Enhancing research careers: an example of a US national diversity-focused, grant-writing training and coaching experiment

Trends in Gender of Authors of Patient Blood Management Publications

BACKGROUND

Diverse representation in the field of patient blood management (PBM) may help bring varying perspectives to improve patient care. We assessed trends in gender of first and last authorship of recent PBM publications to evaluate diversity within the field.

METHODS

Publications from 10 high-impact anesthesiology and blood transfusion medicine journals between 2017 and 2021 were reviewed using 19 keywords to identify PBM-related articles. Each publication title was reviewed independently to determine whether it met the inclusion criteria. A software program was used to identify the gender of each first and last author for the most common first names. Author gender that could not be identified through this process was determined by querying institutional websites and professional social networks (eg, ResearchGate). Any publication where the gender of the first and/or last author could not be reliably determined was excluded from the analysis. Trends over time were assessed using the Cochran-Armitage test.

RESULTS

A total of 2467 publications met the inclusion criteria of the 2873 yielded by the initial search. Gender of the first and last author was identified for 2384 of these publications and included in the final analysis. Approximately 42.8% of publications featured a woman as the first author with the highest from the journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA ) (48.7%) and Transfusion (48.1%) and the lowest from the journals such as the British Journal of Anaesthesia (24.1%) and Anesthesia & Analgesia (24.4%). Approximately 32.0% of the publications featured a woman as the last author with the highest being Transfusion (36.9%) and Anaesthesia (31.8%) and the lowest being Anesthesia and Analgesia (18.3%) and Anesthesiology (18.6%). Approximately 57.6% of publications had either a woman as the first or last author while 16.3% of the publications had women as both the first and last authors. Women authors comprised 32.6% of the publications with a single author. Women as the first or last authors did not change significantly over the study period ( P = .115 and P = .119, respectively). No significant difference was observed in the percentage of PBM articles with a woman as the first or last author, a woman as the first and last author, or a woman as a single author from 2017 to 2021 ( P = .089, P = .055, and P = .226, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The percentage of women as the first and last authors in PBM publications from the 5-year period of 2017 to 2021 was <50%. Gender equity in PBM authorship was identified as an area for potential future improvement. International mentorship and sponsorship of women remain important in promoting gender equity in PBM authorship.

Efficacy of Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (CoBRE) grants to build research capacity in underrepresented states

Federal funding for research has immediate and long-term economic impact. Since federal research funding is regionally concentrated and not geographically distributed, the benefits are not fully realized in some regions of the country. The Established (previously Experimental) Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) programs at several agencies, for example, the National Science Foundation, and the Institutional Development Award (IDeA) program at the National Institutes of Health were created to increase competitiveness for funding in states with historically low levels of federal funding. The Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (CoBRE) award program is a component of the IDeA program. The CoBRE grants support research core facilities to develop research infrastructure. These grants also support the research projects of junior investigators, under the guidance of mentoring teams of senior investigators, to develop human resources at these institutions. Few studies have assessed the effectiveness of these programs. This study examines the investment and outcomes of the CoBRE grants from 2000 through 2022. The maturation of junior investigators into independently funded principal investigators is comparable to other mentoring programs supported by NIH. The investment in research cores resulted in substantial research productivity, measured by publications. Despite the successes of individual investigators and increased research infrastructure and productivity, the geographic distribution of federal and NIH research dollars has not changed. These results will be informative in consideration of policies designed to enhance the geographic distribution of federal research dollars.

Individual and Institutional Factors Contribute to Research Capacity Building for Early-Stage Investigators from Groups Underrepresented in Biomedical Research: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis

BACKGROUND

Enhancement of diversity within the U.S. research workforce is a recognized need and priority at a national level. Existing comprehensive programs, such as the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) and Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI), have the dual focus of building institutional research capacity and promoting investigator self-efficacy through mentoring and training.

METHODS

A qualitative comparative analysis was used to identify the combination of factors that explain the success and failure to submit a grant proposal by investigators underrepresented in biomedical research from the RCMI and non-RCMI institutions. The records of 211 participants enrolled in the NRMN Strategic Empowerment Tailored for Health Equity Investigators (NRMN-SETH) program were reviewed, and data for 79 early-stage, underrepresented faculty investigators from RCMI (n = 23) and non-RCMI (n = 56) institutions were included.

