RESUMEN

Translation is the process of turning observations in the research laboratory, clinic, and community into interventions that improve people's health. The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program is a National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) initiative to advance translational science and research. Currently, 64 "CTSA hubs" exist across the nation. Since 2006, the Houston-based Center for Clinical Translational Sciences (CCTS) has assembled a well-integrated, high-impact hub in Texas that includes six partner institutions within the state, encompassing ∼23,000 sq. miles and over 16 million residents. To achieve the NCATS goal of "more treatments for all people more quickly," the CCTS promotes diversity and inclusion by integrating underrepresented populations into clinical studies, workforce training, and career development. In May 2023, we submitted the UM1 application and six "companion" proposals: K12, R25, T32-Predoctoral, T32-Postdoctoral, and RC2 (two applications). In October 2023, we received priority scores for the UM1 (22), K12 (25), T32-Predoctoral (20), and T32-Postdoctoral (23), which historically fall within the NCATS funding range. This report describes the grant preparation and submission approach, coupled with data from an internal survey designed to assimilate feedback from principal investigators, writers, reviewers, and administrative specialists. Herein, we share the challenges faced, the approaches developed, and the lessons learned.

RESUMEN

Institutional Development Award (IDeA) programs build research infrastructure in regions with historically low access to NIH funds. The Mentored Research Development Award (MRDA), a professional development program embedded in our IDeA-funded center, provides junior investigators with mentorship and effort offset to write a grant. We evaluated outcomes from the first eight years (2013-2021; N = 55) using administrative records, publicly available data, and a self-report survey (n = 46, 84% response rate). Fifteen MRDA recipients (27%) went on to receive NIH funding. Providing just-in-time grant-writing support may launch early career clinician-scientists in an IDeA state context.

RESUMEN

In this education paper, we want to give some advice to aid in successful scientific grant writing. Besides defining an important research hypothesis and how to support this hypothesis, there are also technical aspects in grant writing that need to be fulfilled. Therefore, read carefully the requirements before starting to write the proposal. You must also determine what skilled people, equipment and consumables are needed in order to reach your research goal. It is advised to develop a timeline with the key milestones (background, partnership, budget, writing, peer-evaluation, submission). Spend enough time on the summary, title and acronyms, in order to make them attractive to the reader. The research objectives must be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-Sensitive), not DUMB (Diverse, Unmeasurable, Mediocre and Basically-Unachievable). In the end, understand that also non-experts will review your grant and therefore they should be able to understand what your goals are, but also at the same time add sufficient details of your proposed methodology to convince the experts.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

