Building the Next Generation of Researchers: Mentored Training in Dissemination and Implementation Science

Navigating the field of implementation science towards maturity: challenges and opportunities

BACKGROUND

The field of implementation science has significantly expanded in size and scope over the past two decades, although work related to understanding implementation processes have of course long preceded the more systematic efforts to improve integration of evidence-based interventions into practice settings. While this growth has had significant benefits to research, practice, and policy, there are some clear challenges that this period of adolescence has uncovered.

MAIN BODY

This invited commentary reflects on the development of implementation science, its rapid growth, and milestones in its establishment as a viable component of the biomedical research enterprise. The authors reflect on progress in research and training, and then unpack some of the consequences of rapid growth, as the field has grappled with the competing challenges of legitimacy among the research community set against the necessary integration and engagement with practice and policy partners. The article then enumerates a set of principles for the field's next developmental stage and espouses the aspirational goal of a "big tent" to support the next generation of impactful science.

CONCLUSION

For implementation science to expand its relevance and impact to practice and policy, researchers must not lose sight of the original purpose of the field-to support improvements in health and health care at scale, the importance of building a community of research and practice among key partners, and the balance of rigor, relevance, and societal benefit.

Models and approaches for building knowledge translation capacity and capability in health services: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Building healthcare service and health professionals' capacity and capability to rapidly translate research evidence into health practice is critical to the effectiveness and sustainability of healthcare systems. This review scoped the literature describing programmes to build knowledge translation capacity and capability in health professionals and healthcare services, and the evidence supporting these.

METHODS

This scoping review was undertaken using the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. Four research databases (Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycInfo) were searched using a pre-determined strategy. Eligible studies described a programme implemented in healthcare settings to build health professional or healthcare service knowledge translation capacity and capability. Abstracts and full texts considered for inclusion were screened by two researchers. Data from included papers were extracted using a bespoke tool informed by the scoping review questions.

RESULTS

Database searches yielded 10,509 unique citations, of which 136 full texts were reviewed. Thirty-four papers were included, with three additional papers identified on citation searching, resulting in 37 papers describing 34 knowledge translation capability building programmes. Programmes were often multifaceted, comprising a combination of two or more strategies including education, dedicated implementation support roles, strategic research-practice partnerships and collaborations, co-designed knowledge translation capability building programmes, and dedicated funding for knowledge translation. Many programmes utilised experiential and collaborative learning, and targeted either individual, team, organisational, or system levels of impact. Twenty-seven programmes were evaluated formally using one or more data collection methods. Outcomes measured varied significantly and included participant self-reported outcomes, perceived barriers and enablers of knowledge translation, milestone achievement and behaviour change. All papers reported that programme objectives were achieved to varying degrees.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge translation capacity and capability building programmes in healthcare settings are multifaceted, often include education to facilitate experiential and collaborative learning, and target individual, team, organisational, or supra-organisational levels of impact. Although measured differently across the programmes, the outcomes were positive. The sustainability of programmes and outcomes may be undermined by the lack of long-term funding and inconsistent evaluation. Future research is required to develop evidence-informed frameworks to guide methods and outcome measures for short-, medium- and longer-term programme evaluation at the different structural levels.

Training the next generation of delivery science researchers: 10-year experience of a post-doctoral research fellowship program within an integrated care system

Introduction

Learning health systems require a workforce of researchers trained in the methods of identifying and overcoming barriers to effective, evidence-based care. Most existing postdoctoral training programs, such as NIH-funded postdoctoral T32 awards, support basic and epidemiological science with very limited focus on rigorous delivery science methods for improving care. In this report, we present the 10-year experience of developing and implementing a Delivery Science postdoctoral fellowship embedded within an integrated health care delivery system.

Methods

In 2012, the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research designed and implemented a 2-year postdoctoral Delivery Science Fellowship research training program to foster research expertise in identifying and addressing barriers to evidence-based care within health care delivery systems.