RESULTS

Institutional membership (RCMI vs. non-RCMI) was used as a possible predictive factor and emerged as a contributing factor for all of the analyses. Access to local mentors was predictive of a successful grant submission for RCMI investigators, while underrepresented investigators at non-RCMI institutions who succeeded with submitting grants still lacked access to local mentors.

CONCLUSION

Institutional contexts contribute to the grant writing experiences of investigators underrepresented in biomedical research.

Enhancing grant-writing expertise in BUILD institutions: Building infrastructure leading to diversity

BACKGROUND

The lack of race/ethnic and gender diversity in grants funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is a persistent challenge related to career advancement and the quality and relevance of health research. We describe pilot programs at nine institutions supported by the NIH-sponsored Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) program aimed at increasing diversity in biomedical research.

METHODS

We collected data from the 2016-2017 Higher Education Research Institute survey of faculty and NIH progress reports for the first four years of the program (2015-2018). We then conducted descriptive analyses of data from the nine BUILD institutions that had collected data and evaluated which activities were associated with research productivity. We used Poisson regression and rate ratios of the numbers of BUILD pilots funded, students included, abstracts, presentations, publications, and submitted and funded grant proposals.

RESULTS

Teaching workshops were associated with more abstracts (RR 4.04, 95% CI 2.21-8.09). Workshops on grant writing were associated with more publications (RR 2.64, 95% CI 1.64-4.34) and marginally with marginally more presentations. Incentives to develop courses were associated with more abstracts published (RR 4.33, 95% CI 2.56-7.75). Workshops on research skills and other incentives were not associated with any positive effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Pilot interventions show promise in supporting diversity in NIH-level research. Longitudinal modeling that considers time lags in career development in moving from project development to grants submissions can provide more direction for future diversity pilot interventions.

Variations of a group coaching intervention to support early-career biomedical researchers in Grant proposal development: a pragmatic, four-arm, group-randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Funded grant proposals provide biomedical researchers with the resources needed to build their research programs, support trainees, and advance public health. Studies using National Institutes of Health (NIH) data have found that investigators from underrepresented groups in the biomedical workforce are awarded NIH research grants at disproportionately lower rates. Grant writing training initiatives are available, but there is a dearth of rigorous research to determine the effectiveness of such interventions and to discern their essential features.

METHODS

This 2 × 2, unblinded, group-randomized study compares the effectiveness of variations of an NIH-focused, grant writing, group coaching intervention for biomedical postdoctoral fellows and early-career faculty. The key study outcomes are proposal submission rates and funding rates. Participants, drawn from across the United States, are enrolled as dyads with a self-selected scientific advisor in their content area, then placed into coaching groups led by senior NIH-funded investigators who are trained in the intervention's coaching practices. Target enrollment is 72 coaching groups of 4-5 dyads each. Groups are randomized to one of four intervention arms that differ on two factors: [1] duration of coaching support (regular dose = 5 months of group coaching, versus extended dose = regular dose plus an additional 18 months of one-on-one coaching); and [2] mode of engaging scientific advisors with the regular dose group coaching process (unstructured versus structured engagement). Intervention variations were informed by programs previously offered by the NIH National Research Mentoring Network. Participant data are collected via written surveys (baseline and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after start of the regular dose) and semi-structured interviews (end of regular dose and 24 months). Quantitative analyses will be intention-to-treat, using a 2-sided test of equality of the effects of each factor. An inductive, constant comparison analysis of interview transcripts will be used to identify contextual factors -- associated with individual participants, their engagement with the coaching intervention, and their institutional setting - that influence intervention effectiveness.

DISCUSSION

Results of this study will provide an empirical basis for a readily translatable coaching approach to supporting the essential grant writing activities of faculty, fellows, and other research trainees, including those from underrepresented groups.

