Mediators of Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Mentored K Award Receipt Among U.S. Medical School Graduates

Interventions to support fellowship application success among predoctoral physician-scientists

A critical element of physician-scientist training is the development and practice of core competencies that promote success in research careers. The ability to develop compelling training and research proposals is one such foundational skill. The NIH Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) individual fellowship for dual-degree students (F30, F31, or F31-Diversity) creates an ideal opportunity to provide formal instruction in grant-writing skills to physician-scientists early in training. In the guided process of preparing a predoctoral fellowship application, students learn to formulate clear short- and long-term research and training goals; construct a comprehensive, well-reasoned, and rigorous proposal; become familiar with funding agency priorities; and gain strategic insights into the peer review system. Beyond building scientific writing skills, the application process for an NRSA F30 or F31 is an opportunity for trainees to strengthen mentor-mentee relationships, identify learning opportunities key to their scientific development, and build effective research and mentoring teams. These skills also apply to developing future postdoctoral mentored K applications or faculty research program grants. Here, we outline key features of the structured proposal development training developed for students in the Yale MD-PhD Program and review outcomes associated with its implementation.

The Next Generation: Mentoring and Diversity in the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group

The Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) Mentoring Program was established to develop and prepare the next generation of clinician-scientists for a career in antibacterial resistance research. The ARLG Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Working Group partners with the Mentoring Committee to help ensure diversity and excellence in the clinician-scientist workforce of the future. To advance the field of antibacterial research while fostering inclusion and diversity, the Mentoring Program has developed a number of fellowships, awards, and programs, which are described in detail in this article.

Increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion in the fields of nutrition and obesity: A road map to equity in academia

Research shows that a diverse faculty improves academic, clinical, and research outcomes in higher education. Despite that, persons in minority groups, usually categorized by race or ethnicity, are underrepresented in academia (URiA). The Nutrition Obesity Research Centers (NORCs), supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, hosted workshops on five separate days in September and October 2020. NORCs convened these workshops to identify barriers and facilitators for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and provide specific recommendations to improve DEI within obesity and nutrition for individuals from URiA groups. Recognized experts on DEI presented each day, after which the NORCs conducted breakout sessions with key stakeholders who engage in nutrition and obesity research. The breakout session groups included early-career investigators, professional societies, and academic leadership. The consensus from the breakout sessions was that glaring inequities affect URiA in nutrition and obesity, particularly related to recruitment, retention, and advancement. Recommendations from the breakout sessions to improve DEI across academia focused on six themes: (1) recruitment, (2) retention, (3) advancement, (4) intersectionality of multiple challenges (e.g., being Black and a woman), (5) funding agencies, and (6) implementation of strategies to address problems related to DEI.

Increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion in the fields of nutrition and obesity: A roadmap to equity in academia

Research shows that a diverse faculty improves academic, clinical, and research outcomes in higher education. Despite that, persons in minority groups, usually categorized by race or ethnicity, are underrepresented in academia (URiA). The Nutrition Obesity Research Centers (NORCs), supported by the NIDDK, hosted workshops on five separate days in September and October 2020. NORCs convened these workshops to identify barriers and facilitators for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and provide specific recommendations to improve DEI within obesity and nutrition for individuals from URiA groups. Recognized experts on DEI presented each day, after which the NORCs conducted breakout sessions with key stakeholders who engage in nutrition and obesity research. The breakout session groups included early-career investigators, professional societies, and academic leadership. The consensus from the breakout sessions was that glaring inequities affect URiA in nutrition and obesity, particularly related to recruitment, retention, and advancement. Recommendations from the breakout sessions to improve DEI across the academe focused on six themes: (1) recruitment, (2) retention, (3) advancement, (4) intersectionality of multiple challenges (e.g., being Black and a woman), (5) funding agencies, and (6) implementation of strategies to address problems related to DEI.

Predictors of academic career progression among early career physician-scientists via an intensive research training program abroad: a case study

BACKGROUND

Despite extensive efforts to revitalize the physician-scientist pipeline, attrition has been observed along the physician-scientist developmental pathway. Research exposure during clinical training is considered an important factor favoring the decision to pursue an academic career pathway.

