Faculty member writing groups support productivity

Empowering medical students through collaborative writing sessions

BACKGROUND

Scientific writing and critical appraisal of the literature are fundamental skills for future physicians. However, these skills have been inconsistently prioritised across medical curricula, leaving medical trainees to seek these skills through continuing education courses.

APPROACH

We conducted a series of complementary collaborative writing sessions (introductory workshop with 3-month practical sessions) with direct supervision to medical trainees (medical students and recent medical graduates) in the Dominican Republic between 2017 and 2020. We also examined medical trainees' perceptions of  these collaborative writing sessions, as a mechanism to advance technical writing and critical analysis skills for their professional training and personal growth.

EVALUATION

Participants described the perceived enabling factors of the collaborative writing sessions that led to their publications as: (1) detailed agenda; (2) direct mentorship; (3) effective teamwork; (4) personal investment and dedication; and (5) future vision.

IMPLICATIONS

These collaborative writing sessions, consisting of a viable agenda and timeline, direct mentorship with timely feedback, and team dynamics, are recognised as an innovative model for medical trainees in the Dominican Republic. This academic model and approach can be adapted to meet the specific needs of health professional students across the globe. By mastering these fundamental written communication skills, medical trainees can contribute to research and policy development, lead health education initiatives, advocate for best clinical practices in patient care, and mentor the next generation of trainees.

A pilot study on our non-traditional, varied writing accountability group for historically excluded and underrepresented persons in STEMM

Underrepresented faculty have higher burnout rates and lower grant attainment rates when compared with their non-minority counterparts. Many in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) disciplines, including underrepresented individuals, often have difficulty dedicating time to the writing process, with trainees often being relegated to laboratory tasks in their training years, resulting in a lack of practice in academic writing. Notably, past studies have shown that grant attainment rates of underrepresented individuals are lower than their majority counterparts. Here, we sought to consider a mechanism targeted to underrepresented individuals, although applicable to everyone, to help overcome traditional barriers to writing in STEMM. The authors have hosted a writing accountability group (WAG) that uniquely provides a format focused on physical activity and different forms of writing to strengthen both career development and award/funding attainment. Our objectives were to evaluate this unique format, thus creating a resource for individuals and institutions to learn about WAGs and expand upon the framework to formulate their own WAG. To do this, we performed a small pilot study (n = 21) to investigate attitudes towards the WAG. We present the results of a survey conducted among underrepresented WAG participants, which spanned different career stages and was highly diverse demographically. Our results show that following attendance of our WAG, individuals did not note a significant change in scales pertaining to John Henryism (high-effort coping), resilience, sense of belonging, or grit. However, significant increases were noted in the self-perceived ability to handle stress, confidence in applying for awards, appreciation for mentoring, and satisfaction of WAGs. Taken together, the results of this study suggest that our unique WAG format can have some positive results as a career and writing development opportunity and may be able to support underrepresented individuals in attaining funding at higher education institutions.

Shut Up & Write!® builds writing self-efficacy and self-regulation in early-career researchers

Introduction

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Discussion

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.

Faculty Development and Infrastructure to Support Educational Scholarship: A Scoping Review on Author Development

PURPOSE

Medical educators are expected to produce educational scholarship, which can lead to career advancement and promotion. Institutions have developed author development programs, which vary in duration, instructional approach, and effectiveness. However, no summation of the evidence exists for academic medicine leaders to use as guidance for building similar programs. This scoping review characterizes faculty development programs that support educational scholarship and author development in academic medicine.

METHOD

The authors searched PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and ProQuest (Healthcare Administration Database and Social Science Premium Collection) for articles published from inception to June 14, 2021. Articles that described formal instruction on scholarly writing for publishing were included. Data were analyzed by program participation, structure, content delivery, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 923 articles identified, 20 met inclusion criteria. The included studies covered 18 unique programs of which 1 was sponsored jointly by a university and professional society, 5 by professional societies, 5 by university or medical school organizations, and 7 by medical departments. Nine programs relied at least in part on volunteers. Instructional approaches included didactics (7 programs) and mentoring (5 programs) but mostly featured group-based work (11 programs). Expectations for participants ranged from participation to manuscript submission. The main funding sources were grants (8 programs) and internal funds (7 programs) from the sponsoring institution. Only 4 programs reported participation fees. The impact of these programs included scholarly work products, other measures of career advancement, and participant perceptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Author development programs require resource investment and a culture that values educational scholarship. Workshops, 1-on-1 mentoring, and peer writing groups are cornerstones of the experiential learning approach needed to build scholarship skills and can pay dividends in supporting the academic mission in medicine. These findings may benefit leaders in academic medicine who want to develop evidence-based programs in author development.

Intentional and unintentional benefits of minority writing accountability groups

A faculty position can be a balancing act. Many new faculty, particularly minorities, struggle due to a lack of mentorship. Writing accountability groups (WAGs) offer new faculty an opportunity to glean advice from mentors and improve their writing skills and enhance their career development in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).