The Proposal Preparation Program: A Group Mentoring, Faculty Development Model to Facilitate the Submission and Funding of NIH Grant Applications

This article describes the University of Minnesota Medical School Proposal Preparation Program (P3). P3 is designed to develop grant-writing skills for assistant professors preparing their first K- or R-series application to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Three 4-month P3 cycles are conducted annually. For each cycle, a cohort of around 10 assistant professor participants and 5 regular faculty mentors meet for ten ~2-hour group sessions. Participants receive iterative oral and written feedback on their proposals in development within a small, interdisciplinary, group mentoring setting providing structure, accountability, guidance, and support. Between sessions, 1 peer and 1 mentor are assigned (on a rotating basis) to critique each participant's developing application. The sessions include a brief mentor-led presentation on a particular grant section followed by discussion of each participant's application conducted by the assigned reviewers. The cycle concludes with a mock NIH review session, in which each participant is matched with a University of Minnesota faculty content expert who critiques their completed application using NIH guidelines. In a survey sent to all past P3 participants as of 2018 (n = 194), 88% of respondents reported having submitted their P3-developed NIH grant, and 35% of these submitters reported funding success. A separate analysis of institutional data for all past P3 participants as of 2016 (n = 165) showed that 73% submitted at least 1 NIH proposal since completing P3 and that 43% of these had acquired NIH funding, for a combined total of $193 million in funding awarded. The estimated rate at which participants obtained funding for their P3-developed grant application (~35%) exceeds the national annual NIH grant funding rates (~20%) by approximately 50%. This article provides the practical information needed for other institutions to implement a P3-like program and presents a cost-benefit analysis showing the advantages of doing so.

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.

Career Development Program for Underrepresented in Medicine Scholars in Academic Neurology: TRANSCENDS

BACKGROUND

The Training in Research for Academic Neurologists to Sustain Careers and Enhance the Numbers of Diverse Scholars (TRANSCENDS) program is a career advancement opportunity for individuals underrepresented in biomedical research funded by the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke and American Academy of Neurology (AAN).

OBJECTIVE

To report on qualitative and quantitative outcomes in TRANSCENDS.

DESIGN

Early career individuals (neurology fellows and junior faculty) from groups underrepresented in medicine (UIM) were competitively selected from a national pool of applicants (2016-2019). TRANSCENDS activities comprised an online Clinical Research degree program, monthly webinars, AAN meeting activities, and mentoring. Participants were surveyed during and after completion of TRANSCENDS to evaluate program components.

OUTCOMES

Of 23 accepted scholars (comprising 4 successive cohorts), 56% were women, 61% Hispanic/Latinx, 30% Black/African American, and 30% assistant professors. To date, 48% have graduated the TRANSCENDS program and participants have published 180 peer-reviewed articles. Mentees' feedback noted that professional skills development (i.e., manuscript and grant writing), networking opportunities, and mentoring were the most beneficial elements of the program. Stated opportunities for improvement included incorporating a mentor-the-mentor workshop, providing more transitional support for mentees in the next stage of their careers, and requiring mentees to provide quarterly reports.

CONCLUSIONS

TRANSCENDS is a feasible program for supporting UIM neurologists towards careers in research and faculty academic appointments attained thus far have been sustained. Although longer-term outcomes and process enhancements are warranted, programs like this may help increase the numbers of diverse academic neurologists and further drive neurologic innovation.

NRMNet: Building a National Resource for Mentorship, Networking and Professional Development to Enhance Diversity

Background

To address the need for diversifying the biomedical research workforce, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) established the Diversity Program Consortium (DPC) with the goal of developing, implementing, assessing, and disseminating interventions and programs to enhance the participation and persistence of individuals from underrepresented backgrounds in biomedical research careers.

Intervention

As part of the DPC initiative, the NIH funded the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN), which aimed to increase diversity of the biomedical research workforce through culturally responsive mentorship, networking, and professional development. In 2015, the NRMNet portal was developed to provide a broad-based network of mentors who are accessible to diverse mentees across the country. The portal also provides networking and professional development resources that support mentee transitions from one career stage to the next.

Results

NRMNet is the gateway for career stage-specific mentorship, networking, resources, and professional development programs for trainees across the biomedical, behavioral, clinical, and social sciences. In the first five years, the NRMN strategic recruitment efforts resulted in an expanded network of nearly 13,000 diverse mentors and mentees with NRMN representation in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. Consistently, over the first five years, racial and ethnic diversity was reflected in composition of mentee and mentor groups: 66% of 6,526 mentees and 33% of 3,866 mentors were from underrepresented groups.

Conclusions

The NRMNet portal is a promising effort for enhancing participation and continued engagement of undrerepresented individuals in biomedical research careers by providing culturally responsive mentorship, networking, and professional development for individuals at all career stages.