METHODS

The authors sought to identify factors associated with academic career progression among junior physician-scientists following the completion of an intensive research training program, using the framework of the Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT), to benefit the design of efforts to revitalize the physician-scientist career pipeline. We conducted a retrospective study of 108 physicians who completed a long-term research training program abroad during residency, or within a few years post-residency completion, between 2010 and 2017. With potential predictors of academic career progression prioritized by SCCT, multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of sustained research involvement, high productivity and high research competency after training, respectively. The SCCT was used to illuminate our findings.

RESULTS

Co-publications with training supervisors abroad and medical oncology/pediatric oncology as a clinical specialty were positively associated with sustained research involvement and high productivity. Joining the training program after the age of 36 was negatively associated with high research competency. All of the predictors shared a common feature of high correlation with both self-efficacy and environmental elements, the reciprocal interactions of which may affect the career progression of physician-scientists.

CONCLUSIONS

Insights gained through this analysis provide policy recommendations for the designing of efforts to revitalize the physician-scientist career pipeline. Priorities should be given to institutional oversight to ensure strengthened self-efficacy at the beginning of one's academic career, by providing long-term research training opportunities to young residents and promoting co-publications with their training supervisors during the training. In order to avoid the negative impact to self-efficacy caused by patient-related burnout or academic isolation, academic medical centers should take measures to guarantee protected research time, and to develop a positive culture encouraging mentoring relationships between junior and experienced physician-scientists in medical departments.

Gender, Racial, and Ethnic and Inequities in Receipt of Multiple National Institutes of Health Research Project Grants

Importance

Diversity in the biomedical research workforce is essential for addressing complex health problems. Female investigators and investigators from underrepresented ethnic and racial groups generate novel, impactful, and innovative research, yet they are significantly underrepresented among National Institutes of Health (NIH) investigators.

Objective

To examine the gender, ethnic, and racial distribution of super NIH investigators who received 3 or more concurrent NIH grants.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study included a national cohort of NIH-funded principal investigators (PIs) from the NIH Information for Management, Planning, Analysis, and Coordination (IMPAC II) database from 1991 to 2020.

Exposures

Self-identified gender, race and ethnicity, annual number of NIH grant receipt, career stage, and highest degree.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Distribution of investigators receiving 3 or more research project grants, referred to as super principal investigators (SPIs), by gender, race, and ethnicity.

Results

Among 33 896 investigators in fiscal year 2020, 7478 (22.01%) identified as Asian, 623 (1.8%) as Black, 1624 (4.8%) as Hispanic, and 22 107 (65.2%) as White; 21 936 (61.7%) identified as men; and 8695 (35.3%) were early-stage investigators. Between 1991 and 2020, the proportion of SPIs increased 3-fold from 704 (3.7%) to 3942 (11.3%). However, SPI status was unequal across gender, ethnic, and racial groups. Women and Black PIs were significantly underrepresented among SPIs, even after adjusting for career stage and degree, and were 34% and 40% less likely than their male and White colleagues, respectively, to be an SPI. Black women PIs were the least likely to be represented among SPIs and were 71% less likely to attain SPI status than White men PIs (adjusted odds ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.21-0.41).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of a national cohort of NIH-funded investigators, the gender, ethnic, and racial gaps in receipt of multiple research project grants among NIH investigators was clearly apparent and warrants further investigation and interventions.

Variation in Research Experiences and Publications During Medical School by Sex and Race and Ethnicity

Importance

Diverse research teams are critical to solving complex health problems and producing high-quality medical research.

Objective

To examine the associations of student sex and racial and ethnic identity with publication rates during medical school.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study assessed individual-level data of US MD graduates from medical school who matriculated in academic years 2014 to 2015 and 2015 to 2016. Data were obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges and analyzed from October 2021 to January 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes of interest included students' self-reported participation in unique research experiences, number of publications, and computed publications per research experience. Poisson regressions were constructed to determine the association of sex and racial and ethnic identity with research outcomes using adjusted rate ratios (aRRs).

