ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
Brief Report
Revised

Interprofessional grant writing seminar for early career faculty in a small, isolated teaching center

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved]
PUBLISHED 30 Jul 2021
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Research on Research, Policy & Culture gateway.

Abstract

Small, isolated teaching centers have difficulty mentoring interprofessional junior faculty in research methods and grant writing. Peer mentoring programs for grant writing at larger institutions have been successful. In this short report, we describe our program that leveraged mentor experience using four framing seminars followed by project refinement in three-person peer groups and monthly mentored works in progress meetings. In its first year, ten faculty from medicine, psychology, and pharmacy completed the program and successfully obtained six funded grants. Five of the projects transitioned from single profession applications to interprofessional applications as participants connected and profession-specific expertise was identified. Refinements for future cohorts are discussed.

Keywords

Grants, Organized Financing, Mentoring, Peer, Interprofessional, Research Policy

Revised Amendments from Version 1

In this version we added one author (Sari Ambert-Pompei, MD) inadvertently not listed on the first draft, and we added some further analysis on participant satisfaction (depicted in Table 3) suggested by reviewers.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Dawn DeWitt
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Mamta Singh

Introduction

Over the past three decades there has been a decline in research funding (Alberts et al., 2014). The funding that is distributed in many disciplines goes to better established scientists and large, highly networked institutions (Szell & Sinatra, 2015; Traynor & Rafferty, 1999). Yet, research is an important element for early career faculty promotion in healthcare disciplines (Yeh et al., 2015). One solution that has been successful at larger institutions is self-organized peer mentoring (Johnson et al., 2011). This short report describes a year-long seminar at a small, isolated teaching center designed to expose early-career interprofessional faculty to basic research principles and then to facilitate small group peer mentoring in order that they might obtain their first research awards.

The Boise Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) provides primary, secondary, and specialty care to over 28,000 veterans each year in an outpatient system that includes five community-based outreach clinics around the state, a 46-bed hospital, an 11-bed inpatient substance abuse treatment center, and a collocated 28-bed nursing home. Boise VAMC has affiliations with the University of Washington School of Medicine (600 miles away), Gonzaga University Nurse Practitioner program (400 miles away), Idaho State University School of Pharmacy (250 miles away) and Boise State University School of Nursing. The facility maintains multiple training programs, including a nurse practitioner residency, pharmacy PGY 1 and PGY 2 residencies, psychology internship and postdoctoral residency, and an internal medicine residency.

Methods

Our local research office, The Boise VA Office of Research and Development, determined that our outcome data collection would constitute Quality Improvement work and would be considered exempt from IRB approval. The data collected was provided voluntarily by the group participants who gave permission to publish the results in a de-identified format.

Being a small academic facility, far from our major affiliates, and without a deep and rich network of research mentors, we decided to create a grant writing program with the following objectives:

  • 1) Help interprofessional junior clinician educators obtain their first research or program development/evaluation funding.

  • 2) Create a small group of peer-mentors with the experience to recapitulate this effort with future cohorts.

We developed a year-long program that consisted of four kick-off seminars delivered weekly followed by dividing into small project groups of three that collaborated to refine their questions and methods and share the work of information gathering such as grant opportunities, where to find online human subjects forms, etc. Each group reported back to the larger group approximately monthly during ‘works in progress’ (WIP) meetings.

The kick-off seminars were developed by a biostatistician (RT) and a local mentor (CSS) with previous success in obtaining National Institutes of Health, Veterans Affairs (VA), and foundation research funding as well as large program grants. They used a “flipped classroom” format with a research article covering the topic for the session handed out ahead of time to focus and stimulate class discussion and small group interaction. The topics and structure of these seminars are provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Description of the four initial seminars involved in the grant writing program.

Seminar TitleTopicsHandoutsArticles for Discussion
The research questionSharing potential research questions.

