ArticleAcademic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges2026
Building strong grant writers in academic medicine: outcomes of early-career faculty enrolled in the University of California San Diego Health Sciences Grant Writing Course.
Article in Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The success of early-career faculty at R1 research-intensive institutions depends on institutions' ability to establish an independent, grant-funded research program in a highly competitive funding environment in which only 2,174 of 11,463 National Institutes of Health (NIH) applications (19%) submitted by early-stage investigators were funded in 2023. This report summarizes outcomes of early-career faculty enrolled in the University of California San Diego Health Sciences Grant Writing Course (GWC), which provided a structured, step-by-step, multicomponent experience focused on preparing a competitive grant proposal. The program evaluation includes effects on grant submission and funding rates and grant-writing self-efficacy after 2 years of follow-up. Eighty-five early-career faculty members were enrolled in the GWC from 2017 to 2021, including 48 (56%) MD and MD-PhD physicians, 37 (44%) PhD faculty, 45 (53%) women, and 15 (18%) self-identifying as being from underrepresented racial or ethnic backgrounds. Data from 82 participants (98%) at 12 or 24 months were used for grant outcomes, and 75 participants (88%) with 12- and 24-month data were used in the self-efficacy analysis. Seventy-one participants (87%) submitted their course proposal, and 79 (96%) submitted at least one grant application by the 2-year follow-up. Thirty-three GWC proposals (40%) were funded, and 65 participants (79%) received at least one grant as principal investigator or multiple principal investigator since taking the course. Success rates were equal for men (26 [79%]) and women (34 [79%]) and highest (12 [86%]) for underrepresented faculty. Of the funded proposals, 49 (30%) were NIH R01, R01-equivalent, or R21 awards. Underrepresented participants had the highest (19 [48%]) success rate. Participants' confidence in the 19 grant-writing skills inventory increased overall. The GWC is a highly effective and innovative program for improving grant-writing success of early-career, women, and underrepresented faculty in academic medicine.
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.