Consultancies: a model for interdisciplinary training and mentoring of junior faculty investigators

The Influence of Human Connections and Collaboration on Research Grant Success at Various Career Stages: Regression Analysis

BACKGROUND

Documenting the grant acquisition characteristics of a highly selective group of researchers could provide insights into the research and faculty development of talented individuals, and the insights gained to foster such researchers will help university management strengthen their research capacity.

OBJECTIVE

This study examines the role of human connections in the success of biomedical researchers in Japanese universities.

METHODS

This study used grant data from the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (GIA) program, the largest competitive research funding program in Japan, to collect information on projects and their implementation systems obtained throughout the participants' careers. Grant success was measured by the number and amounts of the awards obtained while participants occupied the role of principal investigator. Human connections were quantified by the number of projects in which the participants took part as members and were classified by their relationship with the project leader. Data were matched with information on career history, publication performance, and experience of the participants with government-funded programs apart from GIA and were analyzed using univariate and multivariate regression analyses.

RESULTS

Early-career interpersonal relationships, as measured using the h-index value of the researchers who provided the participants with their initial experience as project members, had a positive effect on grant success. The experience of contributing to prestigious research programs led by top researchers dramatically increased the cumulative amount of GIA awards received by the participants over time. Univariate logistic regression analyses revealed that more interactions with upper-level researchers resulted in fewer acquisitions of large programs (odds ratio [OR] 0.67, 95% CI 0.50-0.89). Collaboration with peers increased the success rate of ≥2 research grants in large programs in situations in which both the participant and project leader were professors (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06-1.26). Tracking the process of research development, we found that collaboration during the periods of 10 to 14 years and 15 to 19 years after completing a doctorate degree determined the size of the project that the participant would obtain-interactions with peer researchers and subordinates during the 10- to 14-year postdegree period had positive effects on ≥2 large-program acquisitions (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.09-2.09 and OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.10-1.57, respectively), whereas interactions with subordinates during the 15- to 19-year postdegree period also had positive effects (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.25-1.07). Furthermore, relationships that remained narrowly focused resulted in limited grant success for small programs.

CONCLUSIONS

Human networking is important for improving an individual's ability to obtain external funding. The results emphasize the importance of having a high-h-indexed collaborator to obtain quality information early in one's career; working with diverse, nonsupervisory personnel at the midcareer stage; and engaging in synergistic collaborations upon establishing a research area in which one can take more initiatives.

Randomized controlled trial of a group peer mentoring model for U.S. academic medicine research faculty

Introduction

Midcareer is a critical transition point for biomedical research faculty and a common dropout point from an NIH-funded career. We report a study to assess the efficacy of a group peer mentoring program for diverse biomedical researchers in academic medicine, seeking to improve vitality, career advancement, and cross-cultural competence.

Methods

We conducted a stratified randomized controlled trial with a waitlist control group involving 40 purposefully diverse early midcareer research faculty from 16 states who had a first-time NIH R01 (or equivalent) award, a K training grant, or a similar major grant. The yearlong intervention (2 to 3 days quarterly) consisted of facilitated, structured, group peer mentoring. Main study aims were to enhance faculty vitality, self-efficacy in achieving research success, career advancement, mentoring others, and cultural awareness and appreciation of diversity in the workplace.

Results

Compared to the control group, the intervention group's increased vitality did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.20), but perceived change in vitality was 1.47 standard deviations higher (D = 1.47, P = 0.03). Self-efficacy for career advancement was higher in the intervention group (D = 0.41, P = 0.05) as was self-efficacy for research (D = 0.57, P = 0.02). The intervention group also valued diversity higher (D = 0.46, P = 0.02), had higher cognitive empathy (D = 0.85, P = 0.03), higher anti-sexism/racism skills (D = 0.71, P = 0.01), and higher self-efficacy in mentoring others (D = 1.14, P = 0.007).

Conclusions

The mentoring intervention resulted in meaningful change in important dimensions and skills among a national sample of diverse early midcareer biomedical faculty. This mentoring program holds promise for addressing the urgencies of sustaining faculty vitality and cross-cultural competence.

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.

An innovative program to provide methodological mentoring and to foster the development of robust research teams for K awardees: RAMP Mentors

Within the Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design (BERD) component of the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, we created a mentoring program to complement training provided by the associated Multidisciplinary Career Development Program (KL2). Called Research design Analysis Methods Program (RAMP) Mentors, the program provides each KL2 scholar with individualized, hands-on mentoring in biostatistics, epidemiology, informatics, and related fields, with the goal of building multidisciplinary research teams. From 2015 to 2019, RAMP Mentors paired 8 KL2 scholars with 16 individually selected mentors. Mentors had funded/protected time to meet at least monthly with their scholar to provide advice and instruction on methods for ongoing research, including incorporating novel techniques. RAMP Mentors has been evaluated through focus groups and surveys. KL2 scholars reported high satisfaction with RAMP Mentors and confidence in their ability to establish and maintain methodologic collaborations. Compared with other Northwestern University K awardees, KL2 scholars reported higher confidence in obtaining research funding, including subsequent K or R awards, and selecting appropriate, up-to-date research methods. RAMP Mentors is a promising partnership between a BERD group and KL2 program, promoting methodologic education and building multidisciplinary research teams for junior investigators pursuing clinical and translational research.

