Enhanced Grant Writing Coaching Intervention for a Diverse Biomedical Workforce

针对多元化生物医学劳动力的增强资助写作辅导干预

• 批准号: 10435459
• 负责人: Kolawole S Okuyemi
• 金额: $ 68.68万
• 依托单位: UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 财政年份: 2019
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2019-07-01 至 2024-06-30
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/10435459
• 关键词: Academia; Affect; Area; Biological Sciences; Biomedical Research; Career Mobility; Characteristics; Data; Discipline; Dose; Educational process of instructing; Educational workshop; Effectiveness; Elements; Eligibility Determination; Enrollment; Evaluation; Faculty; Feedback; Funding; Future; Future Generations; Grant; Guidelines; Health; Individual; Institution; Intervention; Interview; Knowledge; Lead; Learning; Light; Longevity; Mentors; Mentorship; Methodology; Minority-Serving Institution; Modeling; Multivariate Analysis; Oral; Outcome; Participant; Pattern; Peer Review; Persons; Postdoctoral Fellow; Predictive Factor; Privatization; Process; Publications; Randomized; Randomized Controlled Trials; Readiness; Recording of previous events; Reporting; Research; Research Design; Research Methodology; Research Personnel; Resources; Self Efficacy; Statistical Data Interpretation; Structure; Testing; Time; Touch sensation; Training; Underrepresented Populations; United States National Institutes of Health; Variant; Work; Writing; arm; clinical care; comparative; design; effectiveness evaluation; ethnic diversity; experience; improved; insight; intervention effect; intervention refinement; meetings; peer coaching; predictive modeling; programs; racial diversity; skills; treatment arm; trial design; virtual coach

The ability to successfully acquire external research funding is an essential skill biomedical research trainees must acquire to make the career transition into independent investigator. During the first 4 years of the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN), 4 different grant writing coaching group models for biomedical junior faculty and postdoctoral fellows, known to be effective on a small scale, were piloted at a national level. All of the models had an initial in-person training session, followed by virtual coaching meetings (group and/or individual) for several months. Coaching was provided by accomplished investigators with high levels of expertise in NIH proposal writing. However, the models differed in several of their core design features such as trainee eligibility (readiness to write, extent of mentorship in their research area), longevity (4-12 months), type of feedback provided (written, oral, both), proposal sections covered, and use of mock review. These differences enabled comparison of initial outcome and process data across the variations. A total 541 individuals from 156 institutions participated, with 63% from underrepresented groups. Irrespective of model, the great majority of coaching group participants reported meaningful learning gains in their knowledge, skills, and grant writing self-efficacy. Proposal funding outcomes were also positive, but varied between models from 12% to 24% of those submitted. Starting from the model that was most successful and most expandable, and drawing on effective elements of the other models, an enhanced grant writing coaching group model has been designed and is ready to be tested using a randomized controlled trial design. Key variables to be studied are: 1) the `dose' of the writing groups (i.e. a single 5-month intensive process vs. continuing support after the group) and 2) degree of engagement of local scientific mentors during the group (i.e. structured vs. unstructured). A 2 X 2 factor design will involve 288 junior faculty over the 5 years, achieving 2 Specific Aims: Aim 1 - Determine the effectiveness of a new, enhanced coaching intervention on proposal submission and funding rates when varying coaching dose (regular vs. extended), and mode of engaging local mentors with the coaching group (unstructured vs. structured). Aim 2 - Identify individual (person), coaching group, and institution factors that predict submission, resubmission, and funding of proposals. Aim 2 will be achieved by a first-ever in-depth mixed methods research design to determine the mechanisms by which the intervention works. It will combine association analyses with multiple potential predictor variable with in-depth qualitative analysis of person-by- person experiences working toward proposal submission and through review outcomes. The Impact of this study will be a detailed objective analysis of a very promising methodology for assisting junior faculty on the cusp of independence obtain funding. The in-depth study of factors important to and associated with successful funding will enable final refinement of the intervention for broad dissemination and application.

成功获得外部研究资金的能力是生物医学研究的基本技能 受训人员必须掌握这些技能，才能向独立调查员过渡。在第一个四年中， 国家研究指导网络（NRMN），4种不同的生物医学资助写作指导小组模式 初级教员和博士后研究员被认为在小规模上是有效的，在国家一级进行了试点。 所有模特都有一个最初的面对面培训课程，然后是虚拟辅导会议（小组和/或 个人）几个月。教练是由有成就的调查员提供的， 擅长撰写NIH提案。然而，这些模型在几个核心设计特征上有所不同，例如 受训者资格（写作准备，在其研究领域的指导程度），寿命（4-12个月），类型 提供的反馈（书面、口头、两者）、涵盖的提案部分以及模拟评审的使用。这些 这些差异使得能够对各种变化的初始结果和过程数据进行比较。共541个 来自156个机构的个人参加了会议，其中63%来自代表性不足的群体。无论型号如何， 绝大多数教练组参与者报告说，他们在知识，技能， 并给予写作自我效能感。提议的供资结果也是积极的，但不同模式之间存在差异， 12%至24%的人提交。 从最成功、最可推广的模式出发，借鉴有效的 其他模式的要素，一个增强的赠款写作教练组模式已经设计， 准备使用随机对照试验设计进行测试。需要研究的关键变量是： 写作小组（即一个为期5个月的强化过程与小组结束后的持续支持）和2） 当地科学导师在小组期间的参与程度（即结构化与非结构化）。的2x2 因素设计将涉及288名初级教师在5年内，实现2个具体目标：目标1 -确定 在下列情况下，就提案提交和供资率采取新的强化辅导措施的效果 不同的辅导剂量（常规与扩展），以及让当地导师参与辅导组的模式 （非结构化vs.结构化）。目标2 -确定个人（人），教练组和机构因素， 预测提案的提交、重新提交和资助。目标2将通过首次深入 混合方法研究设计，以确定干预工作的机制。它将联合收割机 与多个潜在预测变量的关联分析，以及对每个人的深入定性分析， 个人经验，致力于提案提交和审查结果。这样做的影响 这项研究将是一个非常有前途的方法，以协助初级教师对一个详细的客观分析， 获得独立资金。深入研究对发展中国家的经济增长至关重要并与之相关的因素， 成功的供资将使干预措施得到最后完善，以便广泛传播和应用。