Time to act: A rubric-based approach for institutionalizing justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion.

Attacks on minoritized communities and increasing awareness of the societal causes of health disparities have combined to highlight deep systemic inequities. In response, academic health centers have prioritized justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI) in their strategic goals. To have a sustained impact, JEDI efforts cannot be siloed; rather, they must be woven into the fabric of our work and systematically assessed to promote meaningful outcomes and accountability. To this end, the University of Pittsburgh's Institute for Clinical Research Education assembled a task force to create and apply a rubric to identify short and long-term JEDI goals, assess the current state of JEDI at our Institute, and make recommendations for immediate action. To ensure deep buy-in, we gathered input from diverse members of our academic community, who served on targeted subcommittees. We then applied a three-step process to ensure rapid forward progress. We emerged with concrete actions for priority focus and a plan for ongoing assessment of JEDI institutionalization. We believe our process and rubric offer a scalable and adaptable model for other institutions and departments to follow as we work together across academic medical institutions to put our justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion goals into meaningful action.

Shut Up & Write!® builds writing self-efficacy and self-regulation in early-career researchers.

Introduction: High writing self-efficacy and self-regulation are tied to publication and grant submission. Writers with these attributes are more productive. We investigated whether participating in a Shut Up & Write!®-style intervention (SUAW) would produce statistically significant gains in writing self-efficacy and self-regulation when comparing pre-post-participation surveys. Methods: Forty-seven medical students, TL1/KL2, and early-career faculty from across the USA expressed interest in participating, with 37 completing the pre-survey. We conducted (on Zoom) a 12-week SUAW series and measured the effect using a pre-post survey adapted from the Writer Self-Perception Scale. Paired t-tests (α = 0.05) were conducted on three subscales to test for significant differences between pre- and post-test means. The subscales reflected writing attitudes, writing strategies, and avoiding writing distractions. Subscales showed acceptable internal consistency with Cronbach's alphas of 0.80, 0.71, and 0.72, respectively. Results: Twenty-seven participants attended at least one session. Of these, 81% presented as female, and 60% were from NIH-defined Underrepresented Backgrounds and/or were from Minority-Serving Institutions. Twenty-four completed both the pre- and post-surveys. Sixty percent previously participated in an activity similar to SUAW. We found significant improvements in writing attitudes (p = 0.020) and writing strategies (p = 0.041) for those who previously participated. For those who had not previously participated, we found improved writing strategies (p = 0.002). Eighty percent were very satisfied/satisfied with SUAW. Discussion: Researchers have tied writing self-efficacy and self-regulation to timely publication and grant submission. We found significant gains in self-efficacy and self-regulation, suggesting that participation in a SUAW-style intervention may increase writing productivity.

Leading Emerging and Diverse Scientists to Success: Results from LEADS alumni.

Purpose: In 2015, the University of Pittsburgh partnered with several Minority Serving Institutions to develop the Leading Emerging and Diverse Scientists to Success (LEADS) Program. LEADS was designed to provide skills development, mentoring, and networking support to early career underrepresented faculty. Method: LEADS included three components: skills training (e.g., grant and manuscript writing and team science), mentoring, and networking opportunities. Scholars completed a pre- and post-test survey and an annual alumni survey that included measures on burnout, motivation, leadership, professionalism, mentoring, job and career satisfaction, networking, and an assessment of their research self-efficacy. Results: Scholars demonstrated a significant increase in their research self-efficacy having completed all the modules (t = 6.12; P < 0.001). Collectively, LEADS scholars submitted 73 grants and secured 46 grants for a 63% success rate. Most scholars either agreed or strongly agreed that their mentor was effective in helping to develop their research skills (65%) and provided effective counseling (56%). Scholars did experience increased burnout with 50% feeling burned out at the exit survey (t = 1.42; P = 0.16) and 58% reporting feelings of burnout at the most recent survey in 2020 (t = 3.96; P < 0.001). Conclusions: Our findings support the claim that participation in LEADS enhanced critical research skills, provided networking and mentoring opportunities, and contributed to research productivity for scientists from underrepresented backgrounds.

Reducing tensions and expediting manuscript submission via an authorship agreement for early-career researchers: A pilot study.

