Mentoring up for early career investigators: Empowering mentees to proactively engage in their mentoring relationships.

Introduction: Effective mentorship is recognized as critical for the professional development of clinical and translational investigators. Evidence-based mentorship training prompted the development of training for mentees at early career stages who are navigating both mentor and mentee roles. The curriculum titled, Mentoring Up for Early Career Investigators, recognizes the importance of building mentee self-efficacy across proactive mentorship skills and competencies. Methods: Mentoring Up for Early Career Investigators curriculum is based on the research mentor training approach in Entering Mentoring. Pilot implementations of Mentoring Up at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and University of Pennsylvania had positive training outcomes for KL2 Scholars. Subsequently, Mentoring Up was implemented and evaluated at several other institutions. For 26 implementations longer than 4 hours, data were collected on trainee demographics, satisfaction with training, skill gains across mentorship competencies, and the intent to change mentoring behaviors following training. Results: 88% of participants rated the mentee training as valuable. Significant skill gains were reported across all mentorship competencies following training. 77% reported specific plans to change or augment their mentoring behaviors because of the training. The majority aligned with mentorship skill competencies (aligning expectations, effective communications) or mentoring up strategies (voicing needs, setting boundaries, communicating proactively). Conclusion: Mentoring Up training is effective in advancing mentee skills and promoting strategies to be more proactive in getting their mentoring needs met. Mentoring Up offers an expansion to the suite of mentorship education and resources to support the career advancement of all in the translational science workforce.

Continued impact of COVID-19 pandemic on clinical and translational science early-career researchers.

The COVID-19 pandemic had an immediate impact on the lives and work of early-career researchers. We leveraged a cluster-randomized trial and compared survey data collected over two timepoints to explore whether these impacts persisted. Although more than a year had passed, 74% of participants reported that their research was affected in multiple ways in both 2020 and 2021. These data suggest that the effects of the pandemic on early-career researchers may be prolonged. Our findings additionally serve as an impetus to identify and implement solutions to early-career challenges that undoubtedly existed before the pandemic, but which COVID-19 brought into the spotlight.

Customized Career Development Platform (CCDP) for clinical and translational researchers: A pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Introduction: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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.

KL2 scholars' perceptions of factors contributing to sustained translational science career success.

Introduction: Identifying the most effective ways to support career development of early stage investigators in clinical and translational science should yield benefits for the biomedical research community. Institutions with Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) offer KL2 programs to facilitate career development; however, the sustained impact has not been widely assessed. Methods: A survey comprised of quantitative and qualitative questions was sent to 2144 individuals that had previously received support through CTSA KL2 mechanisms. The 547 responses were analyzed with identifying information redacted. Results: Respondents held MD (47%), PhD (36%), and MD/PhD (13%) degrees. After KL2 support was completed, physicians' time was divided 50% to research and 30% to patient care, whereas PhD respondents devoted 70% time to research. Funded research effort averaged 60% for the cohort. Respondents were satisfied with their career progression. More than 95% thought their current job was meaningful. Two-thirds felt confident or very confident in their ability to sustain a career in clinical and translational research. Factors cited as contributing to career success included protected time, mentoring, and collaborations. Conclusion: This first large systematic survey of KL2 alumni provides valuable insight into the group's perceptions of the program and outcome information. Former scholars are largely satisfied with their career choice and direction, national recognition of their expertise, and impact of their work. Importantly, they identified training activities that contributed to success. Our results and future analysis of the survey data should inform the framework for developing platforms to launch sustaining careers of translational scientists.

The Virtual CTSA Visiting Scholar Program to Support Early-Stage Clinical and Translational Researchers: Implementation and Outcomes.

In addition to restrictions on conducting research, COVID-19-related travel bans and scientific meeting cancellations have negatively affected scholars in the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Mentored Career Development Award (KL2) program. In response, a national virtual visiting scholar program was developed to provide opportunity for KL2 scholars to be virtual visiting professors at another CTSA hub, meet faculty and scholars, and expand networks and build collaborations. This article describes the design and short-term outcomes of the virtual CTSA Visiting Scholar Program. In 2020, a working group designed core program elements and developed an application and selection process. Anonymized surveys were sent to scholars post visit and to scholars and program directors 6 months post visit to evaluate their experience and solicit suggestions for improvements. Between November 2020 and May 2021, 56 KL2 scholars and 27 hubs participated. Forty-five (80.4%) participating scholars responded to the initial survey. Nearly all scholars (44, 97.7%) agreed their experience was valuable. All respondents indicated they would recommend the program to other KL2 scholars. For the 6-month survey, the response rate was 87.5% (49/56). Within 6 months of their visit, 36 (73.5%) respondents had contacted at least one person at the host hub and for 17 (34.7%) respondents, new collaborations with the host hub ensued. Twenty-five of 27 (92.6%) host hubs responded to the survey. Most (21, 84.0%) agreed that hearing visiting scholar talks was valuable to their own scholars and 23 (92%) indicated likelihood of their hub participating in future round of the program. The virtual Visiting Scholar Program provided KL2 scholars an opportunity to virtually visit another CTSA hub, present their research, and meet with faculty and other scholars to expand their networks. Although geared to KL2 scholars, this model is potentially generalizable to other nationally coordinated career development programs.