There is a critical need to develop a capable and well-trained workforce dedicated to the systematic study of sex differences and examination of sex as a biological variable. Through the support of the Office of Research on Women's Health and partner National Institute of Health centers, the Specialized Centers of Research Excellence (SCORE) on Sex Differences Career Enhancement Cores (CECs) were established to help address this need. We describe the integration of the Medical University of South Carolina SCORE CEC with other National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded and institutional training programs to promote training synergies, share resources, and enhance mentorship opportunities. Benefits of developing an intrainstitutional training platform have included facilitating cross-disciplinary interactions, encouragement of peer mentorship, and reduced burden on training program leadership.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Enhancement of diversity within the U.S. research workforce is a recognized need and priority at a national level. Existing comprehensive programs, such as the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) and Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI), have the dual focus of building institutional research capacity and promoting investigator self-efficacy through mentoring and training. METHODS: A qualitative comparative analysis was used to identify the combination of factors that explain the success and failure to submit a grant proposal by investigators underrepresented in biomedical research from the RCMI and non-RCMI institutions. The records of 211 participants enrolled in the NRMN Strategic Empowerment Tailored for Health Equity Investigators (NRMN-SETH) program were reviewed, and data for 79 early-stage, underrepresented faculty investigators from RCMI (n = 23) and non-RCMI (n = 56) institutions were included. RESULTS: Institutional membership (RCMI vs. non-RCMI) was used as a possible predictive factor and emerged as a contributing factor for all of the analyses. Access to local mentors was predictive of a successful grant submission for RCMI investigators, while underrepresented investigators at non-RCMI institutions who succeeded with submitting grants still lacked access to local mentors. CONCLUSION: Institutional contexts contribute to the grant writing experiences of investigators underrepresented in biomedical research.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) Strategic Empowerment Tailored for Health Equity Investigators (SETH) study evaluates the value of adding Developmental Network to Coaching in the career advancement of diverse Early-Stage Investigators (ESIs). Focused NIH-formatted Mock Reviewing Sessions (MRS) prior to the submission of grants can significantly enhance the scientific merits of an ESI's grant application. We evaluated the most prevalent design, analysis-related factors, and the likelihood of grant submissions and awards associated with going through MRS, using descriptive statistics, Chi-square, and logistic regression methods. A total of 62 out of 234 applications went through the MRS. There were 69.4% that pursued R grants, 22.6% career development (K) awards, and 8.0% other grant mechanisms. Comparing applications that underwent MRS versus those that did not (N = 172), 67.7% vs. 38.4% were submitted for funding (i.e., unadjusted difference of 29.3%; OR = 4.8, 95% CI = (2.4, 9.8), p-value < 0.0001). This indicates that, relative to those who did not undergo MRS, ESIs who did, were 4.8 times as likely to submit an application for funding. Also, ESIs in earlier cohorts (1-2) (a period that coincided with the pre COVID-19 era) as compared to those who were recruited at later cohorts (3-4) (i.e., during the peak of COVID-19 period) were 3.8 times as likely to submit grants (p-value < 0.0001). The most prevalent issues that were identified included insufficient statistical design considerations and plans (75%), conceptual framework (28.3%), specific aims (11.7%), evidence of significance (3.3%), and innovation (3.3%). MRS potentially enhances grant submissions for extramural funding and offers constructive feedback allowing for modifications that enhance the scientific merits of research grants.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly taxed scientific research and seems to have exacerbated existing inequities within the research field, particularly for early-stage investigators (ESIs). This study examines the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on traditionally underrepresented ESIs enrolled in an NIH-supported study evaluating the effectiveness of developmental networks, grant writing coaching, and mentoring on research career advancement. The survey consisted of 24 closed-ended (quantitative) and 4 open-ended questions (qualitative) linked to a participant's ability to meet grant submission deadlines, research and professional development disruptions, stress level, career transition level, self-efficacy and management of scholarly tasks, and familial responsibilities. Results from 32 respondents (53%) suggest that COVID-19 adversely impacted the continuity of research (81%) and grant submissions (63%). On average, grant submissions were delayed by 6.69 months (i.e., greater than one grant cycle). We also conducted additional analyses characterizing nonresponse and found that there were no significant predictors of nonresponse, indicating a limited threat to the validity of our findings. The disruption caused by COVID-19 to the careers of ESIs from underrepresented groups in the biomedical workforce has been profound in the short term. The long-term consequences to the future success of these groups are unknown but is a worthwhile area of research and potential innovation.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

In the summer of 2021, we held a community workshop at the International Congress of Arabidopsis Research (ICAR) aimed at early career researchers and focused on values-based lab leadership. Here, we elaborate on ideas emerging from the workshop that we hope will allow current and future group leaders to reflect on and adjust to the rapidly evolving nature of the academic scientific enterprise.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To summarize a preconference workshop that focused on how to be successful in obtaining funding by making one's scholarship innovative and significant. METHOD: In 2021, at the annual American Psychiatric Nurses Association (APNA) Conference, a panel of nurse scholars reflected on and discussed how to make grant proposals innovative and significant. Two moderators posed questions to five panelists at different stages in their research trajectories about four key research concepts: idea conception, framing for the funding agency, significance, and innovation. RESULTS: Conceptualizing an innovative, scholarly idea starts with a passion for the topic, a team of experts and scholarly community, and time to think and delve into the literature. For funding opportunities, start small, read the funding announcements thoroughly and carefully, and make sure it is the right fit. Strategies to illustrate significance include avoiding generalizations, maintaining objectivity, being clear about impact, and using strength-based language. Contemplate the many facets of innovation as well as balance innovation and feasibility. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of challenges in composing significance and innovation sections of grant proposals offers knowledge for psychiatric nurse researchers to add to their toolkits as they seek funding and conduct research and scholarship.

