L LuAnn Minich1, Victoria L Pemberton2, Lara S Shekerdemian3, Morgan M Millar4, Jane W Newburger5, Andrew C Glatz6, Eric M Graham7, Richard J Czosek8, Sara K Pasquali9, Mike Seed10, William L Border11. 1. 1Primary Children's Hospital and University of Utah,Salt Lake City,UT,USA. 2. 2National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute,Bethesda,MD,USA. 3. 3Texas Children's Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine,Houston,TX,USA. 4. 4Department of Internal Medicine,University of Utah,Salt Lake City,UT,USA. 5. 5Children's Hospital,Boston,MA,USA. 6. 6Children's Hospital of Philadelphia,Philadelphia,PA,USA. 7. 7Medical University of South Carolina,Charleston,SC,USA. 8. 8Cincinnati Children's Hospital and Medical Center,Cincinnati,OH,USA. 9. 9University of Michigan C.S. Mott Children's Hospital,Ann Arbor,MI,USA. 10. 10Hospital for Sick Children,Toronto,ON,Canada. 11. 11Children's Hospital of Atlanta,Atlanta,GA,USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Pediatric Heart Network designed a career development award to train the next generation of clinician scientists in paediatric-cardiology-related research, a historically underfunded area. We sought to identify the strengths/weaknesses of the programme and describe the scholars' academic achievements and the network's return on investment. METHODS: Survey questions designed to evaluate the programme were sent to applicants - 13 funded and 19 unfunded applicants - and 20 mentors and/or principal investigators. Response distributions were calculated. χ2 tests of association assessed differences in ratings of the application/selection processes among funded scholars, unfunded applicants, and mentors/principal investigators. Scholars reported post-funding academic achievements. RESULTS: Survey response rates were 88% for applicants and 100% for mentor/principal investigators. Clarity and fairness of the review were rated as "clear/fair" or "very clear/very fair" by 98% of respondents, but the responses varied among funded scholars, unfunded applicants, and mentors/principal investigators (clarity χ2=10.85, p=0.03; fairness χ2=16.97, p=0.002). Nearly half of the unfunded applicants rated feedback as "not useful" (47%). "Expanding their collaborative network" and "increasing publication potential" were the highest-rated benefits for scholars. Mentors/principal investigators found the programme "very" valuable for the scholars (100%) and the network (75%). The 13 scholars were first/senior authors for 97 abstracts and 109 manuscripts, served on 22 Pediatric Heart Network committees, and were awarded $9,673,660 in subsequent extramural funding for a return of ~$10 for every scholar dollar spent. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, patient satisfaction with the Scholar Award was high and scholars met many academic markers of success. Despite this, programme challenges were identified and improvement strategies were developed.
BACKGROUND: The Pediatric Heart Network designed a career development award to train the next generation of clinician scientists in paediatric-cardiology-related research, a historically underfunded area. We sought to identify the strengths/weaknesses of the programme and describe the scholars' academic achievements and the network's return on investment. METHODS: Survey questions designed to evaluate the programme were sent to applicants - 13 funded and 19 unfunded applicants - and 20 mentors and/or principal investigators. Response distributions were calculated. χ2 tests of association assessed differences in ratings of the application/selection processes among funded scholars, unfunded applicants, and mentors/principal investigators. Scholars reported post-funding academic achievements. RESULTS: Survey response rates were 88% for applicants and 100% for mentor/principal investigators. Clarity and fairness of the review were rated as "clear/fair" or "very clear/very fair" by 98% of respondents, but the responses varied among funded scholars, unfunded applicants, and mentors/principal investigators (clarity χ2=10.85, p=0.03; fairness χ2=16.97, p=0.002). Nearly half of the unfunded applicants rated feedback as "not useful" (47%). "Expanding their collaborative network" and "increasing publication potential" were the highest-rated benefits for scholars. Mentors/principal investigators found the programme "very" valuable for the scholars (100%) and the network (75%). The 13 scholars were first/senior authors for 97 abstracts and 109 manuscripts, served on 22 Pediatric Heart Network committees, and were awarded $9,673,660 in subsequent extramural funding for a return of ~$10 for every scholar dollar spent. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, patient satisfaction with the Scholar Award was high and scholars met many academic markers of success. Despite this, programme challenges were identified and improvement strategies were developed.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Robert M Califf; Deborah A Zarin; Judith M Kramer; Rachel E Sherman; Laura H Aberle; Asba Tasneem Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-05-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: John W Petersen; David E Winchester; Ki Park; Anita D Szady; Domenico G Della Rocca; Mustafa Ahmed; Hillary Tassin; Yanfei Qi; Carl J Pepine Journal: Regen Med Date: 2014 Impact factor: 3.806
Authors: Helen L Yin; Janice Gabrilove; Rebecca Jackson; Carol Sweeney; Alecia M Fair; Robert Toto Journal: Acad Med Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Georgeanna F W B Robinson; Lisa S Schwartz; Linda A DiMeglio; Jasjit S Ahluwalia; Janice L Gabrilove Journal: Acad Med Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Sara K Pasquali; Jonathan R Kaltman; J William Gaynor; Brian W McCrindle; Jane W Newburger; Brett R Anderson; Mark A Scheurer; Nelangi M Pinto; Jeffrey B Anderson; Matthew E Oster; Jeffrey P Jacobs; Bradley S Marino; Carlos M Mery; Gail D Pearson Journal: Cardiol Young Date: 2019-08-06 Impact factor: 1.093