Results

Since 2014, 20 fellows have completed the program. Ten fellows had PhD-level scientific training, and 10 fellows had clinical doctorates (eg, MD, RN/PhD, PharmD). Fellowship alumni have graduated to faculty research positions at academic institutions (9), and research or clinical organizations (4). Seven alumni now hold positions in Kaiser Permanente's clinical operations or medical group (7).

Conclusions

This delivery science fellowship program has succeeded in training graduates to address delivery science problems from both research and operational perspectives. In the next 10 years, additional goals of the program will be to expand its reach (eg, by developing joint research training models in collaboration with clinical fellowships) and strengthen mechanisms to support transition from fellowship to the workforce, especially for researchers from underrepresented groups.

Research translation mentoring for emerging clinician researchers in rural and regional health settings: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Building clinician and organisation-level research translation capacity and capability is fundamental for increasing the implementation of research into health practice and policy and improving health outcomes. Research translation capacity and capability building is particularly crucial in rural and regional settings to address complex problems impacting these socially and economically disadvantaged communities. Programs to build clinicians' research translation capability typically involve training and mentoring. Little is known about the features of and influences on mentorships in the context of training for emerging clinician-researchers working in rural and regional healthcare settings. Research translation mentorships were established as part of the Supporting Translation Research in Rural and Regional settings (STaRR) program developed and delivered in Victoria, Australia from 2020 to 2021. The study sought to address the following research questions: 1) What context-specific types of support do research translation mentors provide to emerging researchers?. 2) How does the mentoring element of a rural research translational training program influence research translation capacity and capability development in rural emerging researchers and mentors, if at all?. 3) How does the mentoring element of the program influence translation capacity and capability at the organisational and regional level, if at all?

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative descriptive study. Interviews with individuals involved in the STaRR program took place approximately 12 months after the program and explored participants' experiences of the mentored training. Interviews were undertaken via telephone, audio-recorded, and transcribed. Data were analysed using a team-based five-stage framework approach.

RESULTS

Participants included emerging researchers (n = 9), mentors (n = 5), and managers (n = 4), from five health services and two universities. We identified four themes in the interview data: (1) Mentors play an educative role; (2) Mentoring enhanced by a collaborative environment; (3) Organisational challenges can influence mentorships, and (4) Mentorships help develop research networks and collective research and translation capacity.

CONCLUSIONS

Mentorships contributed to the development of research translation capabilities. The capabilities were developed through mentors' deepened understanding of the rural and regional healthcare contexts in which their emerging researchers worked, the broadening and strengthening of rural and regional research networks, and building and sharing research translation knowledge and skills.

Learning to Prioritize Our Collaborative Opportunities: Overcoming the Bright Shiny Object Syndrome

ABSTRACT

There are multiple opportunities to participate in team science, leading to long-term benefits (eg, research impact, novelty, productivity). Scholars are not well-trained in how to choose among these opportunities, often learning via trial and error. The ability to navigate collaborations is framed by several principles and considerations: (1) locus of control (what control we have over our own behavior) and how it affects academic job satisfaction; (2) the scarcity mindset that may manifest as a result of the fear of missing future opportunities; and (3) power dynamics and inequities (eg, among women and racial/ethnic minority individuals). To provide a more systematic approach to weighing academic opportunities, the authors offer 30 questions across six overlapping domains. The domains include: the big picture (eg, Is the opportunity a building block for your career?), context (eg, How much do you have on your plate?), person (eg, Who is asking?), team (eg, Is the team productive?), role (eg, Will you lead or assist?), and outcomes (eg, Might the opportunity lead to publications and/or grants?). We offer advice for decision-making. For example, when presented with an opportunity involving a significant time commitment, it is useful to allow at least 24 hours before deciding. The authors offer advice and sample language for communicating your decision. Although every situation is different, there are several fundamental issues and questions to consider when one is presented with a new opportunity-these questions are suggested for mentors and mentees.

SACRED

Collaborative research is an opportunity to bring creative minds together and blend multiple disciplines to churn out innovative solutions. In this era of massive social media and information overload, a streamlined process framework with best practices and procedures is a requirement for genuine scientific collaboration. The main aim of this work is to bring forth a software-centric framework for harmonizing research. SACRED is the outcome of experiences gained during the development of ‘ARMS'-An Analysis Framework for Mixed Criticality Systems. ARMS is a collaborative platform to disseminate research and literature in real-time mixed criticality systems. ARMS is hosted on Amazon Amplify with the user interface implemented using the ReactJS framework. SACRED summarizes the software-centric process, practices and procedures followed, and renders it for similar collaborations in the future.