Faculty writing accountability groups: A protocol for traditional and virtual settings

Publishing is a measure of faculty performance, yet barriers often include getting started, time management, and difficulty finishing. Manuscript submissions also lack deadlines, which creates additional challenges. Writing accountability groups (WAGs) are associated with increased faculty writing productivity. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of WAGs, including the process, participants, writing productivity outcomes, benefits, challenges, and unintended consequences. To maintain our writing progress during the COVID-19 pandemic, we moved our WAG sessions to a virtual platform. Our WAG protocol (both face-to-face and virtual) is shared to help other faculty members or doctoral students implement writing accountability groups. We also advocate for hybrid WAG sessions to promote attendance. In addition to facilitation of scholarly writing and improved writing habits, our WAG created opportunities for scholarly communication and networking with colleagues.

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

This article describes the University of Minnesota Medical School Proposal Preparation Program (P3). P3 is designed to develop grant-writing skills for assistant professors preparing their first K- or R-series application to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Three 4-month P3 cycles are conducted annually. For each cycle, a cohort of around 10 assistant professor participants and 5 regular faculty mentors meet for ten ~2-hour group sessions. Participants receive iterative oral and written feedback on their proposals in development within a small, interdisciplinary, group mentoring setting providing structure, accountability, guidance, and support. Between sessions, 1 peer and 1 mentor are assigned (on a rotating basis) to critique each participant's developing application. The sessions include a brief mentor-led presentation on a particular grant section followed by discussion of each participant's application conducted by the assigned reviewers. The cycle concludes with a mock NIH review session, in which each participant is matched with a University of Minnesota faculty content expert who critiques their completed application using NIH guidelines. In a survey sent to all past P3 participants as of 2018 (n = 194), 88% of respondents reported having submitted their P3-developed NIH grant, and 35% of these submitters reported funding success. A separate analysis of institutional data for all past P3 participants as of 2016 (n = 165) showed that 73% submitted at least 1 NIH proposal since completing P3 and that 43% of these had acquired NIH funding, for a combined total of $193 million in funding awarded. The estimated rate at which participants obtained funding for their P3-developed grant application (~35%) exceeds the national annual NIH grant funding rates (~20%) by approximately 50%. This article provides the practical information needed for other institutions to implement a P3-like program and presents a cost-benefit analysis showing the advantages of doing so.

Faculty writing groups: The impact of protected writing time and group support

Faculty at teaching institutions carry high teaching loads, leaving little time to write manuscripts or grant applications, let alone getting them published or awarded. This manuscript describes the impact of protected writing time for faculty at a higher education, teaching institution who committed to focused, uninterrupted writing time on a weekly basis and exchanged writing challenges and tips with colleagues. A mixed methods approach was used to assess the impacts of the writing group which found increased productivity (manuscripts and publications, proposals and grants) and sense of a research community with enhanced structural knowledge, camaraderie, and morale.

Writing Rounds: An Innovation to Increase Physician Scientific Dissemination

INTRODUCTION

Many high-quality studies presented at conferences never reach the peer-reviewed literature, most likely because physician authors do not take the next step to fully write up the studies and submit them to a journal. We evaluated a curriculum designed to equip authors with the practical skills to submit research projects to peer-reviewed publication.

METHODS

We designed a mixed asynchronous-synchronous longitudinal curriculum, occurring across 4 months via a virtual platform. To evaluate the curriculum, we tracked process and production outcomes and conducted semistructured interviews with participants following participation.

RESULTS

Across two cohorts in 2019, nine participant authors completed the curriculum. Seven participants submitted their studies for publication; two were accepted. In interviews with eight participants, participant authors described the value of the program, expressing intention to participate again and to recommend it to colleagues.

CONCLUSION

Through a coach-directed writing group, participant authors developed the skills and confidence needed to prepare and submit scientific manuscripts for peer review. Curriculum maintenance and enhancement is ongoing. We plan to scale up this innovation in support of other university departments and medical disciplines, developing an implementation guide to describe needed elements, including technological platforms, qualities of the coach, author recruitment, and group conduct.

Federal Funding in Emergency Medicine: Demographics and Perspectives of Awardees

INTRODUCTION

Emergency physicians face multiple challenges to obtaining federal funding. The objective of this investigation was to describe the demographics of federally-funded emergency physicians and identify key challenges in obtaining funding.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective database search of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool (NIH RePORTER) to collect data regarding the distribution and characteristics of federally-funded grants awarded to emergency medicine (EM) principal investigators between 2010-2017. An electronic survey was then administered to the identified investigators to obtain additional demographic data, and information regarding their career paths, research environment, and perceived barriers to obtaining federal funding.

RESULTS

We identified 219, corresponding to 51 unique, mentored career development awardees and 105 independent investigators. Sixty-two percent of investigators responded to the electronic survey. Awardees were predominantly White males, although a larger portion of the mentored awardee group was female. Greater than half of respondents reported their mentor to be outside of the field of EM. The most common awarding institution was the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Respondents identified barriers in finding adequate mentorship, time to gather preliminary data, and the quality of administrative support.

CONCLUSION

The last five years have showed a trend toward increasing grants awarded to EM investigators; however, we identified several barriers to funding. Initiatives geared toward support and mentorship of junior faculty, particularly to females, minorities, and those in less heavily funded areas of the country are warranted.