/Guidelines, and Values. In total, 355 faculty completed an anonymous, structured, online survey asking about the importance (very important to very unimportant) and availability (no, don't know, yes) of each of the items. We conducted reliability analyses and construct validity testing using exploratory common factor analysis, principal axis factoring, and oblique rotation.

RESULTS

The majority of the predominantly female, White non-Hispanic, senior, tenure-track faculty were not currently mentoring another faculty or being mentored. Analyses demonstrated a 15-item solution for both the Organizational Mentoring Climate Importance (OMCI) and the Availability (OMCA) Scales, with three factors each: Organizational Expectations, Mentor-Mentee Relationships, and Resources. Standardized Cronbach alphas ranged from 0.74 to 0.90 for the subscales, and 0.94 (OMCI) and 0.87 (OMCA) for the full scales. Faculty rated all items as somewhat to very important; however, perceived availability was very low ranging from mentor training programs (40%) to guidelines for evaluating mentoring success or managing conflict (2.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The scales will allow studying of how organizational climate may affect mentoring behavior and whether climate can be changed to improve faculty mentoring outcomes. We provide recommendations for furthering the science of organizational mentoring climate and culture.

Capacity development in patient-oriented research: programme evaluation and impact analysis

Background

National and provincial funding was invested to increase the quantity and quality of patient-oriented research (POR) across Canada. Capacity development became a priority to ensure all stakeholders were prepared to engage in POR. In part, this need was met through an annual Studentship competition in the province of Alberta, providing funding to students whose research incorporated principles of POR. However, despite efforts to build capacity in the health research trainee population, little is known about the outcomes of these programmes. This evaluation study examined the outcomes of a POR capacity development programme for health research trainees.

Methods

Final impact narrative reports were submitted by the 21 Studentship programme awardees for 2015 and 2016 who represent a variety of health disciplines across three major research universities. The reports describe the programme outcomes as well as the overall impact on individual, project and professional development as POR trainees. A synthesis of structured and categorised report data was conducted, along with additional qualitative analyses as new themes emerged that were not apparent in the competency framework utilised in the programme design.

Results

Awardee reports detailed the impact of the Studentship programme on the key themes of increased knowledge and skill, relationship building, confidence and leadership, as well as project and career impact. The impacts felt most profoundly by the awardees were not reflective of the competencies that guided programme design. The outcomes were then re-examined using a health research capacity development framework to gain a more comprehensive view of programme impact.

Conclusion

The Studentship programme narratives provided insight into the rarely tracked capacity development outcomes of POR research trainees. Awardee narratives indicated significant development beyond the intended competencies and suggested a need to revisit the competency framework for POR in Alberta. While competencies were useful in guiding the design of the initial programme, a more comprehensive capacity development framework was required to capture the broader impacts on trainee development. Future capacity development programmes may benefit from these early programme insights, specifically the need for more robust competencies for POR. Further exploration of evaluation methods for short-term awards and sustainability of capacity development programmes is warranted.

Training Mentor-Mentee Pairs to Build a Robust Culture for Mentorship and a Pipeline of Clinical and Translational Researchers: The Colorado Mentoring Training Program

The Colorado Mentoring Training program (CO-Mentor) was developed at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in 2010, supported by the Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute. CO-Mentor represents a different paradigm in mentorship training by focusing equally on the development of mentees, who are valued as essential to institutional capacity for effective mentorship. The training model is unique among Clinical and Translational Science Award sites in that it engages mentors and mentees in an established relationship. Dyads participate in 4 day-long sessions scheduled throughout the academic year. Each session features workshops that combine didactic and experiential components. The latter provide structured opportunities to develop mentorship-related skills, including self-knowledge and goal setting, communication skills (including negotiation), "managing up," and the purposeful development of a mentorship support network. Mentors and mentees in 3 recent cohorts reported significant growth in confidence with respect to all mentorship-related skills assessed using a pre-post evaluation survey (P = .001). Mentors reported the most growth in relation to networking to engage social and professional support to realize goals as well as sharing insights regarding paths to success. Mentees reported the most growth with respect to connecting with potential/future mentors, knowing characteristics to look for in current/future mentors, and managing the work environment (e.g., prioritizing work most fruitful to advancing research/career objectives). CO-Mentor represents a novel approach to enhancing mentorship capacity by investing equally in the development of salient skills among mentees and mentors and in the mentorship relationship as an essential resource for professional development, persistence, and scholarly achievement.