Around the EQUATOR with clinician-scientists transdisciplinary aging research (Clin-STAR) principles: Implementation science challenges and opportunities

The Institute of Medicine and the National Institute on Aging increasingly understand that knowledge alone is necessary but insufficient to improve healthcare outcomes. Adapting the behaviors of clinicians, patients, and stakeholders to new standards of evidence-based clinical practice is often significantly delayed. In response, over the past twenty years, Implementation Science has developed as the study of methods and strategies that facilitate the uptake of evidence-based practice into regular use by practitioners and policymakers. One important advance in Implementation Science research was the development of Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI), which provided a 27-item checklist for researchers to consistently report essential elements of the implementation and intervention strategies. Using StaRI as a framework, this review discusses specific Implementation Science challenges for research with older adults, provides solutions for those obstacles, and opportunities to improve the value of this evolving approach to reduce the knowledge translation losses that exist between published research and clinical practice.

Building Capacity in Implementation Science for Cancer Prevention and Control Through a Research Network Scholars Program

Building capacity of researchers and practitioners in the dissemination and implementation (D&I) of evidence-based interventions is greatly needed to improve cancer prevention and control. A diverse workforce trained in D&I science is critical for improving cancer outcomes and reducing cancer-related health disparities. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) Scholars Program aimed at training students, researchers, and practitioners in D&I for cancer prevention and control launched in 2021. The purpose of this paper is to describe the creation of the training program, curriculum, and evaluation plans, and to present the baseline results and lessons learned. CPCRN investigator and partner input and formative interviews (n = 16) with assistant professors, postdoctoral fellow, doctoral and undergraduate students, and a program manager guided development of the program. Twenty of 24 applicants were accepted into the inaugural year of the program. The majority of accepted scholars identified as female (80%) and were graduate students (50%). Thirty-five percent were of racially diverse backgrounds. Most self-rated their previous D&I experience and competencies at a beginner level. The multi-step approach used for development of this training program and lessons learned will be helpful for others collaborating on preparing the research and practice workforce in D&I science.

Mentoring strategies to support diversity in research-focused junior faculty: A scoping review

Objective

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Clinician-Scientist Faculty Mentoring Program (FAME) - A New Inclusive Training Model at Penn State Increases Scholarly Productivity and Extramural Grant Funding

PURPOSE

Clinician-scientists have a high attrition rate at the junior-faculty level, before they gain independent funding. We identified the lack of skill set, clinician-scientist community and collaboration between clinician-scientists and clinicians with predominantly clinical duties, as key problems in our medium-size college of medicine.

METHODS

We designed a novel two-year educational program, the Clinician-scientist Faculty Mentoring program (FAME) specifically to target junior clinician-scientists. The program enrollment included both lab-based, "traditional" and "non-traditional" clinician-scientists, with predominantly clinical duties and limited time for research. The curriculum included the novel educational tools: Emerging technology seminars and mentored work-in-progress research seminars, integrated with mock grant review.

RESULTS

The first class enrolled 17 clinician-scientists with diverse clinical subspecialty, previous research training, and protected research time. After two years in the program, the self-assessment of FAME scholars demonstrated strong improvement in grantsmanship skills, career development, emerging technologies, and the sense of community and collaboration. Compared to the period before initiating FAME, scholars increased annual scholarly output by 65% and new extramural funding by >20-fold ($0.189 vs $4.0 million) following completion of FAME. The "traditional" clinician-scientists, who had >50% research time, increased new extramural funding by ~25-fold ($0.134 vs $3.336 million), whereas "non-traditional" clinician-scientists who had ≤50% research time increased new extramural funding by >13-fold.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that a training program tailored specifically to clinician-scientists leads to increased scholarly productivity and grant funding regardless of research background. Implementing this type of training program nationally, with inclusion of clinician-scientists with various amounts of protected time for research, will help both "traditional" and "non-traditional" clinician-scientists to obtain a substantial independent extramural funding, fulfill their scholarly potential, and enhance their sense of community. Our model would be particularly useful for small-to-medium sized academic institutions, who have a limited clinician-scientist workforce facing competing health care system needs.

