Application and Evaluation of a Multimodal Training on the Second Victim Phenomenon at the European Researchers' Network Working on Second Victims Training School: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Health care workers (HCWs) are often impacted by distressing situations during patient care and can experience the second victim phenomenon (SVP). Addressing an adequate response, training, and increasing awareness of the SVP can increase HCWs' well-being and ultimately improve the quality of care and patient safety. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe and evaluate a multimodal training organized by the European Researchers' Network Working on Second Victims to increase knowledge and overall awareness of SVP and second victim programs. METHODS: We implemented a multimodal training program, following an iterative approach based on a continuous quality improvement process, to enhance the methodology and materials of the training program over the duration of 2 years. We conducted web-based surveys and group interviews to evaluate the scope and design of the training, self-directed learning materials, and face-to-face activities. RESULTS: Out of 42 accepted candidates, 38 (90%) participants attended the 2 editions of the Training School program. In the second edition, the level of participants' satisfaction increased, particularly when adjusting the allocated time for the case studies' discussion (P<.001). After the multimodal training, participants stated that they had a better awareness and understanding of the SVP, support interventions, and its impact on health care. The main strengths of this Training School were the interdisciplinary approach as well as the contact with multiple cultures, the diversity of learning materials, and the commitment of the trainers and organizing team. CONCLUSIONS: This multimodal training is suitable for different stakeholders of the health care community, including HCWs, clinical managers, patient safety and quality-of-care teams, academicians, researchers, and postgraduate students, regardless of their prior experience with SVP. Furthermore, this study represents a pioneering effort in elucidating the materials and methodology essential for extending this training approach to similar contexts.

A training protocol compliance of 13% was observed in a research study of clinical research professionals.

OBJECTIVE: We attempted to conduct a randomized controlled trial of three different informed consent training formats to evaluate their effectiveness. We recruited 503 clinical research professionals, who received $50 for participation. Incidental findings showed unexpectedly low rates of compliance with completing the study training protocols, resulting in insufficient statistical power to test our original hypotheses. In this report, we conducted a secondary analysis of the data in which we characterize and evaluate the observed low compliance. This involved using literature on average reading times, speed-reading times, and video play speeds to calculate the timeframes required to complete the three training formats. RESULTS: Only 13% of participants completed the training in a reasonable timeframe. Furthermore, only 46% of participants completed the training in the minimum possible timeframe. These findings lead us to ask whether online research training is effective, since no training can be effective if participants do not actually complete the training. Given extensive requirements for educational training among clinical research professionals, we feel the burden of proof is on training programs to demonstrate that they have positive effects.

An Exploratory-Descriptive Analysis of Training Programs for Leadership in Health Research and Services in India.

BACKGROUND: There are several leadership training programs for health researchers in India. However, there is a need to develop context-tailored leadership and mentoring approaches. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to critically analyze the available leadership training programs in India for health researchers and service providers, for the leadership domains incorporated and overall training approaches. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used an exploratory-descriptive design to identify and review leadership training programs for health researchers and service providers/managers that had been offered by Indian institutions between 2013 and 2018. Our analytic approach was based on "transformational leadership" and "leader-member exchange" theories of leadership, curricula of popular leadership training programs worldwide, and the International Clinical Epidemiology Network model for leadership in health research in India based on a nationwide primary study. RESULTS: We identified and reviewed 20 leadership training programs. These were heterogeneous in aim, scope (broad-based/thematic), course content, design, target participants and class profile, mode of delivery and training method, duration, frequency, and fund arrangements. The programs infrequently included topics on soft skills, mentoring, risk mitigation, collaboration for research, funding dynamics, institutional transformation, self-view and peer perception, and personal well-being. The programs insufficiently addressed contextual challenges of career exploration and risk mitigation, project management, strategic planning, and decision-making, ethics and integrity, negotiations, networking and collaboration, understanding funding dynamics, and mentoring. Only three programs linked to the training to the participants' ecosystem. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to develop customized course contents and training strategies that address the requirements of the local context vis-à-vis globally connected research ecosystems.