RESUMEN

Surgical residents may have limited experience with grant writing even though it is an important skill for academic physicians. We describe a novel curriculum on the conduct of research and grant literacy delivered at a single otolaryngology training program over 5 years. This workshop series included preparing a draft grant and conducting a mock grant review committee. In a survey of past participants (71% response rate), 91% found the workshops useful for grant writing or reviewing, and many used or planned to use the draft grants for real grant applications. The average number of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation CORE grants submitted and successfully funded increased among residents at this program in the 4 years after the introduction of the workshop series as compared with the 4 years before. Further improvements continue to be made to the curriculum based on resident feedback.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The training and mentoring of pre- and post-doctoral trainees in nursing research is essential to feed the pipeline of nurses prepared to launch an independent program of research. PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to describe a one-on-one grant writing Partnership developed in a school of nursing targeting pre- and post-doctoral trainees and quantify its impact on funding rates. METHODS: The Partnership includes four key elements: regular meetings, setting a timeline with milestones, writing and editing support, and attention to administrative documents. Forty grant applications by pre- and post-doctoral trainees were developed and submitted from 2011 to 2020. FINDINGS: Among Partnership participants, 81.0% (17/21) received funding as compared with 42.1% (8/19) who did not participate, p = .02. DISCUSSION: Schools of nursing and other disciplines should consider investing in a Partnership to provide grant writing support their pre- and post-doctoral trainees and increase their overall research capacity.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Eliminating the NIH funding gap among underrepresented minorities (URMs) remains a high priority for the National Institutes of Health. In 2014, the National Research Mentoring Network1 Steps Toward Academic Research (NRMN STAR) program recruited postdoctoral, early-stage and junior faculty to participate in a 12-month grant writing and professional development program. The expectation of the program was to increase the number of grant submissions and awards to URM researchers. Although receiving a grant award is the gold standard of NRMN STAR, instilling confidence for postdocs and early-stage faculty to submit an application is a critical first step. Based on our previous study, a sustained increase in trainee self-efficacy score over a 24-month period was observed after completing NRMN STAR. METHODS: The current study sought to determine the association between self-efficacy score and grant submissions among two cohorts of trainees. Grantsmanship Self-Efficacy was measured using a 19-item questionnaire previously described by and used in our own work, which was originally adapted from an 88-item Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory.2 A binary variable was created to identify trainees who submitted an initial or revised proposal vs those who abandoned their proposal or were still writing. Trainees were assessed prior to and following program completion with subsequent assessments at 6 and 12 months beyond participation. RESULTS: As of June 20, 2019, 12 of the 21 (57%) trainees had submitted a grant proposal (eg, NIH, other federal or non-federal grant). For every point increase in 12-month post assessments, Grantsmanship Self-Efficacy scores across all domains had a 44% higher prevalence of submitting a grant after controlling for race, sex, education level, academic rank, research experience, duration of postdoctoral training, institution type, and NRMN STAR cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that NRMN STAR had a positive impact on trainees' confidence in grant writing and professional development activities, which resulted in higher grant submission rates.