Mentoring Underrepresented Minority Physician-Scientists to Success.

As the nation seeks to recruit and retain physician-scientists, gaps remain in understanding and addressing mitigatable challenges to the success of faculty from underrepresented minority (URM) backgrounds. The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists program, implemented in 2015 at 10 academic medical centers in the United States, seeks to retain physician-scientists at risk of leaving science because of periods of extraordinary family caregiving needs, hardships that URM faculty-especially those who identify as female-are more likely to experience. At the annual Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists program directors conference in 2018, program directors-21% of whom identify as URM individuals and 13% as male-addressed issues that affect URM physician-scientists in particular. Key issues that threaten the retention of URM physician-scientists were identified through focused literature reviews; institutional environmental scans; and structured small- and large-group discussions with program directors, staff, and participants. These issues include bias and discrimination, personal wealth differential, the minority tax (i.e., service burdens placed on URM faculty who represent URM perspectives on committees and at conferences), lack of mentorship training, intersectionality and isolation, concerns about confirming stereotypes, and institutional-level factors. The authors present recommendations for how to create an environment in which URM physician-scientists can expect equitable opportunities to thrive, as institutions demonstrate proactive allyship and remove structural barriers to success. Recommendations include providing universal training to reduce interpersonal bias and discrimination, addressing the consequences of the personal wealth gap through financial counseling and benefits, measuring the service faculty members provide to the institution as advocates for URM faculty issues and compensating them appropriately, supporting URM faculty who wish to engage in national leadership programs, and sustaining institutional policies that address structural and interpersonal barriers to inclusive excellence.

A unique window of opportunity for practical reform of cancer clinical trials.

With rapid modifications in cancer clinical trial operations necessitated by the global pandemic over the last year, there is now an unprecedented opportunity to reform clinical research permanently and solidify innovative practices that have clearly been effective. On the basis of the authors' experience and recommendations from other institutions, a set of specific proposals for clinical trial reform are identified that can be implemented immediately by sponsors, regulators, and study sites. Improvements in clinical trial processes should include increased leverage of technology to facilitate remote trial activity and electronic documents, more efficient and effective communication of adverse event information, and better study design to optimize inclusion criteria, required research procedures, and data collection. The authors suggest that such reform will preserve patient safety and study integrity, address unnecessary and inefficient pre-pandemic constraints, improve access to clinical trials for patients, and speed improvements in cancer care.

Ethical Inclusion of Health Care Workers in Covid-19 Research.

Employees are often considered a vulnerable research population due to concerns about consent and confidentiality, but there is insufficient guidance regarding their ethical inclusion in research. In the context of Covid-19, frontline health care workers comprise a particularly relevant research population in light of their risks of viral exposure and psychological strain, among other factors. They may therefore be targeted for research conducted at their place of employment and benefit from participating in such research. Beyond Covid-19, there are other circumstances in which health care workers may be considered for inclusion in research conducted by or with the involvement of their colleagues and employers. As investigators, sponsors, institutional review boards, and others assess the ethical permissibility of these scenarios, as well as relevant protections, we recommend systematic consideration of social and scientific value, validity, fairness, risks and benefits, voluntary consent, respect, and independent review. There is often good reason to specifically target health care workers for inclusion in Covid-19 research (beyond convenience), and they should not be excluded from research offering the prospect of direct benefit. However, additional safeguards may be necessary in employer-based research to avoid scientific bias, promote voluntariness, and solicit stakeholder input. Research personnel should be permitted to enroll in their own Covid-19 studies only when participation offers them the prospect of unique benefits.

Immediate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on CTSA TL1 and KL2 training and career development.

Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) TL1 trainees and KL2 scholars were surveyed to determine the immediate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on training and career development. The most negative impact was lack of access to research facilities, clinics, and human subjects, plus for KL2 scholars lack of access to team members and need for homeschooling. TL1 trainees reported having more time to think and write. Common strategies to maintain research productivity involved time management, virtual connections with colleagues, and shifting to research activities not requiring laboratory/clinic settings. Strategies for mitigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on training and career development are described.

The role of mentors in addressing issues of work-life integration in an academic research environment.