Grant application outcomes for biomedical researchers who participated in the National Research Mentoring Network's Grant Writing Coaching Programs

Background

A diverse research workforce is essential for catalyzing biomedical advancements, but this workforce goal is hindered by persistent sex and racial/ethnic disparities among investigators receiving research grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In response, the NIH-funded National Research Mentoring Network implemented a Grant Writing Coaching Program (GCP) to provide diverse cohorts of early-career investigators across the United States with intensive coaching throughout the proposal development process. We evaluated the GCP’s national reach and short-term impact on participants’ proposal submissions and funding outcomes.

Methods

The GCP was delivered as six similar but distinct models. All models began with an in-person group session, followed by a series of coaching sessions over 4 to 12 months. Participants were surveyed at 6-, 12- and 18-months after program completion to assess proposal outcomes (submissions, awards). Self-reported data were verified and supplemented by searches of public repositories of awarded grants when available. Submission and award rates were derived from counts of participants who submitted or were awarded at least one grant proposal in a category (NIH, other federal, non-federal).

Results

From June 2015 through March 2019, 545 investigators (67% female, 61% under-represented racial/ethnic minority, URM) from 187 different institutions participated in the GCP. Among them, 324 (59% of participants) submitted at least one grant application and 134 (41% of submitters) received funding. A total of 164 grants were awarded, the majority being from the NIH (93, 56%). Of the 74 R01 (or similar) NIH research proposals submitted by GCP participants, 16 have been funded thus far (56% to URM, 75% to women). This 22% award rate exceeded the 2016–2018 NIH success rates for new R01s.

Conclusion

Inter- and intra-institutional grant writing coaching groups are a feasible and effective approach to supporting the grant acquisition efforts of early-career biomedical investigators, including women and those from URM groups.

Food for Thought: Opportunities to Improve Diversity, Inclusion, Representation, and Participation in Epidemiology

DeVilbiss et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2020;189(10):998-1010) have taken on the noble and worthy cause of improving diversity, inclusion, representation, and participation across the Society for Epidemiologic Research (SER) membership-a reflection/microcosm of society. The objective of this commentary is to underscore the importance of diversity and to offer initiative ideas, which should be centered around inequity stemming from the widespread historical and contemporary maldistribution of power (e.g., decision-making) and resources (e.g., funding) within institutions and organizations. Nonexhaustive strategies could include SER becoming an opportunity and information hub that helps to fill resource gaps. It is also recommended that SER leadership learn from existing associations and scientific initiatives to improve the culture of science in general by equitably incorporating policy, systems, and environmental interventions throughout the career spectrum. Examples include the provision of tools and incentives to address explicit or implicit biases, enhance mentoring skills, and remove predictable barriers (e.g., financial). Explicitly labeling diversity/inclusion efforts should be avoided, and the initiative should be evaluated based on impact rather than intent. Our fates are interconnected, and we can all help increase diversity, inclusion, representation, and participation to improve our science in hopes of equitably improving public health.

The ASPET Mentoring Network: Enhancing Diversity and Inclusion through Career Coaching Groups within a Scientific Society

Over the past decades, two persisting priorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) training have been: 1) increasing the knowledge of and access to careers beyond academic scientist; and 2) increasing the diversity of the STEM workforce. Previous studies show that a uniquely constructed career coaching group provides strong support and progress for both priorities. This report extends this design into a more sustainable model that is positioned within the professional context of rising young scientists. This new model is based in the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (ASPET)-the ASPET Mentoring Network. Groups of PhD students and postdocs were assigned to an ASPET professional (academic or other career) member (the coach) with an initial meeting held the day before the society's annual meeting. The coaching groups interacted during the meeting and then virtually for a year. Extensive survey and interview evaluation data gathered from the first three cohorts (12 coaching groups) in 2016- 2018 provided strong evidence of the perceived and real benefits of the network. This new version of career coaching groups is both feasible and linked to career success due to its close association with a scientific society, peers, and coaches who share scientific identities and aspirations.

