The Proposal Preparation Program: A Group Mentoring, Faculty Development Model to Facilitate the Submission and Funding of NIH Grant Applications

Disentangling faculty development: A scoping review towards a rich description of the concept and its practice

BACKGROUND

There is wide variation in how faculty development (FD) is practiced globally and described in the literature. This scoping review aims to clarify how FD is conceptualised and practiced in health professions education.

METHODOLOGY

Using a systematic search strategy, 418 papers, published between 2015-2023, were included for full text review. We extracted data using closed and open-ended questions. Quantitative data were summarised using descriptive statistics and qualitative data synthesised using content analysis.

RESULTS

Faculty development was the most frequently used term encompassing a range of understandings and practices. Many papers focused on educators' enhanced understanding of teaching, learning, and assessment. Several highlighted the social context of collaborative practice and organisational learning. FD formats included workshops, courses, longitudinal programs, and coaching and mentoring. Dominant conceptual frameworks included Kirkpatrick's model of evaluation, communities of practice theory, adult learning theory, and experiential learning.

CONCLUSIONS

Although FD continues to evolve in response to the dynamic HPE landscape, this growth needs to be accelerated. To facilitate meaningful collaboration across professions, contexts, and countries, attention must be paid to terms used and meanings ascribed to them. Those responsible for FD need to think anew about its purpose and practice, demonstrating flexibility as the ever-changing context demands.

The pediatric surgeon-scientist: An evolving breed or endangered phenotype?

INTRODUCTION

National Institute of Health (NIH) funding is a "gold-standard" of achievement; we examined trends in NIH-funded pediatric surgeons.

METHODS

NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT) was queried for American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA) members (2012 vs 2022). Demographics and time-to-award (TTA) from fellowship were compared. Number of grants, funding allotment, award classification, administering institutes/centers, research type were studied.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight (4.6%) APSA members were NIH-funded in 2012 compared to 37 (2.9%) in 2022. Of funded surgeons in 2022, 27% were repeat awardees from 2012. TTA was similar (12 vs 14years, p=0.109). At each point, awards were commonly R01 grants (40 vs 52%, p ​= ​0.087) and basic science-related (76 vs 63%, p = ​0.179). Awardees were predominantly men (82% in 2012 vs 78% in 2022, p=0.779) and White (82% in 2012 vs 76% in 2022, p=0.586). Median amount per grant increased: $254,980 (2012) to $364,025 (2022); by $96,711 for men and $390,911 for women. Median awards for White surgeons increased by $215,699 (p=0.035), and decreased by $30,074 for non-White surgeons, though not significantly (p=0.368).

CONCLUSION

The landscape of NIH-funded pediatric surgeons has remained unchanged between time points. With a substantial number of repeat awardees, predominance of R01 grants, and a median TTA over a decade after fellowship graduation, the phenotypes of early career pediatric surgeon-scientists are facing academic endangerment.

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.

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.