Discuss research paradigms
-   Reductionist
-   Constructivist
-   Realist
Identifying your research
question

Summary of research
paradigms

Research paradigm
examples
Wong et al. (1)
Realist Methods.
Research versus QI &
Program Evaluation
Is this research? Example-based discussion
pointing out key elements.
-   Intent to generalize
-   Design (randomization, double-blind, etc.)
-   Both can publish!
VHA operations decision
tree

Squire 2.0 Guidelines (3)
Sanders et al. (2)
Producing useful
evaluations in medical
education.
Experimental versus
Quasi-experimental
designs
When you can’t do an RCT due to cost,
ethics, or other constraint, how can you
control for confounders?
Table 1 & Table 2.
Campbell & Stanley

STROBE guidelines (5)

Decision tree approach
to analytic techniques
VanderWeele & Ding (4)
Sensitivity analysis,
E-values.
Intro to Qualitative
Research
-   Overall concepts
-   Study designs
-   Sampling strategy
-   Analytical methods
-   Adjudication
-   Software support
Qualitative research
summary

Data from actual study.
Small groups analyze for
themes.
Inui (6)
The virtue of Qualitative
and Quantitative research.

(1) Wong G, et al. (2012). Realist methods in medical education research: What are they and how can they contribute. Medical Education;46:89–96.

(2) Sanders, J., Brown, J., & Walsh, K. (2017). Producing useful evaluations in medical education. Education for Primary Care, 28, 137–140.

(3) Squire 2.0 guideliens http://squirestatement.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.ViewPage&PageID=471

(4) VanderWeele, T.J., Ding, P. (2017). Sensitivity analysis in observational research: Introducing the E-value. Annals of Internal Medicine, 167, 268–274.

(5) Strobe guidelines https://www.strobe-statement.org/fileadmin/Strobe/uploads/checklists/ STROBE_checklist_v4_combined.pdf

(6) Inui TS (1996) The virtue of qualitative and quantitative research. Ann Intern Med;125:770–771.

Following these seminars, the participants were divided into groups of three based on rough similarity of research questions and/or proposed methods. These groups decided how often to meet and how to support each other with moving forward on their projects.

Approximately monthly the large group had a WIP update. There was a report on the current state of each three-person group’s projects and any questions or barriers would be outlined. These sessions tended to distribute early expertise. For example, when one member discovered a new funding opportunity it was shared with the entire group. Or, if someone wondered how to navigate the IRB process, someone else who had navigated it would explain where the electronic forms were and offer to help. In addition, an early career faculty member from our affiliate, who had been a successful career development awardee, spoke to the group about the career development program and offered her contact information and assistance.

Results

Twelve (12) participants started the grant writing program. This included five (5) physicians, four (4) psychologists, and three (3) pharmacists. All but two completed the series (both withdrew from the program due to competing demands). Ten (10) were within three years of being hired to the Boise VA, and ten were academically early career, having entry level faculty appointments. Most had completed programs with less emphasis on research (e.g., PsyD or PharmD versus PhD, fellowships with clinical versus research emphasis).

After completing the grant writing program, six of the remaining ten participants submitted at least one research grant or program evaluation proposal for a total of 10 proposals. Six of these proposals were funded (see Table 2).

Table 2. Characteristics of the participants and grants submitted.

