The American Society of Hematology Clinical Research Training Institute is associated with high retention in academic hematology

Influence of participant and reviewer characteristics in application scores for a hematology research training program

The American Society of Hematology Clinical Research Training Institute (CRTI) is a clinical research training program with a competitive application process. The objectives were to compare application scores based on applicant and reviewer sex and underrepresented minority (URM) status. We included applications to CRTI from 2003 to 2019. The application scores were transformed into a scale from 0 to 100 (100 was the strongest). The factors considered were applicant and reviewer sex and URM status. We evaluated whether there was an interaction between the characteristics and time related to application scores. In total, 713 applicants and 2106 reviews were included. There was no significant difference in scores according to applicant sex. URM applicants had significantly worse scores than non-URM applicants (mean [standard error] 67.9 [1.56] vs 71.4 [0.63]; P = .0355). There were significant interactions between reviewer sex and time (P = .0030) and reviewer URM status and time (P = .0424); thus, results were stratified by time. For the 2 earlier time periods, male reviewers gave significantly worse scores than did female reviewers; this difference did not persist for the most recent time period. The URM reviewers did not give significantly different scores across time periods. URM applicants received significantly lower scores than non-URM applicants. The impact of reviewer sex and URM status changed over time. Although male reviewers gave lower scores in the early periods, this effect did not persist in the late period. Efforts are required to mitigate the impact of applicant URM status on application scores.

Self-reported positive impact of mentored clinical research training is associated with academic success in hematology

The American Society of Hematology Clinical Research Training Institute (CRTI) is a mentored training program for hematology fellows and junior faculty. Our objective was to determine whether the self-reported impact of CRTI on research retention, career development, and connectedness to hematology investigators was associated with academic success. A survey was distributed in January 2020 to alumni who participated in the program from 2003 to 2019. It focused on the impact of CRTI on retention in research, facilitation of career development, understanding of requirements to succeed, and feelings of connectedness to investigators. These questions were scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Outcomes were grants, publications, and invited lectures; these were abstracted from a submitted curriculum vitae. Of 334 eligible alumni, 321 responded (response rate of 96.1%). Of these, 250 (77.9%) agreed that CRTI was instrumental to research retention, 268 (83.5%) agreed that CRTI facilitated career development, 296 (92.2%) agreed that CRTI allowed a better understanding of requirements to succeed in research, and 289 (90.0%) agreed that CRTI increased connectedness to hematology investigators. Those who agreed with these CRTI impacts had significantly more first-author publications. Those who agreed that CRTI was instrumental to retention, facilitated career development, and increased connectedness had significantly more protected time for research. Self-reported perception that CRTI had an impact on research retention, career development, and connectedness to hematology investigators was significantly associated with more publications and percent effort in research. Clinical research training programs should identify and implement approaches to enhance these characteristics.

Impact of gender and caregiving responsibilities on academic success in hematology

We previously identified gender disparities in academic success during evaluation of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Clinical Research Training Institute (CRTI) and hypothesized that it may be related to caregiving. The objective was to evaluate the impact of gender and caregiving responsibilities on academic success. A cross-sectional survey that included a question about caregiving responsibilities was distributed to alumni who participated in CRTI from 2003 to 2016 and asked about academic productivity in the previous 3 years. Publications and grants were abstracted from submitted curriculum vitae. Academic success was defined as number of first- or senior-author publications, total publications, grants, and percent effort in research. Of 280 potential respondents, 258 responded (92% response rate), 169 (66%) had caregiving responsibilities, and 110 (43%) were men. Respondents with caregiving responsibilities had fewer first- or senior-author publications (median, 3 vs 5; P = .003) and less percent effort in research (median, 40% vs 50%; P = .006). Men had more first- or senior-author publications (median, 4 vs 3; P = .002) and more total publications (median, 12 vs 6.5; P = .0002) than women. When stratified by those without (P = .0001) or with (P = .042) caregiving responsibilities, men had more publications than women. Among men, caregiving responsibilities significantly reduced all outcomes. However, among women, caregiving did not have an impact. In conclusion, men had more publications than women whether or not they had caregiving responsibilities. However, among men, caregiving reduced academic productivity whereas among women, caregiving did not have impact. The scientific community will need to continue to identify the reasons for disparities and implement changes to address them.