Authorship can be a source of tension on research teams, in academic/industry collaborations, and between mentors/mentees. Authorship misconduct is prevalent among biomedical researchers, and disputes about authorship can generate tensions that have the potential to disrupt professional relationships and damage careers. Early-career researchers may experience particular challenges navigating authorship both because of inexperience and power differentials; in effect, they lack the language and confidence to have these conversations and may feel unwilling to challenge the status quo. The authors implemented an Authorship Agreement for use when collaborating on a manuscript and hypothesized that using this agreement would reduce authorship tensions and speed time to manuscript submission by helping early-career investigators manage authorship conversations more effectively. The authors surveyed trainees (n = 65) on the prevalence of authorship-related tensions and compared the results from the first survey in 2017 to the final survey in 2020. The decrease in tensions around meeting deadlines was significant (z = 2.59, p = 0.010). The authors believe the effect of an Authorship Agreement on authorship-related tensions has not previously been investigated. This work extends what is known about the prevalence of commonly cited authorship tensions, and provides evidence of the effectiveness of steps that can be taken to alleviate them.

Evaluation of two longitudinal faculty leadership training programs: behavioral change and institutional impact.

PURPOSE: Building leadership skills among faculty in academic medicine is essential, yet professional development programs focused on leadership are not always attentive to the needs of faculty on diverse career pathways or at differing career stages-nor are they often rigorously assessed. Evaluations commonly focus on participant satisfaction and short-term learning but not behavior change and institutional impact, which are difficult to assess but arguably more meaningful. Given the substantial time and money invested in these programs, more rigorous evaluation is critical. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The authors evaluated an intensive, shared leadership-focused training program for early-career and mid-career faculty, offered by the University of Pittsburgh's School of Medicine over the course of a year. They administered a pre/post-program assessment of confidence in key skill areas, and conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 participants between 1-4 years after program completion. FINDINGS: Participants in both programs showed statistically significant improvement (p < 0.001) on every item measured in the pre/post-test. Analysis of the interviews revealed indications of substantial behavior change as well as institutional impact. The evaluation also suggested particular benefits for female professionals. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The authors conducted a long-term assessment of leadership training focused on career pathway and career stage and found that it (a) prompted both positive behavioral change and institutional impact and (b) suggested benefits for female faculty in particular, which could potentially help to eliminate gender-based disparities in leadership in academic medical centers.

Assessing the application of human-centered design to translational research.

INTRODUCTION: Human-centered design (HCD) training offers the potential to improve both team processes and products. However, the use of HCD to improve the quality of team science is a relatively recent application, and its benefits and challenges have not been rigorously evaluated. We conducted a qualitative study with health sciences researchers trained in HCD methods. We aimed to determine how researchers applied HCD methods and perceived the benefits and barriers to using HCD on research teams. METHODS: We conducted 1-hour, semi-structured interviews with trainees from three training cohorts. Interviews focused on perceptions of the training, subsequent uses of HCD, barriers and facilitators, and perceptions of the utility of HCD to science teams. Data analysis was conducted using Braun and Clarke's process for thematic analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed nine faculty and nine staff trained in HCD methods and identified four themes encompassing HCD use, benefits, challenges, and tensions between HCD approaches and academic culture. CONCLUSIONS: Trainees found HCD relevant to research teams for stakeholder engagement, research design, project planning, meeting facilitation, and team management. They also described benefits of HCD in five distinct areas: creativity, egalitarianism, structure, efficiency, and visibility. Our data suggest that HCD has the potential to help researchers work more inclusively and collaboratively on interdisciplinary teams and generate more innovative and impactful science. The application of HCD methods is not without challenges; however, we believe these challenges can be overcome with institutional investment.

Delivering What We PROMISED: Outcomes of a Coaching and Leadership Fellowship for Mentors of Underrepresented Mentees.

Research demonstrates that mentorship can significantly improve career success, career satisfaction, and persistence for underrepresented (UR) minority faculty. However, many UR faculty members do not receive the mentorship they need, nor do mentors always possess the range of skills required to guide UR mentees through the unique challenges they face. We developed a 1-year fellowship training program, PROMISED, designed to help mentors promote career self-authorship and leadership among their UR mentees. PROMISED fellows participated in a two-day in-person training to develop career coaching skills, followed by a series of one-month leadership training/mentoring modules. We assessed mentors' skills at the start and completion of the program. We found that PROMISED fellows reported an increase in perceived skill level in nearly every training topic, with "addressing diversity" demonstrating the most significant change. These results provide evidence that career coaching and leadership training offer an effective supplement to traditional mentor training and that mentors can incorporate these skills effectively into their mentoring practice. Taken together, we believe our data suggest that a program designed to train mentors in coaching and leadership can enhance career satisfaction, persistence, and retention of their UR mentees.

