ArticleEthnicity & disease2019
Exploring Professional Development for New Investigators Underrepresented in the Federally Funded Biomedical Research Workforce.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Factors That Facilitate and Hinder Historically Black Colleges and Universities Faculty Research Success.Journal of diversity in higher education · 2026Article
- Addressing structural mentoring barriers in postdoctoral training: a qualitative study.Studies in graduate and postdoctoral education · 2025Article
- Health Equity Leadership and Mentoring (HELM): A health equity-focused early-career development program to promote biomedical workforce diversity.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- A commentary on forging a path for CHANGE: culturally focused HIV training for the next generation in pursuit of equity.Critical public health · 2024Article
- Open-source Tools for Training Resources - OTTR.Journal of statistics and data science education : an official journal of the of the American Statistical Association · 2023Article
- Diversifying the genomic data science research community.Genome research · 2022Review
- Mentoring New and Early-Stage Investigators and Underrepresented Minority Faculty for Research Success in Health-Related Fields: An Integrative Literature Review (2010-2020).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- Mentoring Experiences and Publication Productivity among Early Career Biomedical Investigators and Trainees.Ethnicity & disease · 2021Article
- Coaching tailored by stages: A valuable educational strategy to achieve independence in research.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2021Article
- The Society for Prevention Research 20 Years Later: a Summary of Training Needs.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2020Article
- Foreword: Strategic Partnerships to Advance Health Equity.Ethnicity & disease · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.