Mentoring the Mentors: Implementation and Evaluation of Four Fogarty-Sponsored Mentoring Training Workshops in Low-and Middle-Income Countries

A growing body of evidence highlights the importance of competent mentoring in academic research. We describe the development, implementation, and evaluation of four regional 2-day intensive workshops to train mid- and senior-level investigators conducting public health, clinical, and basic science research across multiple academic institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) on tools and techniques of effective mentoring. Sponsored by the Fogarty International Center, workshops included didactic presentations, interactive discussions, and small-group problem-based learning and were conducted in Lima, Peru; Mombasa, Kenya; Bangalore, India; and Johannesburg, South Africa, from 2013 to 2016. Mid- or senior-level faculty from multiple academic institutions within each region applied and were selected. Thirty faculty from 12 South America–based institutions, 29 faculty from eight East Africa–based institutions, 37 faculty from 14 South Asia–based institutions, and 36 faculty from 13 Africa-based institutions participated, with diverse representation across disciplines, gender, and academic rank. Discussions and evaluations revealed important comparisons and contrasts in the practice of mentoring, and specific barriers and facilitators to mentoring within each cultural and regional context. Specific regional issues related to hierarchy, the post-colonial legacy, and diversity arose as challenges to mentoring in different parts of the world. Common barriers included a lack of a culture of mentoring, time constraints, lack of formal training, and a lack of recognition for mentoring. These workshops provided valuable training, were among the first of their kind, were well-attended, rated highly, and provided concepts and a structure for the development and strengthening of formal mentoring programs across LMIC institutions.

A scoping review of mentor training programs in medicine between 1990 and 2017

Effective mentoring enhances the personal and professional development of mentees and mentors, boosts the reputation of host organizations and improves patient outcomes. Much of this success hinges upon the mentor's ability to nurture personalized mentoring relationships and mentoring environments, provide effective feedback and render timely, responsive, appropriate, and personalized support. However, mentors are often untrained raising concerns about the quality and oversight of mentoring support.To promote effective and consistent use of mentor training in medical education, this scoping review asks what mentor training programs are available in undergraduate and postgraduate medicine and how they may inform the creation of an evidenced-based framework for mentor training.Six reviewers adopted Arksey and O'Malley's approach to scoping reviews to study prevailing mentor-training programs and guidelines in postgraduate education programs and in medical schools. The focus was on novice mentoring approaches. Six reviewers carried out independent searches with similar inclusion/exclusion criteria using PubMed, ERIC, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and grey literature databases. Included were theses and book chapters published in English or had English translations published between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 2017. Braun and Clarke's approach to thematic analysis was adopted to circumnavigate mentoring's and mentor training's evolving, context-specific, goal-sensitive, learner-, tutor- and relationally dependent nature that prevents simple comparisons of mentor training across different settings and mentee and mentor populations.In total, 3585 abstracts were retrieved, 232 full-text articles were reviewed, 68 articles were included and four themes were identified including the structure, content, outcomes and evaluation of mentor training program.The themes identified provide the basis for an evidence-based, practice-guided framework for a longitudinal mentor training program in medicine and identifies the essential topics to be covered in mentor training programs.

Mentorship in academic radiology: why it matters

Mentorship plays a critical role in the success of academic radiologists. Faculty members with mentors have better career opportunities, publish more papers, receive more research grants, and have greater overall career satisfaction. However, with the increasing focus on clinical productivity, pressure on turn-around times, and the difficult funding climate, effective mentoring in academic radiology can be challenging. The high prevalence of “burnout” among radiologists makes mentorship even more important. This article reviews benefits and challenges of mentorship in academic radiology, discusses how to institute a faculty mentoring program, examines different types of mentoring, and reviews challenges related to diversity and inclusion.

Building a comprehensive mentoring academy for schools of health

Formal mentoring programs are increasingly recognized as critical for faculty career development. We describe a mentoring academy (MA) developed for faculty across tracks (i.e., researchers, clinicians, educators) within a “school of health” encompassing schools of medicine and nursing. The program is anchored dually in a clinical and translational science center and a school of health. The structure includes the involvement of departmental and center mentoring directors to achieve widespread uptake and oversight. A fundamental resource provided by the MA includes providing workshops to enhance mentoring skills. Initiatives for junior faculty emphasize establishing and maintaining strong mentoring relationships and implementing individual development plans (IDPs) for career planning. We present self-report data on competency improvement from mentor workshops and data on resources and barriers identified by junior faculty (n = 222) in their IDPs. Mentors reported statistically significantly improved mentoring competency after workshop participation. Junior faculty most frequently identified mentors (61%) and collaborators (23%) as resources for goal attainment. Top barriers included insufficient time and time-management issues (57%), funding limitations (18%), work–life balance issues (18%), including inadequate time for self-care and career development activities. Our MA can serve as a model and roadmap for providing resources to faculty across traditional tracks within medical schools.