Results

Among 31 474 graduates, 15 159 (48.2%) identified as women and 4344 (13.8%) identified as underrepresented in medicine by race and ethnicity (URIM; including American Indian, Alaska Native, Black, Hawaiian Native, Hispanic/Latinx, and Pacific Islander individuals). Students who attended National Institutes of Health (NIH) top 40 research-ranked schools reported higher number of research experiences and publication counts, resulting in a higher publication rate compared with students from non-top 40 schools (median [IQR] 1.60 [1.00-3.00] vs 1.25 [0.50-2.33]; P < .001). Women reported a higher number of research experiences than men but a significantly lower number of publications (top 40 schools: aRR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.87-0.90; non-top 40 schools: aRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.92-0.95). This resulted in a significantly lower publication rate among women (top 40 schools: aRR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.83-0.86; non-top 40 schools: aRR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.90-0.92). Compared with White students, Asian students had higher publication rates at both NIH top 40 schools (aRR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.12) and non-top 40 schools (aRR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.05-1.08), while lower publication rates were reported among Black students (top 40 schools: aRR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.80-0.86; non-top 40 schools: aRR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.95) and Hispanic students attending non-top 40 schools (aRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.95).

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings illustrate that inequities in the physician-scientist workforce began early in training and highlight key areas for intervention, such as funding support and mentorship training during undergraduate medical education, that may promote the future success of a diverse physician-scientist workforce.

Perinatal Research Society's Young Investigator Workshop Prepares the Next Generation of Investigators

Sustaining impactful research within the field of perinatal biology requires training and retention of the next generations of physician-scientists and basic-scientists. Professional societies such as the Perinatal Research Society (PRS) have a unique role to play in training and retention of perinatal biologists. Here we report outcomes for an innovative Young Investigator Training Workshop created for the PRS. The PRS Workshop uses immersive, active-writing, and active-oral presentation design, with one-on-one feedback from NIH-funded faculty-mentors drawn from the PRS membership. Young investigator data were collected by anonymous surveys of young investigators, NIH RePORTER, and individual young investigator follow-up. Ninety-seven young investigators attended the Workshops over the period 2013-2018. Young investigators were physician- (73%) and PhD- (27%) scientists at the rank of clinical fellow/postdoctoral fellow (27%) or instructor/assistant professor (73%). Participation by underrepresented minority (URM) young investigators was 14%. Young investigators received NIH and non-NIH funding, with 80% of young investigators receiving new funding since the Workshop that they attended. NIH funding was received by 31% of young investigators in the form of K-series awards, R01 equivalents, and other NIH awards. In conclusion, our PRS young investigator Workshop serves as a model to facilitate training of emerging physician- and basic-scientists by scientific societies.

More than grit: growing and sustaining physician-scientists in obstetrics and gynecology

Obstetricians know the statistics-1 out of every 10 babies is born premature; preeclampsia affects 1 in 25 pregnant people; the United States has the highest rate of maternal mortality in the developed world. Yet, physicians and scientists still do not fully understand the biology of normal pregnancy, let alone what causes these complications. Obstetrics and gynecology-trained physician-scientists are uniquely positioned to fill critical knowledge gaps by addressing clinically-relevant problems through fundamental research and interpreting insights from basic and translational studies in the clinical context. Within our specialty, however, physician-scientists are relatively uncommon. Inadequate guidance, lack of support and community, and structural barriers deter fellows and early stage faculty from pursuing the physician-scientist track. One approach to help cultivate the next generation of physician-scientists in obstetrics and gynecology is to demystify the process and address the common barriers that contribute to the attrition of early stage investigators. Here, we review major challenges and propose potential pathways forward in the areas of mentorship, obtaining protected research time and resources, and ensuring diversity, equity, and inclusion, from our perspective as early stage investigators in maternal-fetal medicine. We discuss the roles of early stage investigators and leaders at the institutional and national level in the collective effort to retain and grow our physician-scientist workforce. We aim to provide a framework for early stage investigators initiating their research careers and a starting point for discussion with academic stakeholders. We cannot afford to lose the valuable contributions of talented individuals due to modifiable factors or forfeit our voices as advocates for the issues that impact pregnant populations.