Prioritisation of clinical trial learning needs of musculoskeletal researchers: an inter-disciplinary modified Delphi study by the Australia & New Zealand musculoskeletal clinical trials network.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to increase the capacity and capability of musculoskeletal researchers to design, conduct, and report high-quality clinical trials. The objective of this study was to identify and prioritise clinical trial learning needs of musculoskeletal researchers in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Findings will be used to inform development of an e-learning musculoskeletal clinical trials course. METHODS: A two-round online modified Delphi study was conducted with an inter-disciplinary panel of musculoskeletal researchers from Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, representing various career stages and roles, including clinician researchers and consumers with lived experience of musculoskeletal conditions. Round 1 involved panellists nominating 3-10 topics about musculoskeletal trial design and conduct that they believe would be important to include in an e-learning course about musculoskeletal clinical trials. Topics were synthesised and refined. Round 2 asked panellists to rate the importance of all topics (very important, important, not important), as well as select and rank their top 10 most important topics. A rank score was calculated whereby higher scores reflect higher rankings by panellists. RESULTS: Round 1 was completed by 121 panellists and generated 555 individual topics describing their musculoskeletal trial learning needs. These statements were grouped into 37 unique topics for Round 2, which was completed by 104 panellists. The topics ranked as most important were: (1) defining a meaningful research question (rank score 560, 74% of panellists rated topic as very important); (2) choosing the most appropriate trial design (rank score 410, 73% rated as very important); (3) involving consumers in trial design through to dissemination (rank score 302, 62% rated as very important); (4) bias in musculoskeletal trials and how to minimise it (rank score 299, 70% rated as very important); and (5) choosing the most appropriate control/comparator group (rank score 265, 65% rated as very important). CONCLUSIONS: This modified Delphi study generated a ranked list of clinical trial learning needs of musculoskeletal researchers. Findings can inform training courses and professional development to improve researcher capabilities and enhance the quality and conduct of musculoskeletal clinical trials.

Assessing and Achieving Quality in Qualitative Research: Clues for Researchers in Training.

Abstract: This article deals with the particularities of the quality of qualitative research, under the double lens of valuing it and ensuring it. While achieving the quality of qualitative research concerns only those who have opted for this methodology, assessing it is everyone's business because researchers in training will encounter, in the literature reviews, qualitative studies on which they must reflect and estimate their quality. Appreciating the quality of a research work is a complex activity as it is situated within a context and conducted by individuals who use any of the means available to do so. The means they use are criteria as evaluation guides and criteria checklists. For researchers in training, I suggest some guiding criteria to evaluate qualitative publications and ensure quality during the research process, key issues that they must address.

The power of junior faculty mentoring committees.

Junior faculty mentoring committees have important roles in ensuring that faculty thrive and adjust to their new positions and institutions. Here, we describe the purpose, structure, and benefits of junior faculty mentoring committees, which can be a powerful tool for early-career academic investigators in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medical (STEMM) fields. There is a paucity of information about what mentoring committees are, how to use them effectively, what areas they should evaluate, and how they can most successfully help junior faculty progress in their careers. This work offers guidance for both junior faculty mentees and mentoring committee members on how to best structure and utilize mentoring committees to promote junior faculty success. A better understanding of the intricacies of the mentoring committee will allow junior faculty members to self-advocate and will equip committee mentors with tools to ensure that junior faculty are successful in thriving in academia.

Postdoctoral T32 training is correlated with obtaining an academic primarily research faculty position.

