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

Increasing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Health and Health Services Research Workforce: A Systematic Scoping Review

Health and health services research institutions seek to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) to overcome structural bias. The objective of this review is to identify, characterize, and evaluate programs aimed to strengthen DEI in the health and health services research workforces. We conducted a systematic scoping review of literature of 2012-2022 North American peer-reviewed empirical studies in PubMed and Embase using the Arksey and O'Malley approach. This review identified 62 programs that varied in focus, characteristics, and outcomes. Programs focused on supporting a spectrum of underrepresented groups based on race/ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability status, and socioeconomic status. The majority of programs targeted faculty/investigators, compared to other workforce roles. Most programs were 1 year in length or less. The practices employed within programs included skills building, mentoring, and facilitating the development of social networks. To support program infrastructure, key strategies included supportive leadership, inclusive climate, resource allocation, and community engagement. Most programs evaluated success based on shorter-term metrics such as the number of grants submitted and manuscripts published. Relatively few programs collected long-term outcomes on workforce pathway outcomes including hiring, promotion, and retention. This systematic scoping review outlined prevalent practices to advance DEI in the health and health services research field. As DEI programs proliferate, more work is needed by research universities, institutes, and funders to realign institutional culture and structures, expand resources, advance measurement, and increase opportunities for underrepresented groups at every career stage.

Granting access: Development of a formal course to demystify and promote predoctoral fellowship applications for graduate students

Strong scientific writing skills are the foundation of a successful research career and require training and practice. Although these skills are critical for completing a PhD, most students receive little formal writing instruction prior to joining a graduate program. In 2015, the University of Iowa Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) addressed this issue by developing the scientific writing course Grant Writing Basics (GWB). Here we describe the structure of this course and its effectiveness. GWB is an interactive, workshop-based course that uses a National Institutes of Health (NIH) F30 predoctoral fellowship proposal as a platform for building writing expertise. GWB incorporates established pedagogical principles of adult learning, including flipped classrooms, peer teaching, and reiterative evaluation. Time spent in class centers on active student analysis of previously submitted fellowship applications, discussion of writing resources, active writing, facilitated small group discussion of critiques of student writing samples, revision, and a discussion with a panel of experienced study section members and a student who completed a fellowship submission. Outcomes of GWB include a substantial increase in the number of applications submitted and fellowships awarded. Rigorous evaluation provides evidence that learning objectives were met and that students gained confidence in both their scientific writing skills and their ability to give constructive feedback. Our findings show that investment in formal training in written scientific communication provides a foundation for good writing habits, and the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in this vital aspect of a scientific research career. Furthermore, they highlight that evaluation is valuable in guiding course evolution. Strategies embedded in GWB can be adapted for use in any graduate program to advance scientific writing skills among its trainees.

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.

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, e.g. 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 increase 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.

Six tips for successful grant writing

ABSTRACT

Physician associates/assistants (PAs) are poised to be excellent grant writers for local projects that can improve access to quality care and improve the finances of historically underserved, urban, and rural healthcare communities. Because grant writing focuses on the dream of what is possible with funding, it contrasts with other forms of medical writing, which focus on past findings. This article aims to introduce PAs to six steps that can help them with grant writing, with a goal of improving patient care or starting community outreach projects.

A pilot study on our non-traditional, varied writing accountability group for historically excluded and underrepresented persons in STEMM

Underrepresented faculty have higher burnout rates and lower grant attainment rates when compared with their non-minority counterparts. Many in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) disciplines, including underrepresented individuals, often have difficulty dedicating time to the writing process, with trainees often being relegated to laboratory tasks in their training years, resulting in a lack of practice in academic writing. Notably, past studies have shown that grant attainment rates of underrepresented individuals are lower than their majority counterparts. Here, we sought to consider a mechanism targeted to underrepresented individuals, although applicable to everyone, to help overcome traditional barriers to writing in STEMM. The authors have hosted a writing accountability group (WAG) that uniquely provides a format focused on physical activity and different forms of writing to strengthen both career development and award/funding attainment. Our objectives were to evaluate this unique format, thus creating a resource for individuals and institutions to learn about WAGs and expand upon the framework to formulate their own WAG. To do this, we performed a small pilot study (n = 21) to investigate attitudes towards the WAG. We present the results of a survey conducted among underrepresented WAG participants, which spanned different career stages and was highly diverse demographically. Our results show that following attendance of our WAG, individuals did not note a significant change in scales pertaining to John Henryism (high-effort coping), resilience, sense of belonging, or grit. However, significant increases were noted in the self-perceived ability to handle stress, confidence in applying for awards, appreciation for mentoring, and satisfaction of WAGs. Taken together, the results of this study suggest that our unique WAG format can have some positive results as a career and writing development opportunity and may be able to support underrepresented individuals in attaining funding at higher education institutions.