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Introduction: Adding developmental networks (DN) to grant-writing coaching can significantly enhance ESIs' research careers. Herein, we present study design, ESIs' characteristics and encountered challenges/lessons learned and their resolutions when deploying/implementing (a) NCR algorithm(s), (b) recruitment/retention and (c) implementing DN intervention. Methods: Nested Cluster Randomization (NCR) design governs this study implementation. The sample size is 220 ESIs intending to submit an NIH K, R, U, and/or Minority Supplement application(s). Primary outcome: intensity/sustainability of grant submission(s)/funding(s), measured by time to/between application(s). Outcome(s) analyses modes: summaries, Kaplan Meir and Cox proportional hazard models as a function of randomization groups and other predictors of outcomes. Results: In the present study, we recruited two cohorts of ESIs (N = 85): 39% African Americans, 18% Latinx, 18% Whites, 20% Asians and 6% Hawaiian/Pacific Islander/other ethnicities; 65% are women; 73% are assistant professors, 4% are Associate Professors and 23% are instructors/scientists/post-doctoral. Participants' disciplines: 32% basic/biomedical, 36% clinical/translational and 32% social/behavioral. Proposal(s) mechanisms: 61% research grants (R series), 31% career development (K series), 7% support of competitive research (SCORE) and 1% National Science Foundation applications. NCR did produce balance in the distribution of ESIs' demographics, sex at birth, ethnicity, professional appointments, background disciplines, and mechanism of sought funding. Lessons learned/challenges: NCR implementation was methodologically challenged during implementation by added constraints (e.g., assigning coaches to the same randomization arm of their participants as well as blinding them to ESIs' randomization group). Recruitment and retention were hampered by the COVID-19 pandemic and more progressive and innovative strategies were needed to heighten the visibility and outreach of this program. DN delivery was also affected by the pandemic and monitoring of ESIs' engagement and facilitation of communications interventions were needed. Resolution of these challenges effectively reconfigured NCR algorithms, recruitment/retention plans, and DN intervention delivery. We intend to recruit an additional 135 ESIs focusing on underrepresented scholars from RCMIs, CTSAs, and other programs. COVID-19 rendered this program 100% virtual, with recruitment/retention challenges and substantial disruption of ESIs' research. We may extend the grant writing period, coaching, and Mock Study Section support.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Grant writing is an important component of research funding, but it is an art that must be developed and practiced. During this workshop, experiences and 14 tips from experts on grant writing, as well as suggestions for writing a career development award, were shared.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Thoracic surgery has evolved into an independent discipline out of general surgery practice over the past decades. The development of the field of thoracic surgery was generated from surgeons being motivated to move this field forward by constant analysis and critical appraisal and review of current practice, as well as identification of new research approaches as the pool and generator of innovation. For this purpose, scientific skills are needed that are currently not covered during the surgical training. In the present overview, we will try to summarize important factors for an academic career, although none of these recommendations are validated and also not realistic to be uniquely applied to every geographical setting. Several key factors will be described being necessary for pursuing basic science, translational, and clinical research as a surgeon scientist introducing "from bench to bedside" research ideas into clinic and "from bedside to bench" bringing important clinical problems back to the lab.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Nurse researchers need skills to secure external funding; therefore, we created a grant writing workshop for PhD students focused on the F31 Individual Fellowship and R36 Dissertation Grant. PURPOSE: Describe a nursing PhD program federal grant writing workshop and present participant impressions and outcomes. METHODS: We designed a three half-day workshop covering essential aspects of grant writing combined with mentor participation and follow-up. We assessed participant satisfaction in evaluations, subsequent grant submissions, project implementation, and time from PhD program entry to completion. FINDINGS: Evaluations were overwhelmingly positive. Seventeen of 29 (58.6%) participants submitted 21 applications; five (23.8%) were funded. The majority (75.0%) conducted the proposed dissertation project regardless of funding. Writing and submitting a grant did not increase time to program completion. DISCUSSION: The workshop efficiently supports PhD students' dissertation research. Timing and mentor participation are key for success. We recommend schools of nursing implement PhD program grant writing workshops.

Asunto(s)