Leadership Lessons: Developing Mentoring Infrastructure for GEMSSTAR Scholars

Through the National Institute on Aging's (NIA's) "Grants for Early Medical/Surgical Specialists" Transition to Aging Research (GEMSSTAR) U13 grant, the NIA and the American Geriatrics Society (AGS) developed three transdisciplinary research conferences with a focus on mentoring and leadership skills development. The NIA's GEMSSTAR program evolved from two earlier programs, the AGS' Dennis W. Jahnigen and the Association of Specialty Professors' T. Franklin Williams Career Development Scholars Awards. It supports the continued cultivation of the next generation of medical and surgical specialty researchers with an interest in aging research. The award requires both geriatrics and specialty mentoring and currently provides up to $150,000 a year in direct support to scholars. Additionally, the award requires that scholars have a professional development plan that is complementary to the GEMSSTAR award. The U13 conferences, focused on frailty, models of aging, and cognition, brought together GEMSSTAR scholars, former scholars, innovators, mentors, and leaders in aging research, the specialties, and geriatric medicine. This article describes the themes of each of the GEMSSTAR U13 conferences and highlights the lessons learned on mentoring, team science, aging research networks, and work-life balance. We plan to use these lessons to guide the support we provide to the growing group of emerging leaders who are poised to lead the transdisciplinary research network of the future. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:650-656, 2019.

Identifying Components of Success Within Health Sciences-Focused Mentoring Programs Through a Review of the Literature

Objective. To identify programmatic components and structural features associated with success of mentoring programs within the health sciences. Findings. Thirty-eight manuscripts representing 34 individual programs were reviewed. Of the institutions represented, 68% were public. Sixty-eight percent of programs included single disciplines only, with four focused in pharmacy, 13 in medicine, and six in nursing. Of the 34 individual programs, all programs reporting participant confidence and self-efficacy reported success in that domain. Eighteen programs reported outcomes related to scholarly activity that included publications or funding/grantsmanship; 16 reported success. Eleven of 16 programs reporting promotion/tenure and/or faculty retention rates reported success. Program components associated with successful programs included frequent meetings (at least monthly) and delivering content within formal curricula. Content categories common within programs reporting success were content related to research, funding/grantsmanship and networking/collaboration. In addition, specific for the promotion/retention domain, content related to curriculum/teaching was commonly found within successful programs. Summary. Although somewhat dependent on the program's specific goals, curriculum most commonly associated with success contained content on research, grantsmanship/funding, curriculum/teaching, and networking/collaboration. Among many programs, the reporting lacked objective, standardized metrics and often included only generalized descriptions/categorization of course content. The incomplete and inconsistent reporting limited our ability to draw conclusions regarding individual topics important for each program component. Proper planning, execution, and assessment of faculty mentoring programs is critical to the identification of additional program characteristics for optimal faculty success.

Pilot trials in thrombosis: Purpose and pitfalls

Randomized controlled trials provide important evidence to guide clinical practice. These full-scale trials are expensive, time consuming and many are never successfully completed. Well conducted pilot studies help with full-scale trial design, assessment and optimization of feasibility, and can avoid the waste of resources associated with starting a full-scale trial that will not succeed. They also provide an opportunity for capacity growth and mentorship of new investigators. It is important to appreciate that the usual goal of a pilot trial is assessment of feasibility and refinement of trial design rather than to gain preliminary evidence of efficacy. Indeed, using event rates from a pilot trial to calculate sample sizes can be misleading in therapeutic trials. Misconceptions exist that pilot trials are just "small trials," are easy to perform, and are not worthy of publication. While, in the past, many pilot trials were poorly conducted and not followed by a full-scale trial, by following the recommendations in the "CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomized pilot and feasibility trials," high-quality pilot trials can be performed and reported that will greatly improve the chances of successfully completing a practice-changing trial. We propose that pilot trials are a valuable investment and describe the TRIM-Line pilot trial (NCT03506815), a pilot study assessing the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial investigating primary thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban in patients with malignancy and central venous catheters, as an illustrative example of how a pilot trial in the area of thrombosis should be designed.