Data Velocity in HIV-Related Implementation Research: Estimating Time From Funding to Publication

BACKGROUND

Given available effective biomedical and behavioral prevention and treatment interventions, HIV-related implementation research (IR) is expanding. The rapid generation and dissemination of IR to inform guidelines and practice has the potential to optimize the impact of the Ending the Epidemic Initiative and the HIV pandemic response more broadly.

METHODS

We leveraged a prior mapping review of NIH-funded awards in HIV and IR from January 2013 to March 2018 and identified all publications linked to those grants in NIH RePORTER through January 1, 2021 (n = 1509). Deduplication and screening of nonoriginal research reduced the count to 1032 articles, of which 952 were eligible and included in this review. Publication volume and timing were summarized; Kaplan-Meier plots estimated time to publication.

RESULTS

Among the 215 NIH-funded IR-related awards, 127 of 215 (59%) published original research directly related to the grant, averaging 2.0 articles (SD: 3.3) per award, largely in the early IR phases. Many articles (521 of 952, 55%) attributed to grants did not report grant-related data. Time from article submission to publication averaged 205 days (SD: 107). The median time-to-first publication from funding start was 4 years. Data dissemination velocity varied by award type, trending toward faster publication in recent years. Delays in data velocity included (1) time from funding to enrollment, (2) enrollment length, and (3) time from data collection completion to publication.

CONCLUSION

Research publication was high overall, and time-to-publication is accelerating; however, over 40% of grants have yet to publish findings from grant-related data. Addressing bottlenecks in the production and dissemination of HIV-related IR would reinforce its programmatic and policy relevance in the HIV response.

Collaboration networks of the implementation science centers for cancer control: a social network analysis

BACKGROUND

Multi-center research initiatives offer opportunities to develop and strengthen connections among researchers. These initiatives often have goals of increased scientific collaboration which can be examined using social network analysis.

METHODS

The National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) initiative conducted an online social network survey in its first year of funding (2020) to (1) establish baseline network measures including the extent of cross-center collaboration and (2) assess factors associated with a network member's access to the network such as one's implementation science (IS) expertise. Members of the seven funded centers and NCI program staff identified collaborations in planning/conducting research, capacity building, product development, scientific dissemination, and practice/policy dissemination.

RESULTS

Of the 192 invitees, 182 network members completed the survey (95%). The most prevalent roles were faculty (60%) and research staff (24%). Almost one-quarter (23%) of members reported advanced expertise in IS, 42% intermediate, and 35% beginner. Most members were female (69%) and white (79%). One-third (33%) of collaboration ties were among members from different centers. Across all collaboration activities, the network had a density of 14%, suggesting moderate cohesion. Degree centralization (0.33) and betweenness centralization (0.07) measures suggest a fairly dispersed network (no single or few central member(s) holding all connections). The most prevalent and densely connected collaboration was in planning/conducting research (1470 ties; 8% density). Practice/policy dissemination had the fewest collaboration, lowest density (284 ties' 3% density), and the largest number of non-connected members (n=43). Access to the ISC3 network varied significantly depending on members' level of IS expertise, role within the network, and racial/ethnic background. Across all collaboration activities, most connected members included those with advanced IS expertise, faculty and NCI staff, and Hispanic or Latino and white members.

CONCLUSIONS

Results establish a baseline for assessing the growth of cross-center collaborations, highlighting specific areas in need of particular growth in network collaborations such as increasing engagement of racial and ethnic minorities and trainees or those with less expertise in IS.