Participant
(role)
Years
since
training
Prior grant
writing
experience
Title of submitted grantFunding agency (amount
awarded if applicable)
Funded
Physician 1
(co-invest.)
26Y (NIH)NCI and VA interagency group
to accelerate trials enrollment
(NAVIGATE)
National Cancer Institute-
Physician 2
(co-PI)
2NAdvocacy 101: A curriculum for
advocacy for medical trainees in
Idaho
Idaho Medical Association
Foundation (US$5000)
+
Advocacy 101: A curriculum for
advocacy for medical trainees in
Idaho
St. Luke’s Healthcare System,
Executive Committee Grant
(US$5000)
+
Physician 3
(PI; co-invest.)
2Y (veterinary)Improving access for women
veterans through training:
Opportunity for resource support
for women’s musculoskeletal health
training programs
VA comprehensive women’s
health office of women’s
health services (US$57,320)
+
Education in musculoskeletal care,
Innovation network award
Center for Health Professions
Education in Musculoskeletal
Care (US$46,817)
+
Physician 43NDid not submit
Physician 52NWithdrew from program
Psychologist 1
(PI)
1NExploring veteran experience of an
interprofessional train primary care
clinic
VA HSR&D Merit Review, pilot
project program
-
Psychologist 22NDid not submit
Psychologist 32Y (dance non-
profit)
Did not submit
Psychologist 46NWithdrew from program
Pharmacist 1
(PI; co-invest.)
2NImpact of statin therapy on influenza
virus and vaccine
NIH small grant program (R03)-
Community-based influenza
screening, testing, and treatment.
Portneuf Health Trust
(US$10,275)
+
Pharmacist 2
(PI)
19NFacilitating innovative health
education scholarship
University of Washington,
Center for Leadership
and Innovation in Medical
Education (US$4000)
+
Pharmacist 311NWithdrew from program

Invest. = investigator; PI = principal investigator; NCI = National Cancer Institute; VA = Veterans Affairs; HSR&D = Health Services Research & Development; NIH = National Institutes of Health.

Additionally, we assessed participant satisfaction with the seminar series and continued productivity. Two years after the seminars were conducted we devised a brief impact questionnaire consisting of 5-point Likert-style questions (strongly disagree-1 to strongly agree-5) and a free text area. Response rate was 60%. The results were as follows (Table 3).

Table 3. Results of satisfaction survey.

QuestionScore (1 SD
to 5 SA)
Standard
deviation
Knowledge and skills for
design/grant writing
4.5+/- 0.55
Developed collaborators4.2+/- 0.4
Learned about new funding
opportunities
4.2+/- 0.75
Gained confidence4.2+/- 0.41
Improved academic career4.3+/- 0.52

Comments identified networking as the most important element (67% mentioned it) followed by increased confidence, new grant opportunities, and new skills mentioned by one responder each.

This cohort has gone on to submit at least 17 new grants, 6 (35%) of which six were funded for nearly $800,000. Funders included HRSA, VA Office of Academic Affairs, Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare, and Alaska Dept. of Health & Social Services.

Discussion

This grant writing seminar and peer support group met the initial objectives of the program and had some unintended positive consequences. The majority of the completing group members submitted a grant application. For most this was their first attempt. Five of the funding applications transitioned from single profession applications to interprofessional applications as connections were made between attendees in their small groups and profession-specific expertise was identified. Because funding sources look for team-based applications from multiple professions (Wuchty et al., 2007), this consequence may have a positive impact on funding success as interprofessional teams at this facility create connections and expand expertise and project success.

Lessons learned include starting the seminar series earlier in the academic year. We started the seminars in mid-summer and this created unnecessary time pressure for proposal submissions, which are usually due in the fall. Also, we would now consider prior experience as a factor as we create the small groups of three.

Our next step was to involve further partnership with the Boise VAMC’s research department. Unfortunately this seminar series was discontinued due to loss of key organizers (no longer working at the site) and a restructuring of the research department.

The research department is interested in expanding the scope and number of research projects and our modest success has demonstrated value. Our research department has agreed to partner in the ongoing development and expansion of this group. This partnership will increase access to instructors from the IRB, VA Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D) office and other major funders of VA research, and the Office of Research Oversight, to discuss distinctions between program evaluation/quality improvement research. These opportunities for direct discussion and questions will be invaluable to the next round of beginning grant writers.

This project had some weaknesses. Because it was not designed as research, no systematic survey of participants (satisfaction, skill improvements, etc.) was obtained. Several topics were identified that might have made the project more effective including types of grants available, navigating the IRB, writing your letter of intent, and budgets. These should be incorporated into future versions.