Automated Literature Searches for Longitudinal Tracking of Cancer Research Training Program Graduates

A key outcome measure of cancer research training programs is the number of cancer-related peer-reviewed publications after training. Because program graduates do not routinely report their publications, staff must periodically conduct electronic literature searches on each graduate. The purpose of this study is to compare findings of an innovative computer-based automated search program versus repeated manual literature searches to identify post-training peer-reviewed publications. In late 2014, manual searches for publications by former R25 students identified 232 cancer-related articles published by 112 of 543 program graduates. In 2016, a research assistant was instructed in performing Scopus literature searches for comparison with individual PubMed searches on our 543 program graduates. Through 2014, Scopus found 304 cancer publications, 220 of that had been retrieved manually plus an additional 84 papers. However, Scopus missed 12 publications found manually. Together, both methods found 316 publications. The automated method found 96.2 % of the 316 publications while individual searches found only 73.4 %. An automated search method such as using the Scopus database is a key tool for conducting comprehensive literature searches, but it must be supplemented with periodic manual searches to find the initial publications of program graduates. A time-saving feature of Scopus is the periodic automatic alerts of new publications. Although a training period is needed and initial costs can be high, an automated search method is worthwhile due to its high sensitivity and efficiency in the long term.

Radiology Research Funding: Current State and Future Opportunities

Funding for research has become increasingly difficult to obtain in an environment of decreasing clinical revenue, increasing research costs, and growing competition for federal and nonfederal funding sources. This paper identifies critical requirements to build and sustain a successful radiology research program (eg, key personnel and leadership, research training and mentorship, infrastructure, institutional and departmental funding or support), reviews the current state of available funding for radiology (including federal, nonfederal, philanthropy, crowdfunding, and industry), and describes promising opportunities for future funding (eg, health services, comparative effectiveness, and patient-centered outcomes research). The funding climate, especially at the federal level, changes periodically, so it is important to have radiology-specific organizations such as the American College of Radiology and the Academy of Radiology Research serving as our key advocates. Key to obtaining any funding, no matter what the source, is a well-formulated grant proposal, so a review of opportunities specifically available to radiologists to develop and hone their grant-writing skills is provided. Effective and sustained funding for radiology research has the potential to cultivate young researchers, bolster quality research, and enhance health care. Those interested in pursuing research need to be aware of the ever-changing funding landscape, research priority areas, and the resources available to them to succeed. To succeed, radiology researchers need to think about diversification and flexibility in their interests, developing multidisciplinary and multi-institutional projects, and engaging a broader base of stakeholders that includes patients.

Guiding curriculum development of a national research training program in thrombosis medicine: A needs assessment involving faculty and trainees

BACKGROUND

Several barriers exist for training and retention of clinician scientists, including difficulty in navigating research-related tasks in the workplace and insufficient mentorship.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to identify what core research knowledge and skills are important for the success of clinician scientists in thrombosis research, and trainees' perceived confidence in those skills, in order to develop a targeted educational intervention.

METHODS

A pre-tested online survey was administered to trainees and research faculty of the Canadian thrombosis research network, CanVECTOR, between September 2016 and June 2017. The importance (research faculty) and confidence (trainees) of 45 research knowledge/skills were measured using a 5-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 49% (28/57) for research faculty and 100% (10/10) for trainees. All research faculty rated developing a good research question, grant writing and writing strategies for successful publication as 'very' or 'extremely' important for trainees to learn to better transition in becoming independent researchers. Other important areas included practical aspects of research. A qualitative thematic analysis of open text responses identified 'time management' and 'leadership and teamwork' as additional important research skills. Confidence reported for each topic varied across trainees. There were three research knowledge and/or skills that ≥75% of research faculty deemed highly important and ≥50% of trainees reported lacking confidence in: grant writing, the peer-review grant process, and knowledge translation strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Developing a good research question, communicating research ideas and results and the practical aspects of research are important areas to focus future efforts in thrombosis research training.

Mentoring Early-Career Faculty Researchers Is Important-But First "Train the Trainer"

It has long been known that mentoring is critical to the success of junior faculty researchers. The controlled intervention study by Libby et al published in this issue of Academic Medicine demonstrates that institutional investment in a mentored research career development program for early-career faculty investigators provided significant long-term gains in grant productivity. Academic institutions hoping to replicate this program's success by launching similar mentoring programs for their junior faculty investigators will, however, find that the Achilles' heel lies in the scarcity of skilled research mentors and the relative lack of attention to and recognition of the importance of a supportive institutional climate for mentoring. It is essential, therefore, to begin by developing programs to "train the trainer" as well as programs and policies to support mentors. As a recent trial at 16 Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions demonstrated, competency-based, structured research mentor training can improve mentors' skills.In this Commentary, the authors offer a comprehensive two-pronged framework for mentor development with elements that address both individual mentoring competencies and the institutional climate for mentoring. The framework depicts the gaps, activities, and outcomes that a mentor development program can address. Activities directed at changing the institutional climate related to mentor development should complement training activities for individual mentors. The authors propose that employing this framework's approach to mentor development will lead to the desired impact: to increase the competence, productivity, and retention of a diverse clinical and translational research workforce.