To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The purpose of this scoping review is two-fold: to assess the literature that quantitatively measures outcomes of mentorship programs designed to support research-focused junior faculty and to identify mentoring strategies that promote diversity within academic medicine mentoring programs.
Studies were identified by searching Medline using MESH terms for mentoring and academic medicine. Eligibility criteria included studies focused on junior faculty in research-focused positions, receiving mentorship, in an academic medical center in the USA, with outcomes collected to measure career success (career trajectory, career satisfaction, quality of life, research productivity, leadership positions). Data were abstracted using a standardized data collection form, and best practices were summarized.
Search terms resulted in 1,842 articles for title and abstract review, with 27 manuscripts meeting inclusion criteria. Two studies focused specifically on women, and four studies focused on junior faculty from racial/ethnic backgrounds underrepresented in medicine. From the initial search, few studies were designed to specifically increase diversity or capture outcomes relevant to promotion within academic medicine. Of those which did, most studies captured the impact on research productivity and career satisfaction. Traditional one-on-one mentorship, structured peer mentorship facilitated by a senior mentor, and peer mentorship in combination with one-on-one mentorship were found to be effective strategies to facilitate research productivity.
Efforts are needed at the mentee, mentor, and institutional level to provide mentorship to diverse junior faculty on research competencies and career trajectory, create a sense of belonging, and connect junior faculty with institutional resources to support career success.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in clinical and translational science (CTS) are paramount to driving innovation and increasing health equity. One important area for improving diversity is among trainees in CTS programs. This paper reports on findings from a special session at the November 2020 Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) national program meeting that focused on advancing diversity and inclusion within CTS training programs.
Using qualitative content analysis, we identified approaches brought forth to increase DEI in KL2 career development and other training programs aimed at early-stage CTS investigators, beyond the six strategies put forth to guide the breakout session (prioritizing representation, building partnerships, making it personal, designing program structure, improving through feedback, and winning endorsement). We used an inductive qualitative content analysis approach to identify themes from a transcript of the panel of KL2 program leaders centered on DEI in training programs.
We identified four themes for advancing DEI within CTS training programs: 1) institutional buy-in; 2) proactive recruitment efforts; 3) an equitable application process; and 4) high-quality, diverse mentorship.
Implementing these strategies in CTS and other training programs will be an important step for advancing DEI. However, processes need to be established to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of these strategies through continuous quality improvement, a key component of the CTSA program. Training programs within the CTSA are well-positioned to be leaders in this critical effort to increase the diversity of the scientific workforce.
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.
Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) TL1 trainees and KL2 scholars were surveyed to determine the immediate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on training and career development. The most negative impact was lack of access to research facilities, clinics, and human subjects, plus for KL2 scholars lack of access to team members and need for homeschooling. TL1 trainees reported having more time to think and write. Common strategies to maintain research productivity involved time management, virtual connections with colleagues, and shifting to research activities not requiring laboratory/clinic settings. Strategies for mitigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on training and career development are described.
In order to conduct translational science, scientists must combine domain-specific expertise with knowledge on how to identify and cross translational hurdles, and insights on positioning discoveries for the next translational stage. Expert educators from the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium identified 97 knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) important to include in training programs for translational scientists. To assist educators and trainees to use these KSAs, a conceptual model called “Personalized Pathways” was developed that prioritizes KSAs based on trainee background, research area, or phenotype, and expertise on the research team.
To understand how CTSA educators prioritize specific KSAs when developing personalized training plans for different translational phenotypes and to identify areas of similarity and difference across phenotypes.
A web-based, cross-sectional survey of CTSA educators was done. For a selected phenotype, respondents recommended one of four levels of mastery for each of the 97 KSAs. Results were tabulated by frequency, weighted by importance, and divided into tertiles representing high, middle, and lower priority KSAs. Agreement across phenotypes was compared using Krippendorff’s alpha.
Ten KSAs were high training priority for Preclinical, Clinical, and Community-Engaged phenotypes. These address research methods, responsible conduct of research, team building, and communicating research results. Nine KSAs were in the next tertile for priority reflecting KSAs in biostatistics, bioinformatics, regulatory precepts, and translating implications of research findings.
A smaller set of KSAs can be prioritized for training Preclinical-, Clinical-, and Community-Engaged researchers. Future work should explore this approach for other phenotypes.
Objectives: Time costs borne by women when undergoing cervical cancer screening have rarely been elucidated, although such costs may pose substantial barriers to care. The purpose of this project was to quantify the opportunity costs associated with cervical cancer screening in young women attending Planned Parenthood Clinics.
Methods: We conducted a self-report survey of 105 women from six clinics to measure travel, waiting, and exam times associated with cervical cancer screening. Respondents recorded their time of arrival and departure, length of time in the waiting room, age, income level, and hours per week they worked outside of the home. Time costs were valued three ways: through self-reported hourly wage, age- and gender-adjusted minimum earnings, and national age- and gender-adjusted hourly wages.
Results: Respondents were on average 24 years old, worked 29 hours per week outside the home, and earned less than $20,000 per year. Mean time for one-way travel was 18.7 minutes; waiting room time was 16.9 minutes; and exam time was 50.8 minutes. Time costs were estimated to be $14.08 per visit based upon the self-reported hourly wage; $16.46 per visit based upon age- and gender-adjusted minimum earnings; and $19.63 per visit based upon age- and gender-adjusted national wage rates.
Conclusions: Time costs associated with cervical cancer screening represent an important opportunity cost and should be considered in studies attempting to identify barriers to screening adherence. Our results indicate that time costs accounted for up to 25% of cervical cancer screening costs. Time costs should be identified, measured, valued, and included in cost-effectiveness analyses of cervical cancer screening.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.