The Architecture of an Internal, Scientific, Presubmission Review Program Designed to Increase the Impact and Success of Grant Proposals and Manuscripts

Securing extramural grant funding and publishing in peer-reviewed journals are key indicators of success for many investigators in academic settings. As a result, these expectations are also sources of stress for investigators and trainees considering such careers. As competition over grant funding, costs of conducting research, and diffusion of effort across multiple demands increase, the need to submit high-quality applications and publications is paramount. For over 3 decades, the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies at the University of California, San Francisco, has refined an internal, presubmission, peer review program to improve the quality and potential success of products before external submission. In this article, the rationale and practical elements of the system are detailed, and recent satisfaction reports, grant submission outcomes, and plans for ongoing tracking of the success rates of products reviewed are discussed. The program includes both early-stage concept reviews of ideas in their formative state and full product reviews of near-final drafts. Recent evaluation data indicate high levels of reviewee satisfaction with multiple domains of the process, including scheduling the review sessions, preparedness and expertise of the reviewers, and overall quality of the review. Outcome data from reviews conducted over a recent 12-month period demonstrate subsequent funding of 44% of proposals reviewed through the program, a success rate that surpasses the National Institutes of Health funding success rates for the same time period. Suggestions for the sustainability of the program and for its adoption at other institutions and settings less dependent on extramural funding are provided.

The Impact of Grantsmanship Self-Efficacy on Early Stage Investigators of The National Research Mentoring Network Steps Toward Academic Research (NRMN STAR)

The NRMN STAR program was created to address the persistent underrepresentation in grant submissions and receipt of National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards by racial/ethnic minority groups. In our current study, we assessed program impact on trainees' self-efficacy related to grant writing. The program was conducted with two cohorts: one in June 2014 and one in June 2015. We used a 19-item grant writing self-efficacy scale drawn from the 88-item Clinical Research Assessment Inventory of three domains (conceptualizing, designing, and funding a study) to predict whether self-efficacy influences researchers' grant submissions. Trainees were assessed prior to and following program completion with subsequent assessments at 6 and 12 months beyond participation. The majority of trainees were Black (62%), female (62%), and had obtained a PhD (90%). More than half (52%) were assistant professors and 57% had none or <1 year of research experience beyond postdoctoral training. However, 24% of trainees reported no postdoctoral research training. NRMN STAR trainees' self-efficacy significantly improved on all three domains exhibiting a 2.0-point mean change score on two domains (conceptualizing and design) and 3.7 point mean change score on the domain, funding a study. Findings suggest that NRMN's STAR provides impactful, confidence-building training for diverse, early stage investigators with little-to-no skills, experiences, or low self-efficacy in writing research grants.

A CTSA-based consultation service to advance research on special and underserved populations

In this report, we describe the implementation and short-term outcomes of a Special Populations Consultation Service within the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI). With the goal of increasing the quality and quantity of special population (SP) research, the UCLA CTSI Integrating Special Populations program designed a consultation service to support faculty and trainees conducting research involving one of three CTSI “special populations:” children, older adults, and/or minority; underserved; or health disparity populations. The Special Populations Consultation Service offers three types of activities: grant proposal studios, career consultations, and project reviews. UCLA CTSI faculty with appropriate content expertise serve as consultants. We evaluated this consultation model using satisfaction surveys and by quantifying funded grants and reported changes in career goals in SP research. Between 2016 and 2019, the Special Populations Consultation Service provided 59 consultations including 42 grant studios and was used by researchers at all levels from all four UCLA CTSI institutions. Recipients rated the consultations very highly. Funding success rates were 57% following K-level grant studios and 28% following R-level grant studios. Users of project and career consultations commonly attributed career accomplishments in part to their consultation experiences. The SP Consultation Service is feasible and acceptable and appears to enhance careers of investigators studying special populations.

The Science and Value of Diversity: Closing the Gaps in Our Understanding of Inclusion and Diversity

Diversity drives excellence. Diversity enhances innovation in biomedical sciences and, as it relates to novel findings and treatment of diverse populations, in the field of infectious diseases. There are many obstacles to achieving diversity in the biomedical workforce, which create challenges at the levels of recruitment, retention, education, and promotion of individuals. Here we present the challenges, opportunities, and suggestions for the field, institutions, and individuals to adopt in mitigating bias and achieving greater levels of equity, representation, and excellence in clinical practice and research. Our findings provide optimism for a bright future of fair and collaborative approaches that will enhance the power of our biomedical workforce.