The mission of NIH-sponsored institutional training programs such as the T32 is to provide strong research and career training for early career scientists. One of the main avenues to pursuing health-related research is becoming research faculty at an academic institution. It is therefore important to know whether these programs are succeeding in this mission, or, if barriers exist that prevent trainees from pursuing these careers. Our institution currently trains ~ 2400 post-doctoral scholars per year, approximately 5% of whom are enrolled in one of our 33 T32 programs. In this study, we 1) compare the proximal professional career trajectories of T32 trainees with non-T32 trainees at our institution, 2) compare proximal career trajectories of trainees in a subset of cardiovascular T32 programs based on their previous training backgrounds, and 3) survey past and current T32 trainees in a subset of cardiovascular T32 programs about the barriers and enablers they experienced to pursuing research-oriented careers. We find that former T32 trainees are significantly more likely to attain appointments as primarily research faculty members, compared to other trainees. Trainees report a perceived lack of stability, the paucity of open positions, and the 'publish or perish' mentality of academia as the top barriers to pursuing careers in academia. However, they were still more likely to choose research over clinical careers after participating in a dedicated T32 program. Our results support the conclusion that structured training programs strengthen the pipeline of young scientists pursuing careers in academic research, including those from underrepresented backgrounds. However, T32 postdoctoral researchers are held back from pursuing academic careers by a perceived lack of stability and high competition for faculty positions.

Is it time to reduce the length of postgraduate training for physician-scientists in internal medicine?

Physician-scientists play a crucial role in advancing medical knowledge and patient care, yet the long periods of time required to complete training may impede expansion of this workforce. We examined the relationship between postgraduate training and time to receipt of NIH or Veterans Affairs career development awards (CDAs) for physician-scientists in internal medicine. Data from NIH RePORTER were analyzed for internal medicine residency graduates who received specific CDAs (K08, K23, K99, or IK2) in 2022. Additionally, information on degrees and training duration was collected. Internal medicine residency graduates constituted 19% of K awardees and 28% of IK2 awardees. Of MD-PhD internal medicine-trained graduates who received a K award, 92% received a K08 award; of MD-only graduates who received a K award, a majority received a K23 award. The median time from medical school graduation to CDA was 9.6 years for K awardees and 10.2 years for IK2 awardees. The time from medical school graduation to K or IK2 award was shorter for US MD-PhD graduates than US MD-only graduates. We propose that the time from medical school graduation to receipt of CDAs must be shortened to accelerate training and retention of physician-scientists.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on physician-scientist trainees to faculty one year into the pandemic.

PURPOSE: Physician-scientists play a crucial role in advancing biomedical sciences. Proportionally fewer physicians are actively engaged in scientific pursuits, attributed to attrition in the training and retention pipeline. This national study evaluated the ongoing and longer-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on stress levels, research productivity, and optimism for physician-scientists at all levels of training. METHODS: A multi-institutional cross-sectional survey of medical students, graduate students, and residents/fellows/junior faculty (RFJF) was conducted from April to August 2021 to assess the impact of COVID-19 on individual stress, productivity, and optimism. Multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify associated variables and unsupervised variable clustering techniques were employed to identify highly correlated responses. RESULTS: A total 677 respondents completed the survey, representing different stages of physician-scientist training. Respondents report high levels of stress (medical students: 85%, graduate students: 63%, RFJF: 85%) attributed to impaired productivity concerns, concern about health of family and friends, impact on personal health and impairment in training or career development. Many cited impaired productivity (medical students: 65% graduate students: 79%, RFJF: 78%) associated with pandemic impacts on training, labs closures and loss of facility/resource access, and social isolation. Optimism levels were low (medical students: 37%, graduate students: 38% and RFJF: 39%) with females less likely to be optimistic and more likely to report concerns of long-term effects of COVID-19. Optimism about the future was correlated with not worrying about the long-term effects of COVID-19. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, all respondents reported increased prioritization of time with family/friends (67%) and personal health (62%) over career (25%) and research (24%). CONCLUSIONS: This national survey highlights the significant and protracted impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on stress levels, productivity, and optimism among physician-scientists and trainees. These findings underscore the urgent need for tailored support, including mental health, academic, and career development assistance for this biomedical workforce.