The national institute on drug abuse diversity scholars network: success for a diverse addiction science workforce

There is a well-known lack of diversity in many Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields. The gap in awarded National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants for scientists from underrepresented populations at the early stages of their careers contributes significantly to this lack of diversity. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Diversity Scholars Network (NDSN) program implemented a new model in 2016 to provide support to underrepresented early-career investigators (ECIs) by equipping them to navigate the competitive NIH grant process. NDSN has a demonstrable track record of providing equity through educational opportunities by enhancing the grant funding success of participants. Of 59 participants from 2016 through 2021, 53% received funding within the first two years after completing the program and 69% by four years. NDSN scholars surmount systemic funding barriers by building relationships with scientific coaches, mentors, NIDA Program Officials and intentionally engaging in network building, which all contribute to the funding success of ECIs. NIDA's NDSN program provides a model for retaining underrepresented ECIs that not only benefits individual scholars, but also the institutions they serve and society as a whole.

Structural Racism in Psychiatric Research Careers: Eradicating Barriers to a More Diverse Workforce

Investigators from minoritized backgrounds are underrepresented in psychiatric research. That underrepresentation contributes to disparities in outcomes of access to mental health care. Drawing on lived experience, scholarly qualitative reports, and empirical data, the authors review how the underrepresentation of minoritized researchers arises from interlocking, self-reinforcing effects of structural biases in our research training and funding institutions. Minoritized researchers experience diminished early access to advanced training and opportunities, stereotype threats and microaggressions, isolation due to lack of peers and senior mentors, decreased access to early funding, and unique community and personal financial pressures. These represent structural racism-a system of institutional assumptions and practices that perpetuates race-based disparities, in spite of those institutions' efforts to increase diversity and in contradiction to the values that academic leaders outwardly espouse. The authors further review potential approaches to reversing these structural biases, including undergraduate-focused research experiences, financial support for faculty who lead training/mentoring programs, targeted mentoring through scholarly societies, better use of federal diversity supplement funding, support for scientific reentry, cohort building, diversity efforts targeting senior leadership, and rigorous examination of hiring, compensation, and promotion practices. Several of these approaches have empirically proven best practices and models for dissemination. If implemented alongside outcome measurement, they have the potential to reverse decades of structural bias in psychiatry and psychiatric research.

Novel Collaborations Across Training Programs to Support Mentoring in Sex Differences Research

There is a critical need to develop a capable and well-trained workforce dedicated to the systematic study of sex differences and examination of sex as a biological variable. Through the support of the Office of Research on Women's Health and partner National Institute of Health centers, the Specialized Centers of Research Excellence (SCORE) on Sex Differences Career Enhancement Cores (CECs) were established to help address this need. We describe the integration of the Medical University of South Carolina SCORE CEC with other National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded and institutional training programs to promote training synergies, share resources, and enhance mentorship opportunities. Benefits of developing an intrainstitutional training platform have included facilitating cross-disciplinary interactions, encouragement of peer mentorship, and reduced burden on training program leadership.

The Role of Mock Reviewing Sessions in the National Research Mentoring Network Strategic Empowerment Tailored for Health Equity Investigators: A Randomized Controlled Study

The National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) Strategic Empowerment Tailored for Health Equity Investigators (SETH) study evaluates the value of adding Developmental Network to Coaching in the career advancement of diverse Early-Stage Investigators (ESIs). Focused NIH-formatted Mock Reviewing Sessions (MRS) prior to the submission of grants can significantly enhance the scientific merits of an ESI's grant application. We evaluated the most prevalent design, analysis-related factors, and the likelihood of grant submissions and awards associated with going through MRS, using descriptive statistics, Chi-square, and logistic regression methods. A total of 62 out of 234 applications went through the MRS. There were 69.4% that pursued R grants, 22.6% career development (K) awards, and 8.0% other grant mechanisms. Comparing applications that underwent MRS versus those that did not (N = 172), 67.7% vs. 38.4% were submitted for funding (i.e., unadjusted difference of 29.3%; OR = 4.8, 95% CI = (2.4, 9.8), p-value < 0.0001). This indicates that, relative to those who did not undergo MRS, ESIs who did, were 4.8 times as likely to submit an application for funding. Also, ESIs in earlier cohorts (1-2) (a period that coincided with the pre COVID-19 era) as compared to those who were recruited at later cohorts (3-4) (i.e., during the peak of COVID-19 period) were 3.8 times as likely to submit grants (p-value < 0.0001). The most prevalent issues that were identified included insufficient statistical design considerations and plans (75%), conceptual framework (28.3%), specific aims (11.7%), evidence of significance (3.3%), and innovation (3.3%). MRS potentially enhances grant submissions for extramural funding and offers constructive feedback allowing for modifications that enhance the scientific merits of research grants.

