Academic-community research partnerships focusing on addressing the social determinants of health and reducing health disparities have grown substantially in the last three decades. Early-stage investigators (ESIs), however, are less likely to receive grant funding from organizations like the National Institutes of Health, and we know little about the facilitators and barriers they face on their career journeys or the best ways to support them and their community research partnerships. This study examines ESIs’ experiences with a program that funded and supported their community-partnered pilot health disparities research.

Fourteen ESIs from five cohorts of pilot investigators participated in in-depth focus groups between April 2020 and February 2024. Two reviewers independently identified significant quotes and created codes. Thematic analysis was used to develop relevant themes.

The overarching theme was that the program was a launch pad for the ESIs’ research careers. Four distinct sub-themes contributing to the launch pad theme were: (1) ESI Growth & Adaptation; (2) Community and Support; (3) The Value of Collaboration and Partnership; (4) Need for Effective Mentorship. The results suggest the program offered ESIs and community partners substantial, unique support and resources, but challenges remained.

Future programs helping ESIs who conduct community-engaged research to launch their research careers should consider implementing tailored support while offering strategies to eliminate or reduce institutional barriers, including strengthening mentoring.

Early-stage clinical and translational researchers who set and track career goals, milestones, and progress are successful in career development. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of the Customized Career Development Platform (CCDP), an online individual development plan (IDP), versus the traditional IDP template in improving research success and career satisfaction.

We conducted a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial of 340 scholars and trainees at 27 US academic healthcare institutions. The primary outcome was number of published manuscripts 24 months post-intervention. Secondary outcomes included the number of grant proposals submitted and funded, job satisfaction, and level of communication with mentors. An analysis of CCDP participants assessed proficiency level for the 14 Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) competencies. Data were analyzed using intention-to-treat.

Participants were mostly female (60.3%) and Caucasian (67.2%); mean age was 34 years. Twenty-four months following the intervention, the CCDP versus traditional IDP groups showed a similar number of publications (9.4 vs 8.6), grants submitted (4.1 vs 4.4) and funded (1.3 vs 2.0), and job satisfaction score (3.6 vs 3.7). The CCDP group had higher odds of discussing communication (OR = 2.08) and leadership skills (OR = 2.62) and broadening their network (2.31) than the traditional IDP group. The CCDP arm reported improvements in 9 of the 14 CTSA competencies.

The CCDP offers CTSA hubs an innovative alternative to traditional IDP tools. Future studies are needed to elucidate why the CCDP users did not fully appreciate or adopt the functionality of the online platform.

Midcareer is a critical transition point for biomedical research faculty and a common dropout point from an NIH-funded career. We report a study to assess the efficacy of a group peer mentoring program for diverse biomedical researchers in academic medicine, seeking to improve vitality, career advancement, and cross-cultural competence.

We conducted a stratified randomized controlled trial with a waitlist control group involving 40 purposefully diverse early midcareer research faculty from 16 states who had a first-time NIH R01 (or equivalent) award, a K training grant, or a similar major grant. The yearlong intervention (2 to 3 days quarterly) consisted of facilitated, structured, group peer mentoring. Main study aims were to enhance faculty vitality, self-efficacy in achieving research success, career advancement, mentoring others, and cultural awareness and appreciation of diversity in the workplace.

Compared to the control group, the intervention group’s increased vitality did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.20), but perceived change in vitality was 1.47 standard deviations higher (D = 1.47, P = 0.03). Self-efficacy for career advancement was higher in the intervention group (D = 0.41, P = 0.05) as was self-efficacy for research (D = 0.57, P = 0.02). The intervention group also valued diversity higher (D = 0.46, P = 0.02), had higher cognitive empathy (D = 0.85, P = 0.03), higher anti-sexism/racism skills (D = 0.71, P = 0.01), and higher self-efficacy in mentoring others (D = 1.14, P = 0.007).

The mentoring intervention resulted in meaningful change in important dimensions and skills among a national sample of diverse early midcareer biomedical faculty. This mentoring program holds promise for addressing the urgencies of sustaining faculty vitality and cross-cultural competence.

Midcareer research faculty are a vital part of the advancement of science in U.S. medical schools, but there are troubling trends in recruitment, retention, and burnout rates.