Operationalizing Implementation Science in Nutrition: The Implementation Science Initiative in Kenya and Uganda

BACKGROUND

Implementation science (IS) has the potential to improve the implementation and impact of policies, programs, and interventions. Most of the training, guidance, and experience has focused on implementation research, which is only 1 part of the broader field of IS. In 2018, the Society for Implementation Science in Nutrition borrowed concepts from IS in health to develop a broader and more integrated conceptual framework, adapted to the particular case of nutrition and with language and concepts more familiar to the nutrition community: it is called the IS in Nutrition (ISN) framework.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this research was to generate knowledge concerning challenges and strategies in operationalizing the ISN framework in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings.

METHODS

The ISN framework was operationalized in partnership with country teams in Kenya and Uganda over a 3-y period as part of the Implementation Science Initiative. An action research methodology (developmental evaluation) was used to provide timely feedback to the country teams, facilitate adaptations and adjustments, and generate the data presented in this article concerning challenges and strategies.

RESULTS

Operationalization of the ISN framework proceeded by first articulating a set of guiding principles as touchstones for the country teams and further articulating 6 components of an IS system to facilitate development of work streams. Challenges and strategies in implementing these 6 components were then documented. The knowledge gained through this experience led to the development of an IS system operational model to assist the application of IS in other LMIC settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Future investments in IS should prioritize a system- and capacity-building approach in order to realize its full potential and become institutionalized at country level. The operational model can guide others to improve the implementation of IS within a broad range of programs.

“There’s no money in community dissemination”: A mixed methods analysis of researcher dissemination-as-usual

Background:

The field of dissemination and implementation science has the potential to narrow the translational research-to-practice gap and improve the use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) within community-based settings. Yet, foundational research related to dissemination efforts, such as understanding researcher attitudes, practices, and the determinants to sharing research findings, is lacking within extant literature.

Methods:

A sequential explanatory (QUAN $$ \to $$ qual) mixed methods design was used to examine 85 academic researchers’ perspectives and self-reported dissemination methods used to share research outcomes with community stakeholders to better understand researcher’s usual dissemination practices (referred to as dissemination-as-usual). Quantitative surveys collected researcher demographic data, attitudes toward dissemination efforts, and dissemination strategy use.

Results:

Multiple linear regression examined predictors of the quantity of dissemination strategies utilized by researchers, finding that years since earning their degree, time spent disseminating, and the number of reasons for engaging in dissemination efforts predicted greater numbers of dissemination strategies utilized by researchers. Individual, semi-structured interviews with a subset of researchers (n = 18) expanded upon quantitative findings, identifying barriers and facilitators to their dissemination efforts. Data strands were integrated using a joint display, and the Dissemination of Research model guided data interpretation. More established researchers experienced fewer barriers and more facilitators to support their use of a variety of dissemination strategies to share findings with community stakeholders. However, researchers reported needing specific training, institutional support, and/or dedicated time to plan and enact dissemination strategies.

Conclusion:

The necessary first step in research translation is the dissemination of research evidence, and understanding dissemination-as-usual can identify areas of need to advance translational science.

Promoting rigor and sustainment in implementation science capacity building programs: A multi-method study

Background

The field of Implementation science (IS) continues to evolve, and the number and type of IS capacity building Programs (ISCBPs) are in flux. These changes push the field to revisit the accepted IS competencies and to guide sustainment of ISCBPs. Our objectives were: (1) compare characteristics of current ISCBPs; (2) identify recommendations to support ISCBP sustainment; (3) measure how often ISCBPs address IS competencies; (4) identify novel and important IS competencies for the field.

Method

This multi-method study included ISCBPs delivering structured, longitudinal IS training, excluding single courses and brief workshops. We used three complementary methods to meet our objectives. First, we identified ISCBPs via an internet search and snowball sampling methods. Second, we surveyed these ISCBPs to identify areas of program focus, types of trainees, IS competencies addressed, and recommendations to sustain ISCBPs. Third, we conducted a modified Delphi process with IS researchers/leaders to reach consensus on the IS competencies that were both important and novel as compared to the IS competencies published to date.