Gender differences in peer reviewed grant applications, awards, and amounts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Differential participation and success in grant applications may contribute to women's lesser representation in the sciences. This study's objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to address the question of gender differences in grant award acceptance rates and reapplication award acceptance rates (potential bias in peer review outcomes) and other grant outcomes.

METHODS

The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021232153) and conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 standards. We searched Academic Search Complete, PubMed, and Web of Science for the timeframe 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2020, and forward and backward citations. Studies were included that reported data, by gender, on any of the following: grant applications or reapplications, awards, award amounts, award acceptance rates, or reapplication award acceptance rates. Studies that duplicated data reported in another study were excluded. Gender differences were investigated by meta-analyses and generalized linear mixed models. Doi plots and LFK indices were used to assess reporting bias.

RESULTS

The searches identified 199 records, of which 13 were eligible. An additional 42 sources from forward and backward searches were eligible, for a total of 55 sources with data on one or more outcomes. The data from these studies ranged from 1975 to 2020: 49 sources were published papers and six were funders' reports (the latter were identified by forwards and backwards searches). Twenty-nine studies reported person-level data, 25 reported application-level data, and one study reported both: person-level data were used in analyses. Award acceptance rates were 1% higher for men, which was not significantly different from women (95% CI 3% more for men to 1% more for women, k = 36, n = 303,795 awards and 1,277,442 applications, I² = 84%). Reapplication award acceptance rates were significantly higher for men (9%, 95% CI 18% to 1%, k = 7, n = 7319 applications and 3324 awards, I² = 63%). Women received smaller award amounts (g = -2.28, 95% CI -4.92 to 0.36, k = 13, n = 212,935, I² = 100%).

CONCLUSIONS

The proportions of women that applied for grants, re-applied, accepted awards, and accepted awards after reapplication were less than the proportion of eligible women. However, the award acceptance rate was similar for women and men, implying no gender bias in this peer reviewed grant outcome. Women received smaller awards and fewer awards after re-applying, which may negatively affect continued scientific productivity. Greater transparency is needed to monitor and verify these data globally.

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.

Impact of COVID-19 on the Research Career Advancement of Health Equity Scholars from Diverse Backgrounds

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly taxed scientific research and seems to have exacerbated existing inequities within the research field, particularly for early-stage investigators (ESIs). This study examines the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on traditionally underrepresented ESIs enrolled in an NIH-supported study evaluating the effectiveness of developmental networks, grant writing coaching, and mentoring on research career advancement. The survey consisted of 24 closed-ended (quantitative) and 4 open-ended questions (qualitative) linked to a participant's ability to meet grant submission deadlines, research and professional development disruptions, stress level, career transition level, self-efficacy and management of scholarly tasks, and familial responsibilities. Results from 32 respondents (53%) suggest that COVID-19 adversely impacted the continuity of research (81%) and grant submissions (63%). On average, grant submissions were delayed by 6.69 months (i.e., greater than one grant cycle). We also conducted additional analyses characterizing nonresponse and found that there were no significant predictors of nonresponse, indicating a limited threat to the validity of our findings. The disruption caused by COVID-19 to the careers of ESIs from underrepresented groups in the biomedical workforce has been profound in the short term. The long-term consequences to the future success of these groups are unknown but is a worthwhile area of research and potential innovation.

Research productivity and training support for doctoral students in the biological and biomedical sciences

Training of doctoral students as part of the next generation of the biomedical workforce is essential for sustaining the scientific enterprise in the United States. Training primarily occurs at institutions of higher education, and these trainees comprise an important part of the workforce at these institutions. Federal investment in the support of doctoral students in the biological and biomedical sciences is distributed differently than the distribution of students across different types of institutions, for example, public vs private. Institutions in states that historically receive less federal support for research also receive less support for doctoral student training. Doctorates at different types of institution exhibit little difference in research productivity, with the exception of citations, and subsequent receipt of additional NIH awards. Thus, training outcomes, which are related to the quality of the student and training environment, are similar across different institutions. Research productivity of doctoral students does not correlate with the number of F31s awarded to an institution. Factors that correlate with F31 funding include R01 funding levels and program size. The findings suggest strategies for institutions to increase success at securing F31s and modification of policy to promote more equitable distribution of F31s across institutions.