INTRODUCTION: There is growing evidence for both the need to manage work-life conflict and the opportunity for mentors to advise their mentees on how to do this in an academic research environment. METHODS: A multiphase approach was used to develop and implement an evidence-informed training module to help mentors guide their mentees in issues of work-life conflict. Analysis of existing data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a mentor training curriculum (n = 283 mentor/mentee dyads) informed the development of a work-life mentoring module which was incorporated into an established research mentor training curriculum and evaluated by faculty at a single academic medical center. RESULTS: Only 39% of mentors and 36% of mentees in the RCT indicated high satisfaction with the balance between their personal and professional lives. The majority (75%) of mentors and mentees were sharing personal information as part of the mentoring relationship which was significantly associated with mentees' ratings of the balance between their personal and professional lives. The effectiveness of the work-life module was assessed by 60 faculty mentors participating in a mentor training program at an academic medical center from 2013 to 2017. Among the respondents to the post-training survey, 82.5% indicated they were very/somewhat comfortable addressing work-life issues with their mentees as a result of the training, with significant improvements (p = 0.001) in self-assessments of mentoring skill in this domain. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that a structured training approach can significantly improve mentors' self-reported skills in addressing work-life issues with their mentees.

Creating effective career development programs.

This paper is the fourth in a 5-part series that focuses on educating and training the clinical and translational science workforce. The goal of this paper is to delineate components of effective career development programs that go beyond didactic training. All academic health centers with a Clinical and Translational Science Award have a KL2 career development award for junior faculty, and many also have a TL1 training program for predoctoral and postdoctoral fellows. The training across these programs varies, however junior investigators across the United States experience similar challenges. Junior investigators can get overwhelmed with the demands of building their own research program, particularly in academia. 1Often, they are sidetracked by competing demands that can derail their progress. In these situations, junior investigators experience frustration and may search for alternative career paths. By providing them with additional professional skills in the 5 domains of: (1) self-awareness; (2) selecting the right topic and securing funding; (3) getting adequate support; (4) working with others; and (5) managing yourself, your career, and your demands. We will give junior investigators additional tools to manage these demands and facilitate their own career success.

Certification of clinical and translational researchers: An ill-conceived notion.

The National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) has instituted a new multiple choice examination in order to "certify" clinical and translational investigators. As experienced research educators, we argue that this certification process is unnecessary, values knowledge over competency, may be counter-productive, and is unlikely to achieve any worthwhile outcome. We lay out these arguments in the hope of stimulating a robust discussion among leaders, faculty, and learners engaged in clinical research education and training.

Core informatics competencies for clinical and translational scientists: what do our customers and collaborators need to know?

Since the inception of the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program in 2006, leaders in education across CTSA sites have been developing and updating core competencies for Clinical and Translational Science (CTS) trainees. By 2009, 14 competency domains, including biomedical informatics, had been identified and published. Since that time, the evolution of the CTSA program, changes in the practice of CTS, the rapid adoption of electronic health records (EHRs), the growth of biomedical informatics, the explosion of big data, and the realization that some of the competencies had proven to be difficult to apply in practice have made it clear that the competencies should be updated. This paper describes the process undertaken and puts forth a new set of competencies that has been recently endorsed by the Clinical Research Informatics Workgroup of AMIA. In addition to providing context and background for the current version of the competencies, we hope this will serve as a model for revision of competencies over time.

Long-term clinical results of microsomal triglyceride transfer protein inhibitor use in a patient with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia.

We report the case of a 49-year-old woman with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and a complicated cardiovascular history, treated for 5 years with a microsomal triglyceride transfer protein inhibitor in addition to her other lipid-lowering therapy.

Efficacy and safety of a microsomal triglyceride transfer protein inhibitor in patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia: a single-arm, open-label, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia respond inadequately to existing drugs. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the microsomal triglyceride transfer protein inhibitor lomitapide in adults with this disease. METHODS: We did a single-arm, open-label, phase 3 study of lomitapide for treatment of patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Current lipid lowering therapy was maintained from 6 weeks before baseline through to at least week 26. Lomitapide dose was escalated on the basis of safety and tolerability from 5 mg to a maximum of 60 mg a day. The primary endpoint was mean percent change in levels of LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 26, after which patients remained on lomitapide through to week 78 for safety assessment. Percent change from baseline to week 26 was assessed with a mixed linear model. FINDINGS: 29 men and women with homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia, aged 18 years or older, were recruited from 11 centres in four countries (USA, Canada, South Africa, and Italy). 23 of 29 enrolled patients completed both the efficacy phase (26 weeks) and the full study (78 weeks). The median dose of lomitapide was 40 mg a day. LDL cholesterol was reduced by 50% (95% CI -62 to -39) from baseline (mean 8·7 mmol/L [SD 2·9]) to week 26 (4·3 mmol/L [2·5]; p<0·0001). Levels of LDL cholesterol were lower than 2·6 mmol/L in eight patients at 26 weeks. Concentrations of LDL cholesterol remained reduced by 44% (95% CI -57 to -31; p<0·0001) at week 56 and 38% (-52 to -24; p<0·0001) at week 78. Gastrointestinal symptoms were the most common adverse event. Four patients had aminotransaminase levels of more than five times the upper limit of normal, which resolved after dose reduction or temporary interruption of lomitapide. No patient permanently discontinued treatment because of liver abnormalities. INTERPRETATION: Our study suggests that treatment with lomitapide could be a valuable drug in the management of homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia. FUNDING: FDA Office of the Orphan Product Development, Aegerion Pharmaceuticals.