The Disparities Researchers Equalizing Access for Minorities (DREAM) Scholars program: career development for underrepresented health equity researchers

Diversity remains low among US colleges faculty, with only 3% identifying as Black or Hispanic. Moreover, underrepresented racial minority faculty often face unique challenges and are less likely than their white counterparts to earn higher academic rank, tenure, and funding, especially those who study health equity. We developed a novel program for health-equity focused pre-docs and junior faculty. The Disparities Researchers Equalizing Access for Minorities (DREAM) Scholars is a 24-month career development program led by the Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS) that provides pilot and travel funding, career development seminars, mentoring, and writing retreats. We report the outcomes of the first Scholar cohort (N = 10), pre-docs n = 6; assistant professors, n = 4; seven were Black, one Hispanic, two White, one who identified as non-binary. At the end of the program, Scholars coauthored 34 manuscripts, 9 abstracts and 8 grants. Semi-structured interviews revealed seven major program strengths: funding, support and sense of community, accountability, exposure to translational science, network expansion, and exposure to multidisciplinary peers. Scholars provided feedback useful for subsequent cohorts. The DREAM program provided accountability and fostered a sense of community, expanded professional networks and enhanced scholarly productivity. The program serves as a model for implementation throughout the CCTSs.

The Association Between NRMN STAR Grantsmanship Self-Efficacy and Grant Submission

Background

Eliminating the NIH funding gap among underrepresented minorities (URMs) remains a high priority for the National Institutes of Health. In 2014, the National Research Mentoring Network¹ Steps Toward Academic Research (NRMN STAR) program recruited postdoctoral, early-stage and junior faculty to participate in a 12-month grant writing and professional development program. The expectation of the program was to increase the number of grant submissions and awards to URM researchers. Although receiving a grant award is the gold standard of NRMN STAR, instilling confidence for postdocs and early-stage faculty to submit an application is a critical first step. Based on our previous study, a sustained increase in trainee self-efficacy score over a 24-month period was observed after completing NRMN STAR.

Methods

The current study sought to determine the association between self-efficacy score and grant submissions among two cohorts of trainees. Grantsmanship Self-Efficacy was measured using a 19-item questionnaire previously described by and used in our own work, which was originally adapted from an 88-item Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory.² A binary variable was created to identify trainees who submitted an initial or revised proposal vs those who abandoned their proposal or were still writing. Trainees were assessed prior to and following program completion with subsequent assessments at 6 and 12 months beyond participation.

Results

As of June 20, 2019, 12 of the 21 (57%) trainees had submitted a grant proposal (eg, NIH, other federal or non-federal grant). For every point increase in 12-month post assessments, Grantsmanship Self-Efficacy scores across all domains had a 44% higher prevalence of submitting a grant after controlling for race, sex, education level, academic rank, research experience, duration of postdoctoral training, institution type, and NRMN STAR cohort.

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrate that NRMN STAR had a positive impact on trainees' confidence in grant writing and professional development activities, which resulted in higher grant submission rates.

Strategies to Enhance Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Pathology Training Programs: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature

CONTEXT.—

Like many medical specialties, pathology faces the ongoing challenge of effectively enriching diversity, equity, and inclusion within training programs and the field as a whole. This issue is furthered by a decline in US medical student interest in the field of pathology, possibly attributable to increasingly limited pathology exposure during medical school and medical student perceptions about careers in pathology.

OBJECTIVE.—

To review the literature to identify the challenges to diversity, equity, and inclusion in pathology, with an emphasis on the pathology trainee pipeline. To evaluate the medical education literature from other medical specialties for diversity and inclusion-focused studies and initiatives, and determine the outcomes and/or approaches relevant for pathology training programs.

DATA SOURCES.—

A literature review was completed by a search of the PubMed database, as well as a similar general Google search. Additional resources, including the Web sites of the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Electronic Residency Application Service, and the National Resident Matching Program, were used.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Many strategies exist to increase diversity and encourage an inclusive and equitable training environment, and many of these strategies may be applied to the field of pathology. Interventions such as increasing exposure to the field, using a holistic application review process, and addressing implicit biases have been shown to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in many medical specialties. In addition, increasing access to elective and pipeline programs may help to bolster medical student interest in careers in pathology.

Current and Historical Trends in Diversity by Race, Ethnicity, and Sex Within the US Pathology Physician Workforce

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed historical and current gender, racial, and ethnic diversity trends within US pathology graduate medical education (GME) and the pathologist workforce.

