Trial reportPloS one2025
A randomized trial of grant writing coaching groups: Baseline analysis of early-career scientists' research background, demographics, and mentorship variables.
Trial report in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionRacial, ethnic, and gender disparities in academic career advancement persist in biomedical disciplines. One approach to addressing this problem is systematizing access to mentorship in critical skills such as grant writing. This report summarizes the baseline characteristics of early-career investigators who enrolled in a randomized trial of a group coaching intervention focused on National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant application development.
methodsSurveys assessed participants' demographic characteristics, research focus, prior publications and grant submissions, self-efficacy for grantsmanship and career advancement, and access to mentorship. Two-sided t-test and Fisher's exact test were performed to compare baseline variables by gender identity (male/female) and by background from a racial or ethnic population that is an underrepresented minority group in biomedical research (non-URM/URM).
resultsThe study sample includes 271 faculty and 96 postdoctoral fellows. Sixty-two percent of faculty and 76.0% of postdoctoral fellows identified as female. Nearly half (45.4% of faculty, 49.0% of postdocs) were from URM populations in biomedical research. At baseline, most were conducting clinical and translational research at institutions with high levels of research activity. Past submission of NIH R-series applications was limited; 29.9% of faculty had submitted K applications. On average, participants had moderate levels of self-efficacy (in grantsmanship and career advancement) and research-related mentoring support. Male and non-URM participants had a higher mean number of previous publications. For the remaining variables, there were no or minimal differences by gender identity and URM status.
conclusionsEarly-career investigators from diverse backgrounds are motivated to engage in external grant writing coaching programs regardless of existing mentorship and other supports at their home institutions, suggesting that grant coaching can provide complementary value.
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.