Peer Mentoring at the Uganda Cancer Institute: A Novel Model for Career Development of Clinician-Scientists in Resource-Limited Settings

Cancer centers are beginning to emerge in low- and middle-income countries despite having relatively few oncologists and specialists in related fields. Uganda, like many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, has a cadre of highly motivated clinician-scientists-in-training who are committed to developing the capacity for cancer care and research. However, potential local mentors for these trainees are burdened with uniquely high demands on their time for clinical care, teaching, institutional development, advocacy, and research. Facilitated peer mentoring helps to fill skills and confidence gaps and teaches mentoring skills so that trainees can learn to support one another and regularly access a more senior facilitator/role model. With an added consultant component, programs can engage limited senior faculty time to address specific training needs and to introduce junior investigators to advisors and even potential dyadic mentors. Two years after its inception, our facilitated peer mentoring career development program at the Uganda Cancer Institute in Kampala is successfully developing a new generation of researchers who, in turn, are now providing role models and mentors from within their group. This program provides a practical model for building the next generation of clinical scientists in developing countries.

Why gerontology and geriatrics can teach us a lot about mentoring

Gerontology, geriatrics, and mentoring have a lot in common. The prototype of this role was Mentor, an older adult in Homer's The Odyssey, who was enlisted to look after Odysseus' son, Telemachus, while his father was away fighting the Trojan War. Portrayed as an older man, the name "mentor" literally means "a man who thinks," which is not a bad characterization generally for faculty members in gerontology! In particular, gerontological and geriatrics education can teach us a lot about the importance of mentoring and provide some critical insights into this role: (1) the importance of interprofessional leadership and modeling, (2) the application of the concept of "grand-generativity" to mentoring, (3) "it takes a community" to be effective in mentoring others, and (4) the need to tailor mentorship styles to the person and the situation. This discussion explores these topics and argues that gerontological and geriatrics educators have a particularly important role and responsibility in mentoring students, colleagues, and administrators related to the very future of our field.

Independent investigator incubator (I3): a comprehensive mentorship program to jumpstart productive research careers for junior faculty

BACKGROUND

In the highly competitive environment of academic medicine, junior faculty investigators face high attrition rates due to challenges in finding effective mentorship, securing grant funding, and obtaining resources to support their career development and research productivity. The purpose of this study was to describe the centralized, cost-sharing design of the Independent Investigator Incubator (I³) program as a novel approach to junior faculty mentoring and to evaluate quantitative outcomes for program improvement.

METHODS

In September 2014, the I³ pilot program, a comprehensive mentorship program targeting junior faculty pursuing research careers, was launched. Participants included junior faculty during the crucial first three years of their research careers or during their transition from career development awards to more independent research. Following initial screening, the I³ mentees were paired with a senior faculty "super-mentor" with expertise in either basic science or clinical research. Mentees were provided with robust traditional one-on-one mentoring, targeted feedback from a super-mentor review committee, as well as biostatistician and grant writing support. To assess the effectiveness of the I³ program, we tracked outcome measures via baseline and 12-month mentee surveys. Data collected assessed program diversity, mentee self-assessments, evaluation of the mentoring relationship, scholarship and productivity metrics. Raw data were analyzed using a paired t-test in Excel (P < 0.05).

RESULTS

Results of the baseline mentee self-assessment survey found that the I³ mentees indicated common "perceive deficits" including navigating the organizational and institutional culture, clear direction in achieving promotion and tenure, among others. When baseline mentee survey responses were compared to 12-month responses, we identified strong "perceived growth" in categories, such as Research and Interpersonal Skills and Career Development Skills. Further, productivity metrics at 12-months revealed that roughly 80% of I³ mentees successfully published a manuscript(s). The I³ program has helped generate roughly $12.1 million dollars in investigator-initiated funding after two years in the program.

CONCLUSION

The I³ program allows for shared costs between institutions and increased availability of successful subject matter experts. Study results imply that the I³ mentoring program provides transformative mentorship for junior faculty. Using our findings, we developed courses and an annual "snapshot" of mentee performance for mentors.

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

PURPOSE

Since 2004, the Clinical Faculty Scholars Program (CFSP) at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus has provided intensive interdisciplinary mentoring and structured training for early-career clinical faculty from multiple disciplines conducting patient-oriented clinical and outcomes research. This study evaluated the two-year program's effects by comparing grant outcomes for CFSP participants and a matched comparison cohort of other junior faculty.

METHOD

Using 2000-2011 institutional grant and employment data, a cohort of 25 scholars was matched to a cohort of 125 comparison faculty (using time in rank and pre-period grant dollars awarded). A quasi-experimental difference-in-differences design was used to identify the CFSP effect on grant outcomes. Grant outcomes were measured by counts and dollars of grant proposals and awards as principal investigator. Outcomes were compared within cohorts over time (pre- vs. post-period) and across cohorts.

RESULTS

From pre- to post-period, mean annual counts and dollars of grant awards increased significantly for both cohorts, but mean annual dollars increased significantly more for the CFSP than for the comparison cohort (delta $83,427 vs. $27,343, P < .01). Mean annual counts of grant proposals also increased significantly more for the CFSP than for the comparison cohort: 0.42 to 2.34 (delta 1.91) versus 0.77 to 1.07 (delta 0.30), P < .01.

CONCLUSIONS

Institutional investment in mentored research training for junior faculty provided significant grant award gains that began after one year of CFSP participation and persisted over time. The CFSP is a financially sustainable program with effects that are predictable, significant, and enduring.

Interdisciplinary Postdoctoral Training in Global Health Through a Novel Joint Project for Trainees from Diverse Disciplines: Benefits, Risks, and Observations

Postdoctoral training programs are usually highly individualized arrangements between trainees and a limited number of senior mentors in their field, an approach that contrasts with current trends in public health education that promote interdisciplinary training to spur innovation. Herein, we describe an alternative model for postdoctoral training for a group of fellows from distinct disciplines. Fellows work with mentors from diverse fields to create a joint research project or a group of complementary projects, with the goal of developing a new device, intervention, or innovation to address a global health problem. The perceived benefits, challenges, and limitations of this team approach to interdisciplinary postdoctoral training are presented.