Nurturing Diverse Generations of the Medical Workforce for Success With Authenticity: An Association of Black Cardiologists' Roundtable

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the consequences of systemic racism in the United States with Black, Hispanic, and other racial and ethnic diverse populations dying at disproportionately higher rates than White Americans. Addressing the social and health disparities amplified by COVID-19 requires in part restructuring of the healthcare system, particularly the diversity of the healthcare workforce to better reflect that of the US population. In January 2021, the Association of Black Cardiologists hosted a virtual roundtable designed to discuss key issues pertaining to medical workforce diversity and to identify strategies aimed at improving racial and ethnic diversity in medical school, graduate medical education, faculty, and leadership positions. The Nurturing Diverse Generations of the Medical Workforce for Success with Authenticity roundtable brought together diverse stakeholders and champions of diversity and inclusion to discuss innovative ideas, solutions, and opportunities to address workforce diversification.

Editorial Board Composition Among Pediatric Cardiology Journals: Time to Cast the Net Wider

Background

No data currently exist on the diversity of editorial board members (EBMs) of pediatric cardiology journals.

Objectives

The objective was to investigate the editorial boards of 5 pediatric cardiology journals to assess the composition of these boards in terms of the geographical, gender, and economic representation of their members.

Methods

Information on EBMs was collected directly from 5 journal websites accessed in February 2022. The following data were collected: country of practice (including World Bank geographical and income classification), institution of practice, role on editorial board, and whether an individual held a role on 1 or more of the boards included.

Results

A total of 455 EBMs were identified. A total of 369 (81%) were male. All editors-in-chief were male, and 4 were from the United States. EBMs practicing in North America accounted for 278 individuals (61%) of the editorial boards reviewed. The next majority of EBMs are practicing within Europe and Central Asia (23%, n = 103), East Asia and Pacific (7%, n = 31), Middle East and North Africa (4%, n = 18), and Latin America and Caribbean (4%, n = 16). Less than 2% (n = 9) practice in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Over 90% (n = 415) practice in high-income countries. There was no representation from low-income countries.

Conclusions

Women and pediatric cardiologists practicing in countries outside of Europe and North America were underrepresented on the editorial boards of the journals studied. Diversifying composition of editorial boards may provide greater representation of underserved areas and encourage broader avenues of investigation and 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.

The funders' perspective: Lessons learned from the National Institutes of Health Diversity Program Consortium evaluation

Advancing diversity in the biomedical research workforce is critical to the ability of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to achieve its mission. The NIH Diversity Program Consortium is a unique, 10-year program that builds upon longstanding training and research capacity-building activities to promote workforce diversity. It was designed to rigorously evaluate approaches to enhancing diversity in the biomedical research workforce at the student, faculty, and institutional level. In this chapter we describe (a) the program's origins, (b) the consortium-wide evaluation, including plans, measures, challenges, and solutions, and (c) how lessons learned from this program are being leveraged to strengthen NIH research-training and capacity-building activities and evaluation efforts.

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.

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.

The Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI) Consortium: A Blueprint for Inclusive Excellence

The Research Centers in Minority Institutions, (RCMI) Program was established by Congress to address the health research and training needs of minority populations, by preparing future generations of scientists at these institutions, with a track record of producing minority scholars in medicine, science, and technology. The RCMI Consortium consists of the RCMI Specialized Centers and a Coordinating Center (CC). The RCMI-CC leverages the scientific expertise, technologies, and innovations of RCMI Centers to accelerate the delivery of solutions to address health disparities in communities that are most impacted. There is increasing recognition that the gap in representation of racial/ethnic groups and women is perpetuated by institutional cultures lacking inclusion and equity. The objective of this work is to provide a framework for inclusive excellence by developing a systematic evaluation process with common data elements that can track the inter-linked goals of workforce diversity and health equity. At its core, the RCMI Program embodies the trinity of diversity, equity, and inclusion. We propose a realist evaluation framework and a logic model that integrates the institutional context to develop common data metrics for inclusive excellence. The RCMI-CC will collaborate with NIH-funded institutions and research consortia to disseminate and scale this model.