Results

Among 74 eligible ISCBPs identified, 46 responded (62% response rate). Respondent ISCBPs represented diverse areas of focus (e.g., global health, cardiopulmonary disease) and trainee stages (e.g., graduate students, mid-career faculty). While most respondent ISCBPs addressed core IS methods, targeting IS competencies was less consistent (33% for nongraduate/non-fellowship ISCBPs; >90% for graduate/national ISCBPs). Our modified Delphi process identified eight novel and important IS competencies related to increasing health equity or the speed of translation. Recommendations to sustain ISCBPs included securing financial administrative support.

Conclusions

Current ISCBPs train learners across varying career stages in diverse focus areas. To promote rigor, we recommend ISCBPs address specific IS competencies, with consideration of these eight novel/emerging competencies. We also recommend ISCBPs report on their IS competencies, focus area(s), and trainee characteristics. ISCBP programs need administrative financial support.

Plain Language Summary

There is a limited workforce capacity to conduct implementation science (IS) research. To address this gap, the number and type of IS capacity building Programs (ISCBPs) focusing on training researchers and practitioners in IS methods continue to increase. Our efforts to comprehensively identify and describe ISCBPs for researchers and practitioners highlighted four implications for leaders of ISCBPs related to program sustainment and rigor. First, we identified a range of contextual characteristics of ISCBPs, including the research topics, methods, and IS competencies addressed, and the types of trainees accepted. Second, given the variability of trainee types and research, rigorous ISCBP programs should tailor the IS competencies and methods addressed to the skills needed by the types of trainees in their program. Third, the field of IS needs to periodically revisit the competencies needed with attention to the skills needed in the field. We used a consensus-building process with ISCBP leaders and other IS experts to expand existing IS competencies and identified eight important, novel IS competencies that broadly relate to promoting health equity and speeding the translation of research to practice. Finally, as more institutions consider developing ISCBPs, we identified factors needed to support ISCBP sustainment, including ongoing financial support. In addition to these implications for ISCBP leaders, there are also policy implications. For example, IS journals may enact policies to require manuscripts evaluating ISCBP performance to report on certain contextual characteristics, such as the IS competencies addressed and types of trainees accepted. The field may also consider developing an accreditation body to evaluate the rigor of ISCBP curricula.

Implementing Implementation Research: Teaching Implementation Research to HIV Researchers

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Given the growth in HIV-related implementation research, there is a need to expand the workforce and rigor through implementation science (IS) training and mentorship. Our objective is to review IS training opportunities for HIV-focused researchers and describe the approach and lessons learned from a recent HIV-related implementation research training initiative.

RECENT FINDINGS

IS training opportunities range from degree programs to short- and longer-term professional development institutes and community-focused institutional trainings. Until recently, there have not been extensive dedicated opportunities for implementation research training for HIV-focused investigators. To meet this gap, an inter-Center for AIDS Research IS Fellowship for early-stage investigators was launched in 2019, building on lessons learned from dissemination and implementation training programs. Key components of the HIV-focused IS fellowship include didactic training, mentorship, grant-writing, and development of HIV-IS collaborative networks. Fellows to-date were two-thirds junior faculty and one-third post-doctoral fellows, the majority (69%) with prior public health training. Perceived value of the program was high, with a median rating of 9 [IQR 8-9] on a 10-point scale. Overall, 22/27 (81%) Fellows from the first cohort submitted IS-related grants within 12 months of Fellowship completion, and by 1 year 13 grants had been funded among 10 investigators, 37% overall among Fellows. Mentors identified framing of IS questions as the top-ranked training priority for HIV-investigators. Increasing knowledge of the utility of IS may support more grants focused on optimal implementation of HIV treatment and prevention strategies. Experiences from mentors and trainees engaged in an IS-focused fellowship for HIV investigators demonstrate the demand and value of a dedicated training program and reinforce the importance of mentorship.