Exploring Professional Development for New Investigators Underrepresented in the Federally Funded Biomedical Research Workforce

Objective

The National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) is a strategic partnership whose goals include remedying documented disparities by race and ethnicity in the awarding of National Institutes of Health research grants. Our objectives were to offer a profile of early-career investigators who applied to NRMN's Grantsmanship Coaching Programs (GCP) and test for differences in the research productivity, professional obligations, research resources, and motivations of applicants from underrepresented groups (URGs) compared with applicants from well-represented groups (WRGs). We also evaluated how employment at a minority serving institution (MSI) influenced access to research resources and professional obligations.

Participants

880 investigators who submitted online applications to join an NRMN GCP between August 1, 2015 and February 1, 2018.

Methods

We used two-sample tests of proportions and logistic regression to explore differences in applicants' characteristics and local research environment by group (URG vs WRG) and institution type (MSI vs Other).

Results

URG and WRG applicants did not differ in grant application submission history. However, URG applicants had published fewer articles than WRG peers (9.8 vs 15.3, P<.001) and fewer articles as first/last author (4.4 vs 6.9, P<.001). URG applicants reported less access to core facilities to conduct research (74% vs 81%, P<.05). Investigators at MSIs reported less access to collaborators (P<.01) and departmental colleagues with federal funding (P<.001) and spent less time on conducting research (P<.001). URGs were more motivated to seek professional development support to expand their peer networks (P<.05) and advance their careers (P<.001).

Conclusions

Our findings identified several points of intervention to help applicants from URGs to improve their future chances of obtaining competitive funding.

Building a Sustainable National Infrastructure to Expand Research Mentor Training

An evidence-based research mentor training (RMT) curricular series has been shown to improve the knowledge and skills of research mentors across disciplines and career stages. A train-the-trainer model was used in the context of several targeted approaches aimed at sustainability to support national dissemination of RMT and expand the network of facilitators prepared to implement the curricula. These infrastructure elements included 1) an expansion initiative to increase the number of trained facilitators able to deliver train-the-trainer workshops nationwide; 2) adaptation of RMT curricula for multiple audiences and career stages to increase accessibility; 3) implementation resources to support facilitators and help them overcome implementation barriers; and 4) standardized evaluation of training. This approach to dissemination and implementation has resulted in the preparation of nearly 600 trained facilitators, a large percentage of whom have implemented mentor training for more than 4000 graduate student, junior faculty, and senior faculty mentors. Implications for and challenges to building and sustaining the national dissemination of RMT are discussed.

Advancing inclusive science and systemic change: the convergence of national aims and institutional goals in implementing and assessing biomedical science training

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

National reports call for improving America's leadership in scientific research, accelerating degree attainments, and diversifying the scientific workforce to foster innovation. However, slow progress and persistent disparities across growing U.S. populations are evident on key science workforce indicators, from degree attainment to career achievements. The purpose of this article is to provide a conceptual basis and overview of a national effort funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that advances inclusive science practice and systemic change. We introduce the context, features, and rationale that drive practice and evaluation in the Diversity Program Consortium (DPC) approach, which is an experimental program to implement and evaluate evidence-based and novel practices to expand and diversify the biomedical workforce.

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

Despite decades of federal investment for biomedical research training, researchers identified disparate adjusted rates of R01 grant awards by scientists' race/ethnicity. This motivated NIH to fund the DPC approach as a set of highly integrated initiatives that empower institutional change agents to create scalable, evidenced-based strategies to enhance diversity in biomedical research and health science training. Key DPC elements include: 1) A systemic approach to enhance science preparedness involving students, faculty, and institutional-capacity development; 2) Collaboration, partnerships and networks across individuals and organizations, and especially between NIH, 10 undergraduate Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) sites, the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN), and the Coordination and Evaluation Center (CEC); and 3) Increased focus within and across key career stages for expanding training and ultimately diversifying the scientific workforce. A new framework for inclusive science practices and discussion of systemic change challenges provide insights into DPC processes and activities.

IMPLICATIONS

Collectively, the DPC establishes a national learning collaborative to implement and evaluate multidimensional components of training and program interventions, accelerate the adoption of promising or effective practices, and disseminate lessons to the broader extramural scientific community. Linking practice with evaluation research will identify exemplars that others may adopt to advance the goals of inclusive science in promoting and sustaining innovation, accelerating equity in science careers and, ultimately, address challenging health problems in an increasingly diverse nation.