The primary sampling frame for this online survey was recipients of a single R01 or equivalent and/or K-award from 2013 to 2019. Inclusion criteria were 3–14 years at a U.S. medical school and rank of associate professor or two or more years as assistant professor. Forty physician investigators and Ph.D. scientists volunteered for a faculty development program, and 106 were propensity-matched controls. Survey items covered self-efficacy in career, research, work-life; vitality/burnout; relationships, inclusion, trust; diversity; and intention to leave academic medicine.

The majority (52%) reported receiving poor mentoring; 40% experienced high burnout and 41% low vitality, which, in turn, predicted leaving intention (P < 0.0005). Women were more likely to report high burnout (P = 0.01) and low self-efficacy managing work and personal life (P = 0.01) and to be seriously considering leaving academic medicine than men (P = 0.003). Mentoring quality (P < 0.0005) and poor relationships, inclusion, and trust (P < 0.0005) predicted leaving intention. Non-underrepresented men were very likely to report low identity self-awareness (65%) and valuing differences (24%) versus underrepresented men (25% and 0%; P < 0.0005). Ph.D.s had lower career advancement self-efficacy than M.D.s (P < .0005).

Midcareer Ph.D. and physician investigators faced significant career challenges. Experiences diverged by underrepresentation, gender, and degree. Poor quality mentoring was an issue for most. Effective mentoring could address the concerns of this vital component of the biomedical workforce.

The goal of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Partnership was to prepare health care professionals and researchers to conduct patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research (CER). Substantial evidence gaps, heterogeneous health care systems, and decision-making challenges in the USA underscore the need for evidence-based strategies.

We engaged five community-based health care organizations that serve diverse and underrepresented patient populations from Hawai’i to Minnesota. Each partner nominated two in-house scholars to participate in the 2-year program. The program focused on seven competencies pertinent to patient-centered outcomes and CER. It combined in-person and experiential learning with asynchronous, online education, and created adaptive, pragmatic learning opportunities and a Summer Institute. Metrics included the Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory (CRAI), a tool designed to assess research self-efficacy and clinical research skills across 10 domains.

We trained 31 scholars in 3 cohorts. Mean scores in nine domains of the CRAI improved; greater improvement was observed from the beginning to the midpoint than from the midpoint to conclusion of the program. Across all three cohorts, mean scores on 52 items (100%) increased (p ≤ 0.01), and 91% of scholars reported the program improved their skills moderately/significantly. Satisfaction with the program was high (91%).

Investigators that conduct patient-centered outcomes and CER must know how to collaborate with regional health care systems to identify priorities; pose questions; design, conduct, and disseminate observational and experimental research; and transform knowledge into practical clinical applications. Training programs such as ours can facilitate such collaborations.

There have been a number of federal policies and guidance’s impacting diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEI) in clinical research. While these are needed, they have not diminished the gaps related to clinical trial recruitment, research professional’s capacity for cultural competence, and clinical research professional role development. Mentoring and co-mentoring circles have traditionally been used in Medicine, but until now had not been used for workforce development of clinical research professionals (CRPs).

We designed a six-session, monthly co-mentoring circle to take place at two academic medical centers to pilot an interinstitutional co-mentoring circle centered on storytelling videos of Black Voices in Clinical Research. This provided a DEI framework for discussions on role experiences, cultural competence, and role progression.

Seven CRPs completed the DRC pilot. The participants positively evaluated the experience and made recommendations for future iterations. Discussion: Co-mentoring circles can be useful tools to connect CRPs across complex research medical centers and provide support that may have a positive impact on role satisfaction and retention.

This framework for developing co-mentoring circles can serve as a toolkit for future CRP co-mentoring circles within and across institutions for workforce development. The Black Voices in Clinical Research storytelling videos provide a rich foundation for future discussion on DEI issues for CRPs and collaborating with participants.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mentoring within surgery is increasingly recognised as a powerful development tool, but participant expectations have not previously been explored. This study aimed to explore and analyse participant expectations from the UK's first national otolaryngology mentorship programme.

Participants completed open-ended questionnaires. Responses were qualitatively analysed using a grounded theory approach. Iterative cycles were used to develop codes using a constant comparison technique. Emerging categories were refined to identify core themes.

Key mentee expectations were career, and clinical and academic guidance. Enhancing networking opportunities was highlighted by medical students and junior trainees. Psychosocial and lifestyle support were predominant themes for all trainees. Receiving impartial advice and guidance from outside their training region was expressed only by senior trainees. Mentor expectations aligned with those of mentees.

This study identified key areas of the ‘hidden curriculum’ for students and trainees in otolaryngology, showing the evolving expectations and priorities as they progress through training.