Conclusions

Small, isolated teaching centers struggle to provide support for designing and submitting research grants for their early career faculty. Any experienced potential mentors are quickly overwhelmed with mentees. Yet, research is an important element for these same early career faculty’s success. This program of four orienting seminars, three-person project groups, and monthly works in progress meetings was successful in obtaining initial grants for individuals and group expertise that could guide future cohorts. Components of the seminar are site-specific, but we still believe that it is feasible for other sites to adopt and adapt it to meet their individual needs. However, continuity of the program appears to depend somewhat on faculty and institutional stability. Individuals perceived a broad range of benefits, most notably creating a network of like-minded researchers. The original cohort continued to write and obtain grants at a high level.

Data availability

All data underlying the results are available as part of the article and no additional source data are required.

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2
VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 08 Oct 2020
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
- -
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
King I, Christopher A, Hansen A et al. Interprofessional grant writing seminar for early career faculty in a small, isolated teaching center [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2021, 9:1208 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.26092.2)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 2
VERSION 2
PUBLISHED 30 Jul 2021
Revised
Views
8
Cite
Reviewer Report 13 Aug 2021
Mamta Singh, VA Northeast Ohio Health Care System, Cleveland, OH, USA;  Professor of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA 
Approved
VIEWS 8
Thank you for the revisions and comments on sustainability.

The satisfaction results as well as the success of the initial cohort are helpful and speak to the benefits of this program.
Thank you for taking the ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Singh M. Reviewer Report For: Interprofessional grant writing seminar for early career faculty in a small, isolated teaching center [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2021, 9:1208 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.30851.r90792)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 08 Oct 2020
Views
14
Cite
Reviewer Report 17 Nov 2020
Dawn DeWitt, The Department of Medical Education and Clinical Sciences, The Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine, Washington State University Spokane, Spokane, WA, USA 
Approved
VIEWS 14
This is a well-written brief, descriptive report of a capacity-building program at a relatively isolated small academic center.  The detail is enough to replicate the program and although some of the references are relatively old (Inui), they are sound and ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
DeWitt D. Reviewer Report For: Interprofessional grant writing seminar for early career faculty in a small, isolated teaching center [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2021, 9:1208 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.28793.r72757)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
  • Author Response 30 Jul 2021
    C. Scott Smith, Department of Medicine, Boise VA Medical Center, Boise, 83702, USA
    30 Jul 2021
    Author Response
    Thank you for your time, effort, and suggestions. We will be adding a post-script in response to another reviewer's suggestions you may want to see.
    Competing Interests: None
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
  • Author Response 30 Jul 2021
    C. Scott Smith, Department of Medicine, Boise VA Medical Center, Boise, 83702, USA
    30 Jul 2021
    Author Response
    Thank you for your time, effort, and suggestions. We will be adding a post-script in response to another reviewer's suggestions you may want to see.
    Competing Interests: None
Views
20
Cite
Reviewer Report 06 Nov 2020
Mamta Singh, VA Northeast Ohio Health Care System, Cleveland, OH, USA;  Professor of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 20
This is a brief report describing a grant writing seminar for early career interprofessional faculty in a small teaching center. The article presents the description of the 4 seminars that were included in this larger grant writing program and the ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Singh M. Reviewer Report For: Interprofessional grant writing seminar for early career faculty in a small, isolated teaching center [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2021, 9:1208 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.28793.r72758)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
  • Author Response 30 Jul 2021
    C. Scott Smith, Department of Medicine, Boise VA Medical Center, Boise, 83702, USA
    30 Jul 2021
    Author Response
    Thank you for your time and your comments. We agree that components of the seminar are site-specific, but still believe that it is feasible for other sites to adopt and ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
  • Author Response 30 Jul 2021
    C. Scott Smith, Department of Medicine, Boise VA Medical Center, Boise, 83702, USA
    30 Jul 2021
    Author Response
    Thank you for your time and your comments. We agree that components of the seminar are site-specific, but still believe that it is feasible for other sites to adopt and ... Continue reading

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2
VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 08 Oct 2020
Comment
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Sign In
If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

Email address not valid, please try again

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

Code not correct, please try again
Email us for further assistance.
Server error, please try again.