The proportion of physician-investigators involved in biomedical research is shrinking even as the need for high-quality, interdisciplinary research is growing. Building the physician-investigator workforce is thus a pressing concern. Flexible, “light-weight” training modalities can help busy physician-investigators prepare for key stages of the research life cycle and personalize their learning to their own needs. Such training can also support researchers from diverse backgrounds and lighten the work of mentors.

The University of Pittsburgh’s Institute for Clinical Research Education designed the Stackables Microcredentials in Clinical and Translational Research (Stackables) program to provide flexible, online training to supplement and enhance formal training programs. This training utilizes a self-paced, just-in-time format along with an interactive, storytelling approach to sustain learner engagement. Learners earn badges for completing modules and certificates for completing “stacks” in key competency areas. In this paper, we describe the genesis and development of the Stackables program and report the results of a pilot study in which we evaluated changes in confidence in key skill areas from pretest to posttest, as well as engagement and perceived effectiveness.

Our Stackables pilot study showed statistically significant gains in learner confidence in all skill areas from pretest to posttest. Pilot participants reported that the module generated high levels of engagement and enhanced their skills, knowledge, and interest in the subject.

Stackables provide an important complement to formal coursework by focusing on discrete skill areas and allowing learners to access the training they need when they need it.

Researchers from underrepresented groups leave research positions at a disproportionate rate. We aim to identify factors associated with self-efficacy in career advancement and career commitment among underrepresented post-doctoral fellows and early-career faculty.

Building Up is a cluster-randomized trial with 25 academic health institutions. In September-October 2020, 219 Building Up participants completed the pre-intervention assessment, which included questions on demographics, science identity, mentoring, self-efficacy in career advancement (i.e., advancement is open to me, confidence in career progression, confidence in overcoming professional barriers), and career commitment (i.e., intent to continue research training or studying in a field related to biomedical sciences). Using logistic and multinomial logistic regression, we identified characteristics independently associated with self-efficacy in career advancement and career commitment.

The cohort is 80% female, 33% non-Hispanic/Latinx Black, and 34% Hispanic/Latinx. Having mentors that address diversity was significantly associated with the belief that advancement is open to them (OR = 1.7). Higher science identity (OR = 4.0) and having mentors that foster independence (OR = 1.8) were significantly associated with confidence in career progression. Higher science identity was also significantly associated with confidence in overcoming professional barriers (OR = 2.3) and intent to continue studying in a field related to biomedical sciences (OR = 3.3). Higher age (OR = 2.3) and higher science identity (OR = 4.2) were significantly associated with intent to continue research training.

Science identity and mentoring play key roles in self-efficacy in career advancement and career commitment. These factors may contribute to retention of underrepresented early-career biomedical researchers.

Early-stage clinical and translational researchers who set and track career goals, milestones, and progress are successful in career development. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of the Customized Career Development Platform (CCDP), an online individual development plan (IDP), versus the traditional IDP template in improving research success and career satisfaction.

We conducted a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial of 340 scholars and trainees at 27 US academic healthcare institutions. The primary outcome was number of published manuscripts 24 months post-intervention. Secondary outcomes included the number of grant proposals submitted and funded, job satisfaction, and level of communication with mentors. An analysis of CCDP participants assessed proficiency level for the 14 Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) competencies. Data were analyzed using intention-to-treat.

Participants were mostly female (60.3%) and Caucasian (67.2%); mean age was 34 years. Twenty-four months following the intervention, the CCDP versus traditional IDP groups showed a similar number of publications (9.4 vs 8.6), grants submitted (4.1 vs 4.4) and funded (1.3 vs 2.0), and job satisfaction score (3.6 vs 3.7). The CCDP group had higher odds of discussing communication (OR = 2.08) and leadership skills (OR = 2.62) and broadening their network (2.31) than the traditional IDP group. The CCDP arm reported improvements in 9 of the 14 CTSA competencies.

The CCDP offers CTSA hubs an innovative alternative to traditional IDP tools. Future studies are needed to elucidate why the CCDP users did not fully appreciate or adopt the functionality of the online platform.

