Research mentor training is a valuable professional development activity. Options for training customization (by delivery mode, dosage, content) are needed to address the many critical attributes of effective mentoring relationships and to support mentors in different institutional settings.

We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial to evaluate a hybrid mentor training approach consisting of an innovative, 90-minute, self-paced, online module (Optimizing the Practice of Mentoring, OPM) followed by workshops based on the Entering Mentoring (EM) curriculum. Mentors (n = 59) were randomized to intervention or control arms; the control condition was receipt of a two-page mentoring tip sheet. Surveys (pre, post, 3-month follow up) and focus groups assessed training impact (self-appraised knowledge, skills, behavior change) and participants’ perceptions of the blended training model.

The intervention (∼6.5 hours) produced significant improvements in all outcomes, including skills gains on par with those reported previously for the 8-hour EM model. Knowledge gains and intention-to-change mentoring practices were realized after completion of OPM and augmented by the in-person sessions. Mentors valued the synergy of the blended learning format, noting the unique strengths of each modality and specific benefits to completing a foundational online module before in-person engagement.

Findings from this pilot trial support the value of e-learning approaches, both as standalone curricula or as a component of hybrid implementation models, for the professional development of research mentors.

Biomedical researchers need skills in innovation and entrepreneurship (I&E) to efficiently translate scientific discoveries into products and services to be used to improve health.

In 2016, the European Union identified and published 15 entrepreneurial competencies (EntreComp) for the general population. To validate the appropriateness of these competencies for I&E training for biomedical researchers and to identify program content, we conducted six modified Delphi panels of 45 experts (6–9 per panel). Participating experts had diverse experience, representing such fields as entrepreneurship, academic research, venture capital, and industry.

The experts agreed that all 15 EntreComp competencies were important for biomedical research trainees and no additional competencies were identified. In a two-round Delphi process, the experts identified 120 topics to be included in a training curriculum. They rated the importance of each topic using a 5-point scale from not at all important (1) to extremely important (5) for two student groups: entrepreneurs (those interested in starting their own ventures) and intrapreneurs (those wanting to be innovative and strategic within academia or industry). Consensus (mean importance score >4) was reached that 85 (71%) topics were of high importance for the curriculum. Four topics were identified by multiple panels for both student groups: resiliency, goal setting, team management, and communication skills.

I&E training for biomedical trainees should address all 15 EntreComp competencies, including “soft skills,” and be flexible to accommodate the needs of trainees on different career trajectories.

High impact biomedical research is increasingly conducted by large, transdisciplinary, multisite teams in an increasingly collaborative environment. Thriving in this environment requires robust teamwork skills, which are not acquired automatically in the course of traditional scientific education. Team science skills training does exist, but most is directed at clinical care teams, not research teams, and little is focused on the specific training needs of early-career investigators, whose early team leadership experiences may shape their career trajectories positively or negatively. Our research indicated a need for team science training designed specifically for early-career investigators.

To address this need, we designed and delivered a 2-day workshop focused on teaching team science skills to early-career investigators. We operationalized team science competencies, sought the advice of team science experts, and performed a needs assessment composed of a survey and a qualitative study. Through these multiple approaches, we identified and grouped training priorities into three broad training areas and developed four robust, hands-on workshop sessions.

Attendees comprised 30 pre- and post-doc fellows (TL1) and early-career faculty (KL2 and K12). We assessed impact with a pre- and post-workshop survey adapted from the Team Skills Scale. Results from the pre- and post-test Wilcoxon signed-rank analysis (n = 25) showed statistically significant improvement in team science skills and confidence. Open-ended responses indicated that the workshop focus was appropriate and well targeted to the trainees’ needs.

Although team science education is still very much in its infancy, these results suggest that training targeted to early-career investigators improves team skills and may foster improved collaboration.

Individuals experiencing different medical conditions, as well as healthy volunteers, may often be interested in trial participation, and researchers similarly need to find participants to advance medical knowledge. The ResearchMatch (RM) Trials Today clinical trial searching tool leverages clinicaltrials.gov data to enable potential participants to look for trial opportunities relevant to their situation. To facilitate expanded use of this tool, we undertook a national digital public awareness campaign to increase awareness of Trials Today among members of the general public.

The awareness campaign promoted Trials Today using Facebook and digital banner messages in 2017, encompassing nine cities across the USA. The digital strategy was complemented by print media in several outlets. We employed descriptive statistics to summarize campaign metrics and site usage data during the campaign.

The campaign was successful in increasing visits to Trials Today, with 142,303 sessions logged during its run, as compared to pre-campaign data indicating 104,688 total sessions during the entire 2-year period since the site’s inception. The city-specific click-through rate for all digital impressions, combining Facebook and banner messaging, ranged from 0.50% to 1.09%, resulting in a cost-per-click range of $0.69–$1.15. In addition, visitors conducted 29,697 searches and viewed individual trial records 173,512 times.

The public awareness campaign was successful in increasing use of the RM Trials Today clinical trial searching tool. Our findings support the value of digital media messaging as a cost-effective vehicle for promoting clinical trial awareness, especially for chronic ailments.

Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Draft Guidance for Industry on pharmaceutical REMS (Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies) assessment and survey methodology highlights physician knowledge–attitudes–behaviors (KAB) surveys as regulatory science tools. This mixed-methods evaluation advances regulatory science and the assessment of FDA REMS programs when using physician surveys. We: (1) reviewed published physician survey response rates; and (2) assessed response bias in a simulation study of secondary survey data using different accrual cut-off strategies.

A systematic literature review was conducted of US physician surveys (2000–2014) on pharmaceutical use (n = 75). Kruskal–Wallis tests were used to examine the relationships between response rates and survey design characteristics. The simulation was conducted using secondary data from a population-based physician KAB survey on diabetes risk management with antipsychotic use in Missouri Medicaid (n = 973 accrued over 30 weeks). Survey item responses were compared using Pearson’s chi-square tests for two faster completion simulations: Fixed Sample (n = 300) and Fixed Time (8 weeks).

Survey response rates ranged from 7% to 100% (median = 48%, IQR = 34%–68%). Surveys of targeted populations and surveys using member lists were associated with higher response rates (p = 0.02). In the simulation, 9 of 20 (45%) KAB items, including diabetes screening advocacy, differed significantly using the smaller Fixed Sample strategy (achieved in 12 days) versus full accrual. Fewer response differences were found using the Fixed Time strategy (2 of 20 [10%] items).

Published data on physician surveys report low response rates with most associated with the sample source selected. FDA REMS assessments should include formal evaluation of survey accrual and response bias.