Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30906160›Full record

ArticleEthnicity & disease2019

Exploring Professional Development for New Investigators Underrepresented in the Federally Funded Biomedical Research Workforce.

Japera Hemming, Kristin Eide, Eileen Harwood, Ratib Ali, Zhu Zhu, Jason Cutler, National Research Mentoring Network Coaching Group Directors

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ethnicity & disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Open-source Tools for Training Resources - OTTR.Journal of statistics and data science education : an official journal of the of the American Statistical Association · 2023
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The Society for Prevention Research 20 Years Later: a Summary of Training Needs.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Japera HemmingClinical Research Center, Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Kristin EideDepartment of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
Eileen HarwoodSchool of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Ratib AliDepartment of Economics, Boston College, Boston, MA.
Zhu ZhuDepartment of Economics, Boston College, Boston, MA.
Jason CutlerDepartment of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
National Research Mentoring Network Coaching Group Directors

Funding

National Research Mentoring Network for a Diverse Biomedical WorkforceU54GM119023 · NIGMS · BOSTON COLLEGE · PI OFILI, ELIZABETH O., OKUYEMI, KOLAWOLE S · 2015 to 2018
$15.3M
NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM119023
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) is a strategic partnership whose goals include remedying documented disparities by race and ethnicity in the awarding of National Institutes of Health research grants. Our objectives were to offer a profile of early-career investigators who applied to NRMN's Grantsmanship Coaching Programs (GCP) and test for differences in the research productivity, professional obligations, research resources, and motivations of applicants from underrepresented groups (URGs) compared with applicants from well-represented groups (WRGs). We also evaluated how employment at a minority serving institution (MSI) influenced access to research resources and professional obligations. Participants: 880 investigators who submitted online applications to join an NRMN GCP between August 1, 2015 and February 1, 2018. Methods: We used two-sample tests of proportions and logistic regression to explore differences in applicants' characteristics and local research environment by group (URG vs WRG) and institution type (MSI vs Other). Results: URG and WRG applicants did not differ in grant application submission history. However, URG applicants had published fewer articles than WRG peers (9.8 vs 15.3, P<.001) and fewer articles as first/last author (4.4 vs 6.9, P<.001). URG applicants reported less access to core facilities to conduct research (74% vs 81%, P<.05). Investigators at MSIs reported less access to collaborators (P<.01) and departmental colleagues with federal funding (P<.001) and spent less time on conducting research (P<.001). URGs were more motivated to seek professional development support to expand their peer networks (P<.05) and advance their careers (P<.001). Conclusions: Our findings identified several points of intervention to help applicants from URGs to improve their future chances of obtaining competitive funding.

Indexed as

Minority GroupsResearch Support as TopicBiomedical ResearchHumansMentoringNeeds AssessmentResearch PersonnelResource AllocationUnited StatesDiversityMinority Faculty GroupsProfessional DevelopmentResearch GrantsResearch Resources

Identifiers

PMID30906160
PMCPMC6428175

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.