High writing self-efficacy and self-regulation are tied to publication and grant submission. Writers with these attributes are more productive. We investigated whether participating in a Shut Up & Write!®-style intervention (SUAW) would produce statistically significant gains in writing self-efficacy and self-regulation when comparing pre-post-participation surveys.

Forty-seven medical students, TL1/KL2, and early-career faculty from across the USA expressed interest in participating, with 37 completing the pre-survey. We conducted (on Zoom) a 12-week SUAW series and measured the effect using a pre-post survey adapted from the Writer Self-Perception Scale. Paired t-tests (α = 0.05) were conducted on three subscales to test for significant differences between pre- and post-test means. The subscales reflected writing attitudes, writing strategies, and avoiding writing distractions. Subscales showed acceptable internal consistency with Cronbach’s alphas of 0.80, 0.71, and 0.72, respectively.

Twenty-seven participants attended at least one session. Of these, 81% presented as female, and 60% were from NIH-defined Underrepresented Backgrounds and/or were from Minority-Serving Institutions. Twenty-four completed both the pre- and post-surveys. Sixty percent previously participated in an activity similar to SUAW. We found significant improvements in writing attitudes (p = 0.020) and writing strategies (p = 0.041) for those who previously participated. For those who had not previously participated, we found improved writing strategies (p = 0.002). Eighty percent were very satisfied/satisfied with SUAW.

Researchers have tied writing self-efficacy and self-regulation to timely publication and grant submission. We found significant gains in self-efficacy and self-regulation, suggesting that participation in a SUAW-style intervention may increase writing productivity.

Underrepresented researchers face more challenges than their well-represented counterparts. Perseverance and consistency of interest are associated with career success in well-represented physicians. Therefore, we examined associations of perseverance and consistency of interest with Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory (CRAI), science identity, and other factors related to career success among underrepresented post-doctoral fellows and early-career faculty.

This is a cross-sectional analysis of data collected from September to October 2020 among 224 underrepresented early-career researchers at 25 academic medical centers in the Building Up Trial. We used linear regression to test associations of perseverance and consistency of interest scores with CRAI, science identity, and effort/reward imbalance (ERI) scores.

The cohort is 80% female, 33% non-Hispanic Black, and 34% Hispanic. The median perseverance and consistency of interest scores were 3.8 (25th–75th percentile: 3.7,4.2) and 3.7 (25th–75th percentile: 3.2, 4.0), respectively. Higher perseverance was associated with a higher CRAI score (β = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.30, 1.33, p = 0.002) and science identity (β = 0.44; 95% CI = 0.19, 0.68, p = 0.001). Higher consistency of interest was associated with a higher CRAI score (β = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.23, 0.96, p = 0.001) and higher science identity score (β = 0.20; 95% CI = 0.03, 0.36, p = 0.02), while lower consistency of interest was associated with imbalance favoring effort (β = –0.22; 95% CI = –0.33, –0.11, p = 0.001).

We found that perseverance and consistency of interest are related to CRAI and science identity, indicating that these factors may positively influence one’s decision to stay in research.

Social unrest tied to racism negatively impacted half of NIH-funded extramural researchers underrepresented (UR) in science. UR early-career scientists encounter more challenges in their research careers, but the impact of social unrest due to systemic racism in this group is unclear. We used mixed methods to describe the impact of social unrest due to systemic racism on mentoring relationships, research, and psychological well-being in UR post-doctoral fellows and early-career faculty.

This is a cross-sectional analysis of data collected in September 2021–January 2022 from 144 UR early-career researchers from 25 academic medical centers in the Building Up Trial. The primary outcomes were agreement on five-point Likert scales with social unrest impact statements (e.g., “I experienced psychological distress due to events of social unrest regarding systemic racism”). Thematic analysis was conducted on responses to one open-ended question assessing how social unrest regarding systemic racism affected participants.

Most participants were female (80%), non-Hispanic Black (35%), or Hispanic (40%). Over half of participants (57%) experienced psychological distress as a result of social unrest due to systemic racism. Participants described direct and indirect discrimination and isolation from other persons of color at their institutions. Twice as many participants felt their mentoring relationships were positively (21%) versus negatively (11%) impacted by social unrest due to systemic racism.