Value of peer mentoring for early career professional, research, and personal development: a case study of implementation scientists

Effective mentoring is a key mechanism propelling successful research and academic careers, particularly for early career scholars. Most mentoring programs focus on models pairing senior and early career researchers, with limited focus on peer mentoring. Peer mentoring may be especially advantageous within emerging areas such as implementation science (IS) where challenges to traditional mentoring may be more prevalent. This special communication highlights the value of peer mentoring by describing a case study of an early career IS peer mentoring group. We delineate our curriculum and structure; support and processes; and products and outcomes. We highlight important group member characteristics to consider during group formation and continuation. The group's long-term (6 years) success was attributed to the balance of similarities and differences among group members. Members were in a similar career phase and used similar methodologies but studied different health topics at different institutions. Group members gave and received instrumental and psychosocial support and shared resources and knowledge. Peer mentoring can serve an important function to provide emotional, logistical, and professional development support for early career scholars. Our case study highlights strategies to foster peer mentoring groups that provide a generalizable blueprint and opportunity for improved outcomes for early career professionals.

The Physician-Investigator Workforce: Looking Ahead

Support of the U.S. health professions investigator workforce is critically important to the continued advancement of health care nationally. Physician-investigators comprise one segment of this health professions investigator workforce, which also includes investigators in the nursing, pharmacy, and dentistry professions, and others. Among physician health professionals in particular, the term "physician-investigator" has been described as encompassing physicians engaged in research in various ways including "clinical researchers" (physicians with clinical duties who do clinical, patient-centered research), "clinician-scientists" (physicians with clinical roles who perform research in laboratories or using computational tools), and "physician-scientists" (physicians focused on research with little or no clinical activity). Broadly defined, physician-investigators are included in various groups of researchers described in several articles recently published in Academic Medicine; these articles provide details on a range of approaches, with supporting outcomes data, being taken to train, support, and retain physicians in the health professions investigator workforce. The authors of this commentary examine selected literature, including several articles in this issue among others, along with Association of American Medical Colleges data, to offer observations about programs that train physician-investigators. Evidence-informed single-program approaches for early-career researchers can sustain continued research interest and foster the career development of the emerging physician-investigator workforce. Collaborative multi-institutional approaches offer the benefit of multisite work to power outcomes studies and to increase generalizability beyond a specific institutional program. System-wide institutional approaches may be particularly critical in supporting physician-investigators across all career stages. Although the articles discussed in this commentary are largely (although not exclusively) focused on various initiatives and programs designed to develop and sustain the physician-investigator workforce, such initiatives and programs may have value in addressing shared challenges of developing, supporting, and retaining the broader investigator workforce across all health professions.

The "secret sauce" for a mentored training program: qualitative perspectives of trainees in implementation research for cancer control

BACKGROUND

Mentored training approaches help build capacity for research through mentoring networks and skill building activities. Capacity for dissemination and implementation (D&I) research in cancer is needed and mentored training programs have been developed. Evaluation of mentored training programs through quantitative approaches often provides us with information on "what" improved for participants. Qualitative approaches provide a deeper understanding of "how" programs work best.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews were conducted with 21 fellows of the National Cancer Institute-funded Mentored Training for Dissemination and Implementation in Cancer to gain understanding of their experiences with mentoring received during the program. Fellows were selected from all 55 trained participants based upon their gain in D&I research skills (highest and lowest) and number of collaborative connections in the program network (highest and lowest) reported in previous quantitative surveys. Phone interviews were recorded with permission, transcribed verbatim, and de-identified for analysis. Codes were developed a priori to reflect interview guide concepts followed by further development and iterative coding of three common themes that emerged: 1) program and mentoring structure, 2) importance of mentor attributes, and 3) enhanced capacity: credentials, confidence, credibility and connections.

RESULTS

Interviews provided valuable information about program components that worked best and impacts attributed to participation in the program. Fellows reported that regular monthly check-in calls with mentors helped to keep their research moving forward and that group mentoring structures aided in their learning of basic D&I research concepts and their application. Accessible, responsive, and knowledgeable mentors were commonly mentioned by fellows as a key to their success in the program. Fellows mentioned various forms of impact that they attributed to their participation in the program including gaining credibility in the field, a network of peers and experts, and career developments (e.g., collaborative publications and grant funding).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that mentored training works best when mentoring is structured and coupled with applied learning and when respected and dedicated mentors are on board. Increased scientific collaborations and credibility within a recognized network are important trainee experiences that should be considered when designing, implementing, and sustaining mentored training programs.