Authorship stories panel discussion: Fostering ethical authorship by cultivating a growth mindset.

Because peer review publication is essential for academic advancement across scientific fields, when authorship is wrongly attributed the consequences can be profound, particularly for junior researchers who are still establishing their professional norms and scientific reputations. Professional societies have published guidelines for authorship, yet authorship dilemmas frequently arise and have harmful consequences for scientific careers. Researchers have noted the complexities of authorship and called for new mechanisms to foster more ethical research cultures within institutions. To address this call, we organized a panel discussion at the Institute for Clinical Research Education at the University of Pittsburgh in which senior faculty members from diverse backgrounds and professional disciplines discussed their own authorship challenges (e.g., renegotiating author order, reconciling inter-professional authorship norms, managing coauthor power differentials) and offered strategies to avoid and/or resolve them. Informed by growth mind-set theory, our storytelling format facilitated an open exchange between senior and junior researchers, situated authorship dilemmas in specific contexts and career stages, and taught researchers how to address authorship challenges not adequately informed by guideline recommendations. Though not empirically assessed, we believe this approach represents a simple, low-cost, and replicable way to cultivate ethical and transparent authorship practices among researchers across scientific fields.

Developing a team science workshop for early-career investigators.

INTRODUCTION: High impact biomedical research is increasingly conducted by large, transdisciplinary, multisite teams in an increasingly collaborative environment. Thriving in this environment requires robust teamwork skills, which are not acquired automatically in the course of traditional scientific education. Team science skills training does exist, but most is directed at clinical care teams, not research teams, and little is focused on the specific training needs of early-career investigators, whose early team leadership experiences may shape their career trajectories positively or negatively. Our research indicated a need for team science training designed specifically for early-career investigators. METHODS: To address this need, we designed and delivered a 2-day workshop focused on teaching team science skills to early-career investigators. We operationalized team science competencies, sought the advice of team science experts, and performed a needs assessment composed of a survey and a qualitative study. Through these multiple approaches, we identified and grouped training priorities into three broad training areas and developed four robust, hands-on workshop sessions. RESULTS: Attendees comprised 30 pre- and post-doc fellows (TL1) and early-career faculty (KL2 and K12). We assessed impact with a pre- and post-workshop survey adapted from the Team Skills Scale. Results from the pre- and post-test Wilcoxon signed-rank analysis (n = 25) showed statistically significant improvement in team science skills and confidence. Open-ended responses indicated that the workshop focus was appropriate and well targeted to the trainees' needs. CONCLUSIONS: Although team science education is still very much in its infancy, these results suggest that training targeted to early-career investigators improves team skills and may foster improved collaboration.

Sowing the "CEED"s of a more diverse biomedical workforce: The Career Education and Enhancement for Health Care Research Diversity (CEED) program at the University of Pittsburgh.

PURPOSE: The need to diversify the biomedical research workforce is well documented. The importance of fostering the careers of fledgling underrepresented background (URB) biomedical researchers is evident in light of the national and local scarcity of URB scientists in biomedical research. The Career Education and Enhancement for Health Care Research Diversity (CEED) program at the University of Pittsburgh Institute for Clinical Research Education (ICRE) was designed to promote career success and help seal the "leaky pipeline" for URB researchers. In this study, we aimed to quantify CEED's effect on several key outcomes by comparing CEED Scholars to a matched set of URB ICRE trainees not enrolled in CEED using data collected over 10 years. METHOD: We collected survey data on CEED Scholars from 2007 to 2017 and created a matched set of URB trainees not enrolled in CEED using propensity score matching in a 1:1 ratio. Poisson regression was used to compare the rate of publications between CEED and non-CEED URB trainees after adjusting for baseline number of publications. RESULTS: CEED has 45 graduates. Seventy-six percent are women, 78% are non-White, and 33% are Hispanic/Latino. Twenty-four CEED Scholars were matched to non-CEED URB trainees. Compared to matched URB trainees, CEED graduates had more peer-reviewed publications (p=0.0261) and were more likely to be an assistant professor (p=0.0145). CONCLUSIONS: Programs that support URB researchers can help expand and diversify the biomedical research workforce. CEED has been successful despite the challenges of a small demographic pool.