Experiences with racial bias and discrimination impact the career and well-being of UR early-career researchers. Mentoring relationships and institutional support play an important role in buffering the negative impact of racial injustice for this population.

Identifying the most effective ways to support career development of early stage investigators in clinical and translational science should yield benefits for the biomedical research community. Institutions with Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) offer KL2 programs to facilitate career development; however, the sustained impact has not been widely assessed.

A survey comprised of quantitative and qualitative questions was sent to 2144 individuals that had previously received support through CTSA KL2 mechanisms. The 547 responses were analyzed with identifying information redacted.

Respondents held MD (47%), PhD (36%), and MD/PhD (13%) degrees. After KL2 support was completed, physicians’ time was divided 50% to research and 30% to patient care, whereas PhD respondents devoted 70% time to research. Funded research effort averaged 60% for the cohort. Respondents were satisfied with their career progression. More than 95% thought their current job was meaningful. Two-thirds felt confident or very confident in their ability to sustain a career in clinical and translational research. Factors cited as contributing to career success included protected time, mentoring, and collaborations.

This first large systematic survey of KL2 alumni provides valuable insight into the group’s perceptions of the program and outcome information. Former scholars are largely satisfied with their career choice and direction, national recognition of their expertise, and impact of their work. Importantly, they identified training activities that contributed to success. Our results and future analysis of the survey data should inform the framework for developing platforms to launch sustaining careers of translational scientists.

Human-centered design (HCD) training offers the potential to improve both team processes and products. However, the use of HCD to improve the quality of team science is a relatively recent application, and its benefits and challenges have not been rigorously evaluated. We conducted a qualitative study with health sciences researchers trained in HCD methods. We aimed to determine how researchers applied HCD methods and perceived the benefits and barriers to using HCD on research teams.

We conducted 1-hour, semi-structured interviews with trainees from three training cohorts. Interviews focused on perceptions of the training, subsequent uses of HCD, barriers and facilitators, and perceptions of the utility of HCD to science teams. Data analysis was conducted using Braun and Clarke’s process for thematic analysis.

We interviewed nine faculty and nine staff trained in HCD methods and identified four themes encompassing HCD use, benefits, challenges, and tensions between HCD approaches and academic culture.

Trainees found HCD relevant to research teams for stakeholder engagement, research design, project planning, meeting facilitation, and team management. They also described benefits of HCD in five distinct areas: creativity, egalitarianism, structure, efficiency, and visibility. Our data suggest that HCD has the potential to help researchers work more inclusively and collaboratively on interdisciplinary teams and generate more innovative and impactful science. The application of HCD methods is not without challenges; however, we believe these challenges can be overcome with institutional investment.

The need to diversify the biomedical research workforce is well documented. The importance of fostering the careers of fledgling underrepresented background (URB) biomedical researchers is evident in light of the national and local scarcity of URB scientists in biomedical research. The Career Education and Enhancement for Health Care Research Diversity (CEED) program at the University of Pittsburgh Institute for Clinical Research Education (ICRE) was designed to promote career success and help seal the “leaky pipeline” for URB researchers. In this study, we aimed to quantify CEED’s effect on several key outcomes by comparing CEED Scholars to a matched set of URB ICRE trainees not enrolled in CEED using data collected over 10 years.

We collected survey data on CEED Scholars from 2007 to 2017 and created a matched set of URB trainees not enrolled in CEED using propensity score matching in a 1:1 ratio. Poisson regression was used to compare the rate of publications between CEED and non-CEED URB trainees after adjusting for baseline number of publications.

CEED has 45 graduates. Seventy-six percent are women, 78% are non-White, and 33% are Hispanic/Latino. Twenty-four CEED Scholars were matched to non-CEED URB trainees. Compared to matched URB trainees, CEED graduates had more peer-reviewed publications (p=0.0261) and were more likely to be an assistant professor (p=0.0145).

Programs that support URB researchers can help expand and diversify the biomedical research workforce. CEED has been successful despite the challenges of a small demographic pool.