METHODS

Data from online, publicly available sources were assessed for significant differences in racial, ethnic, and sex distribution in pathology trainees, as well as pathologists in practice or on faculty, separately compared with the US population and then each other using binomial tests.

RESULTS

Since 1995, female pathology resident representation has been increasing at a rate of 0.45% per year (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29-0.61; P < .01), with pathology now having significantly more females (49.8%) compared to the total GME pool (45.4%; P < .0001). In contrast, there was no significant trend in the rate of change per year in black or American Indian, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AI/AN/NH/PI) resident representation (P = .04 and .02). Since 1995, underrepresented minority (URM) faculty representation has increased by 0.03% per year (95% CI, 0.024-0.036; P < .01), with 7.6% URM faculty in 2018 (5.2% Hispanic, 2.2% black, 0.2% AI/AN/NH/PI).

CONCLUSIONS

This assessment of pathology trainee and physician workforce diversity highlights significant improvements in achieving trainee gender parity. However, there are persistent disparities in URM representation, with significant underrepresentation of URM pathologists compared with residents.

Inclusion in the Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine Physician-Scientist Workforce. Building with Intention

Physician-scientists comprise an exceedingly small fraction of the physician workforce. As the fields of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine continue to invest in the development of the physician-scientist workforce, recruitment and retention strategies need to consider the temporal trend in the decline in numbers of trainees pursuing basic research, the challenges of trainees from underrepresented groups in medicine, and opportunities for career and scientific advancement of women physician-scientists. In this perspective article, we examine the headwinds in the training and education of physician-scientists and highlight potential solutions to reverse these trends.

EXPLORING REASONS THAT U.S. MD-PHD STUDENTS ENTER AND LEAVE THEIR DUAL-DEGREE PROGRAMS

AIM/PURPOSE

In response to widespread efforts to increase the size and diversity of the biomedical-research workforce in the U.S., a large-scale qualitative study was conducted to examine current and former students' training experiences in MD (Doctor of Medicine), PhD (Doctor of Philosophy), and MD-PhD dual-degree programs. In this paper, we aimed to describe the experiences of a subset of study participants who had dropped out their MD-PhD dual-degree training program, the reasons they entered the MD-PhD program, as well as their reasons for discontinuing their training for the MD-PhD.

BACKGROUND

The U.S. has the longest history of MD-PhD dual-degree training programs and produces the largest number of MD-PhD graduates in the world. In the U.S., dual-degree MD-PhD programs are offered at many medical schools and historically have included three phases-preclinical, PhD-research, and clinical training, all during medical-school training. On average, it takes eight years of training to complete requirements for the MD-PhD dual-degree. MD-PhD students have unique training experiences, different from MD-only or PhD-only students. Not all MD-PhD students complete their training, at a cost to funding agencies, schools, and students themselves.

METHODOLOGY

We purposefully sampled from 97 U.S. schools with doctoral programs, posting advertisements for recruitment of participants who were engaged in or had completed PhD, MD, and MD-PhD training. Between 2011-2013, semi-structured, one-on-one phone interviews were conducted with 217 participants. Using a phenomenological approach and inductive, thematic analysis, we examined students' reasons for entering the MD-PhD dual-degree program, when they decided to leave, and their reasons for leaving MD-PhD training.

CONTRIBUTION

Study findings offer new insights into MD-PhD students' reasons for leaving the program, beyond what is known about program attrition based on retrospective analysis of existing national data, as little is known about students' actual reasons for attrition. By more deeply exploring students' reasons for attrition, programs can find ways to improve MD-PhD students' training experiences and boost their retention in these dual-degree programs to completion, which will, in turn, foster expansion of the biomedical-research-workforce capacity.

