ArticleJournal of women's health (2002)2016
Patterns of Feedback on the Bridge to Independence: A Qualitative Thematic Analysis of NIH Mentored Career Development Award Application Critiques.
Article in Journal of women's health (2002), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Dream job orthopedics and trauma surgery-This can also come true for women!]Der Unfallchirurg · 2021Article
- Occupational segregation by gender in veterinary specialties: Who we are choosing, or who is choosing us.Veterinary surgery : VS · 2021Article
- Perceptions of Pressures to Alter or Misrepresent Time Allocation Among Clinician-Researchers With NIH Career Development Awards.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2020Article
- Gender, Race, and Grant Reviews: Translating and Responding to Research Feedback.Personality & social psychology bulletin · 2020Article
- How Gender Stereotypes May Limit Female Faculty Advancement in Communication Sciences and Disorders.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2018Review
- Are Female Applicants Disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health Peer Review? Combining Algorithmic Text Mining and Qualitative Methods to Detect Evaluative Differences in R01 Reviewers' Critiques.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNIH Mentored Career Development (K) Awards bridge investigators from mentored to independent research. A smaller proportion of women than men succeed in this transition. The aim of this qualitative study was to analyze reviewers' narrative critiques of K award applications and explore thematic content of feedback provided to male and female applicants.
methodWe collected 88 critiques, 34 from 9 unfunded and 54 from 18 funded applications, from 70% (n = 26) of investigators at the University of Wisconsin-Madison with K awards funded between 2005 and 2009 on the first submission or after revision. We qualitatively analyzed text in the 5 critique sections: candidate, career development plan, research plan, mentors, and environment and institutional commitment. We explored thematic content within these sections for male and female applicants and for applicants who had received a subsequent independent research award by 2014.
resultsThemes revealed consistent areas of criticism for unfunded applications and praise for funded applications. Subtle variations in thematic content appeared for male and female applicants: For male applicants criticism was often followed by advice but for female applicants it was followed by questions about ability; praise recurrently characterized male but not female applicants' research as highly significant with optimism for future independence. Female K awardees that obtained subsequent independent awards stood out as having track records described as "outstanding."
conclusionThis exploratory study suggests that K award reviewer feedback, particularly for female applicants, should be investigated as a potential contributor to research persistence and success in crossing the bridge to independence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.