Supplemental Material for Women—Particularly Underrepresented Minority Women—and Early-Career Academics Feel Like Impostors in Fields That Value Brilliance

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Early Career ◽  
Minority Women ◽  
Underrepresented Minority

scholarly journals Outcomes of a Career Development Program for Underrepresented Minority Investigators in the AIDS Clinical Trials Group

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gustavo E Velásquez ◽  
Moises A Huaman ◽  
Kimberly R Powell ◽  
Susan E Cohn ◽  
Shobha Swaminathan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Development Program ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Mentoring Program ◽  
Underrepresented Minority ◽  
Related Research ◽  
Medical Health ◽  
Career Development Program ◽  
Aids Clinical Trials

Abstract We surveyed awardees of the Minority HIV Investigator Mentoring Program (MHIMP) of the AIDS Clinical Trials Group. Most reported clinical specialization in infectious diseases or HIV medicine (86%), and all but 1 (95%) are engaged in medical/health sciences research. The MHIMP helped retain early-career minority investigators in HIV/AIDS-related research.

Accrual of underrepresented minority women to breast cancer clinical trials in the Inland Empire, California.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9058-9058
Author(s):  
Y. Yuan ◽  
P. Uppala ◽  
S. S. Lum ◽  
C. Garberoglio ◽  
H. R. Mirshahidi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Minority Women ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Underrepresented Minority ◽  
Inland Empire

scholarly journals Downstream funding success of early career researchers for resubmitted versus new applications: A matched cohort

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. e0257559
Author(s):  
Jamie Mihoko Doyle ◽  
Michael T. Baiocchi ◽  
Michaela Kiernan
Keyword(s):  
Intervention Strategy ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Underrepresented Minority ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
Academic Faculty ◽  
Log Odds ◽  
Original Application ◽  
Funding Environment ◽  
New Applications ◽  
First Time

Background Early career researchers face a hypercompetitive funding environment. To help identify effective intervention strategies for early career researchers, we examined whether first-time NIH R01 applicants who resubmitted their original, unfunded R01 application were more successful at obtaining any R01 funding within 3 and 5 years than original, unfunded applicants who submitted new NIH applications, and we examined whether underrepresented minority (URM) applicants differentially benefited from resubmission. Our observational study is consistent with an NIH working group’s recommendations to develop interventions to encourage resubmission. Methods and findings First-time applicants with US medical school academic faculty appointments who submitted an unfunded R01 application between 2000–2014 yielded 4,789 discussed and 7,019 not discussed applications. We then created comparable groups of first-time R01 applicants (resubmitted original R01 application or submitted new NIH applications) using optimal full matching that included applicant and application characteristics. Primary and subgroup analyses used generalized mixed models with obtaining any NIH R01 funding within 3 and 5 years as the two outcomes. A gamma sensitivity analysis was performed. URM applicants represented 11% and 12% of discussed and not discussed applications, respectively. First-time R01 applicants resubmitting their original, unfunded R01 application were more successful obtaining R01 funding within 3 and 5 years than applicants submitting new applications—for both discussed and not discussed applications: discussed within 3 years (OR 4.17 [95 CI 3.53, 4.93]) and 5 years (3.33 [2.82–3.92]); and not discussed within 3 years (2.81 [2.52, 3.13]) and 5 years (2.47 [2.22–2.74]). URM applicants additionally benefited within 5 years for not discussed applications. Conclusions Encouraging early career researchers applying as faculty at a school of medicine to resubmit R01 applications is a promising potential modifiable factor and intervention strategy. First-time R01 applicants who resubmitted their original, unfunded R01 application had log-odds of obtaining downstream R01 funding within 3 and 5 years 2–4 times higher than applicants who did not resubmit their original application and submitted new NIH applications instead. Findings held for both discussed and not discussed applications.

scholarly journals Mentoring Experiences and Publication Productivity among Early Career Biomedical Investigators and Trainees

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 273-282
Author(s):  
Angela Gutierrez ◽  
Lourdes R. Guerrero ◽  
Heather E. McCreath ◽  
Steven P. Wallace
Keyword(s):  
Early Career ◽  
Social Characteristics ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Career Stage ◽  
Publication Productivity ◽  
Underrepresented Minority ◽  
Diverse Workforce ◽  
Annual Survey ◽  
Research Mentoring

Objective: To identify which mentoring domains influence publication productivity among early career researchers and trainees and whether publication productivity differs between underrepresented minority (URM) and well-represented groups (WRGs). The mentoring aspects that promote publica­tion productivity remain unclear. Advancing health equity requires a diverse workforce, yet URM trainees are less likely to publish and URM investigators are less likely to ob­tain federal research grants, relative to WRG counterparts.Participants: Early career biomedical investigators and trainees from the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN), N=115.Methods: A mentoring-focused online follow-up survey was administered to respondents of the NRMN Annual Survey who self-identified as mentees. Publications were identified from a public database and validated with participant CV data. Bivariate and multivariate analyses tested the as­sociations of publication productivity with mentoring domains.Results: URM investigators and trainees had fewer publications (M = 7.3) than their WRG counterparts (M = 13.8). Controlling for career stage and social characteristics, those who worked on funded projects, and received grant-writing or research mentorship, had a higher probability of any publications. Controlling for URM status, gender, and career stage, mentorship on grant-writing and funding was positively as­sociated with publication count (IRR=1.72). Holding career stage, gender, and mentor­ing experiences constant, WRG investigators and trainees had more publications than their URM counterparts (IRR=1.66).Conclusions: Grant-writing mentorship is particularly important for publica­tion productivity. Future research should investigate whether grant-writing mentor­ship differentially impacts URM and WRG investigators and should investigate how and why grant-writing mentorship fosters increased publication productivity. Ethn Dis. 2021;31(2):273-282; doi:10.18865/ed.31.2.273

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document