FINDINGS

Seven participants in the larger study reported during their interview that they left their MD-PhD programs before finishing, and these were the only participants who reported leaving their doctoral training. At the time of interview, two participants had completed the MD and were academic-medicine faculty, four were completing medical school, and one dropped out of medicine to complete a PhD in Education. Participants reported enrolling in MD-PhD programs to work in both clinical practice and research. Very positive college research experiences, mentorship, and personal reasons also played important roles in participants' decisions to pursue the dual MD-PhD degree. However, once in the program, positive mentorship and other opportunities that they experienced during or after college, which initially drew candidates to the program was found lacking. Four themes emerged as reasons for leaving the MD-PhD program: 1) declining interest in research, 2) isolation and lack of social integration during the different training phases, 3) suboptimal PhD-advising experiences, and 4) unforeseen obstacles to completing PhD research requirements, such as loss of funding.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS

Though limited by a small sample size, findings highlight the need for better integrated institutional and programmatic supports for MD-PhD students, especially during PhD training.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCHERS

Researchers should continue to explore if other programmatic aspects of MD-PhD training (other than challenges experienced during PhD training, as discussed in this paper) are particularly problematic and pose challenges to the successful completion of the program.

IMPACT ON SOCIETY

The MD-PhD workforce comprises a small, but highly -trained cadre of physician-scientists with the expertise to conduct clinical and/or basic science research aimed at improving patient care and developing new diagnostic tools and therapies. Although MD-PhD graduates comprise a small proportion of all MD graduates in the U.S. and globally, about half of all MD-trained physician-scientists in the U.S. federally funded biomedical-research workforce are MD-PhD-trained physicians. Training is extensive and rigorous. Improving experiences during the PhD-training phase could help reduce MD-PhD program attrition, as attrition results in substantial financial cost to federal and private funding agencies and to medical schools that fund MD-PhD programs in the U.S. and other countries.

FUTURE RESEARCH

Future research could examine, in greater depth, how communications among students, faculty and administrators in various settings, such as classrooms, research labs, and clinics, might help MD-PhD students become more fully integrated into each new program phase and continue in the program to completion. Future research could also examine experiences of MD-PhD students from groups underrepresented in medicine and the biomedical-research workforce (e.g., first-generation college graduates, women, and racial/ethnic minorities), which might serve to inform interventions to increase the numbers of applicants to MD-PhD programs and help reverse the steady decline in the physician-scientist workforce over the past several decades.

Cultivating Research Skills During Clinical Training to Promote Pediatric-Scientist Development

Physician-scientists represent a critical component of the biomedical and health research workforce. However, the proportion of physicians who spend a significant amount of effort on scientific research has declined over the past 40 years. This trend has been particularly noticeable in pediatrics despite recent scientific work revealing that early life influences, exposures, and health status play a significant role in lifelong health and disease. To address this problem, the Duke University Department of Pediatrics developed the Duke Pediatric Research Scholars Program for Physician-Scientist Development (DPRS). The DPRS is focused on research training during pediatric residency and fellowship. We aim to provide sufficient research exposure and support to help scholars develop a research niche and scholarly products as well as identify the career pathways that will enable them to achieve their research goals. Herein, we describe the DPRS's organizational structure, core components, recruitment strategies, and initial results, and we discuss implementation challenges and solutions. Additionally, we detail the program's integration with the department's residency and fellowship training programs (with particular reference to the challenges of integrating research into small- to medium-sized residency programs) and describe the development and integration of related initiatives across Duke University School of Medicine. The program served as the basis for 2 successful National Institutes of Health Stimulating Access to Research in Residency (R38) applications, and we hope it will serve as a model to integrate formalized research training for residents and fellows who wish to pursue research careers in academic medicine.

Keys to academic success for under-represented minority young investigators: recommendations from the Research in Academic Pediatrics Initiative on Diversity (RAPID) National Advisory Committee

BACKGROUND

Although Latinos, African-Americans, and American Indians/Alaska Natives comprise 34% of Americans, these under-represented minorities (URMs) account for only 7% of US medical-school faculty. Even when URMs become faculty, they face many substantial challenges to success. Little has been published, however, on keys to academic success for URM young faculty investigators.