Developing a Training Program to Diversify the Biomedical Research Workforce.

The National Institutes of Health has made considerable investments to diversify the biomedical research workforce. Towards this goal, the authors partnered with representatives from several minority-serving institutions (MSIs) to develop training for the next generation of researchers. To ensure the most effective training program, the authors conducted a needs assessment with junior and senior investigators from the partnering MSIs. In 2016, the authors conducted focus groups and interviews with 23 junior investigators as well as in-depth interviews with 6 senior investigators from the partnering institutions with the goal of identifying specific areas of training and support that would help junior investigators at MSIs develop and sustain research careers. The data were transcribed and coded, and thematic analysis was conducted. The authors determined four areas in which training and support were needed: training in the "informal curriculum" (skills not covered in traditional clinical research courses), protected time for research training, opportunities to create career-advancing work products, and networking opportunities. The themes that were identified informed the development of the LEADS (Leading Emerging and Diverse Scientists to Success) program. The program consists of 10 instructor-led online modules each lasting approximately one month in duration with weekly synchronous sessions. Scholars are expected to be able to devote at least 20% of their time to the program.

A Multi-Pronged Approach to Diversifying the Workforce.

The biomedical workforce continues to lack diversity, despite growing evidence demonstrating the advantages of diverse teams in workplaces for creativity and innovation. At the University of Pittsburgh Institute for Clinical Research Education, we have taken a multi-pronged, collaborative approach to enhance the diversity of our trainees and scholars. We started by implementing a program for postdoctoral fellows and junior faculty, the Career Education and Enhancement for Health Care Research Diversity (CEED) program. We then built on this program and created a sister program for medical students (CEED II). These two programs were intended to build a local community of diverse researchers. Following the success of these programs, we extended our efforts and pursued federal funding to establish other programs. Our first funded program was designed to teach leadership and career coaching skills to mentors who are committed to mentoring people from diverse backgrounds, the Professional Mentoring Skills Enhancing Diversity (PROMISED) program. We then partnered with minority serving institutions to create a fellowship in translational research skills training, Leading Emerging and Diverse Scientists to Success (LEADS), training in patient-centered outcomes research, Expanding National Capacity in PCOR through Training (ENACT), and a year-long fellowship to work with a specific mentor at Pitt, the Clinical and Translational Science (CTS) Fellowship (TL1). With recognition that much work remains to be done, we believe these programs represent a small but positive step toward diversifying the biomedical workforce.

Assessing an assessment: The review and redesign of a competency-based mid-degree evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Little has been published about competency-based education in academic medicine, in particular how competencies are or should be assessed. This paper re-examines a competency-based assessment for M.S. students in clinical research, and "assesses the assessment" 4 years into its implementation. METHODS: Data were gathered from student surveys and interviews with program advisors, and common themes were identified. We then made refinements to the assessment, and student surveys were administered to evaluate the impact of the changes. RESULTS: Research results suggested the need to improve communication, time the assessment to align with skills development and opportunities for planning, streamline, and clarify expectations with examples and templates. After implementing these changes, data suggest that student satisfaction has improved without any reduction in academic rigor. CONCLUSION: The effective implementation of competency-based training in clinical and translational research requires the development of a scholarly literature on effective methods of assessment. This paper contributes to that nascent body of research.

The teams of early-career investigators: A qualitative pilot study.

Introduction: Early team experiences can influence the professional trajectories of early-career investigators profoundly, yet they remain underexplored in the team science literature, which has focused primarily on large, multisite teams led by established researchers. To better understand the unique challenges of teams led by early-career investigators, we conducted a qualitative pilot study. Methods: Interviews were conducted with the principal investigator and members of 5 teams led by KL2 and K12 scholars at the University of Pittsburgh. A code book was developed and thematic analysis was conducted. Results: Seven distinct themes emerged. Interview subjects reported a high level of trust and strong communication patterns on their teams; however, the data also suggested underlying tensions that have the potential to escalate into larger problems if unaddressed. Conclusions: This study yields a deeper understanding of teams led by early-career investigators, which can help us provide appropriately targeted training and support.