METHODS

The Research in Academic Pediatrics Initiative on Diversity (RAPID) goal is to enhance the professional advancement of URM junior faculty pursuing research careers in general academic pediatrics. One important RAPID component is the annual mentoring/career-development conference, which targets URM residents, fellows, and junior faculty, and has included 62 URM participants since its 2013 inception. A conference highlight is the panel discussion on keys to academic success for URM young investigators, conducted by the RAPID National Advisory Committee, a diverse group of leading senior researchers. The article aim was to provide a guide to academic success for URM young investigators using the 2018 RAPID Conference panel discussion. A modified Delphi technique was used to provide a systematic approach to obtaining answers to six key questions using an expert panel: the single most important key to success for URM young investigators; ensuring optimal mentorship; how to respond when patients/families say, "I don't want you to see my child because you are ____"; best strategies for maximizing funding success; how to balance serving on time-consuming committees with enough time to advance research/career objectives; and the single thing you wish someone had told you which would have substantially enhanced your success early on.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

This is the first published practical guide on keys to academic success for URM young investigators. Identified keys to success included having multiple mentors, writing prolifically, being tenaciously persistent, having mentors who are invested in you, dealing with families who do not want you to care for their child because of your race/ethnicity by seeking to understand the reasons and debriefing with colleagues, seeking non-traditional funding streams, balancing committee work with having enough time to advance one's research and career by using these opportunities to generate scholarly products, and asking for all needed resources when negotiating for new jobs.

The Integration of Clinical and Research Training: How and Why MD-PhD Programs Work

For over 60 years, MD-PhD programs have provided integrated clinical and research training to produce graduates primed for physician-scientist careers. Yet the nature of this integrated training is poorly characterized, with no program theory of MD-PhD training to guide program development or evaluation. The authors address this gap by proposing a program theory of integrated MD-PhD training applying constructs from cognitive psychology and medical education. The authors argue that integrated physician-scientist training requires development of at least three elements in trainees: cognitive synergy, sense of self, and professional capacity. First, integrated programs need to foster the cognitive ability to synergize and transfer knowledge between the clinical and research realms. Second, integrated programs need to facilitate development of a unique and emergent identity as a physician-scientist that is more than the sum of the individual roles of physician and scientist. Third, integrated programs should develop core competencies unique to physician-scientists in addition to those required of each independently. The authors describe how programs can promote development of these elements in trainees, summarized in a logic model. Activities and process measures are provided to assist institutions in enhancing integration. Specifically, programs can enact the proposed theory by providing tailored MD-PhD curricula, personal development planning, and a supportive community of practice. It is high time to establish a theory behind integrated MD-PhD training as the basis for designing interventions and evaluations to develop the foundations of physician-scientist expertise.

Prevalence and predictors of US medical graduates' federal F32, mentored-K, and R01 awards: a national cohort study

The size and diversity of the physician-scientist workforce are issues of national concern. In this retrospective, national cohort study of US medical school matriculants who graduated in 1997-2004, we describe the prevalence and predictors of federal F32, mentored-K, and R01 awards among physicians. In multivariable logistic regression models, we identified demographic, educational, and professional development variables independently associated with each award through August 2014, reporting adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (AOR (95% CI)). Among 117,119 graduates with complete data (97.7% of 119,906 graduates in 1997-2004), 509 (0.4%) received F32, 1740 (1.5%) received mentored-K, and 597 (0.5%) received R01 awards. Adjusting for all variables except US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores, black (vs white) graduates were less likely to receive F32 (0.48 (0.28-0.82)), mentored-K (0.56 (0.43-0.72)), and R01 (0.48 (0.28-0.82)) awards; Hispanic graduates were less likely to receive mentored-K awards (0.68 (0.52-0.88)), and women less likely to receive F32 (0.81 (0.67-0.98)) and R01 (0.59 (0.49-0.71)) awards. After adding Step 1 scores, these race/ethnicity effects were not significant, but women (0.62 (0.51-0.75)) were still less likely to receive R01 awards. Graduates reporting both (vs neither) medical school research elective and authorship were more likely to receive F32 (1.89 (1.45-2.48)), mentored-K (2.48 (2.13-2.88)), and R01 (2.00 (1.54-2.60)) awards. Prior F32 (2.17 (1.46-3.21)) and mentored-K (28.08 (22.94-34.38)) awardees more likely received R01 awards. Findings highlight the need for research-experiential interventions along the medical education continuum to promote greater participation and diversity of US medical graduates in the federally funded, biomedical research workforce.