In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, medical educators have transformed pre-clerkship anatomy curricula to online formats. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and student perceptions of an online near-peer anatomy curriculum. The classes of 2022 and 2023 completed identical foundational anatomy curricula in-person, whereas the class of 2024 completed an adapted curriculum for remote online learning. Quantitative and qualitative responses were used to compare attitudes between instructional methods. Assessment scores and evaluation survey responses were collected from the classes of 2022 (n = 185), 2023 (n = 184), and 2024 (n = 183). Mean assessment scores (± SD) for the classes of 2022, 2023, and 2024 were 93.64% (±5.86), 93.75% (±4.09), and 92.04% (±4.83), respectively. Post-hoc group comparisons showed the class of 2024 scored significantly lower than the two previous classes [2022: (H(1) = 18.58, P < 0.001), 2023: (H(1) = 18.65, P < 0.001)]. Mean survey results concerning curriculum quality were 4.06 / 5.00 for the class of 2023 and 3.57 / 5.0 for the class of 2024 (t(365) = 2.67, P = 0.008). Considering a small effect size (η 2 = 0.034), there was no meaningful difference in student assessment scores. A potential drawback of online near-peer anatomy teaching remains in student perceptions of course quality; qualitative feedback suggested technological limitations and perceptions of online course instructors were partly responsible for lower student satisfaction. Following the Covid-19 pandemic, medical educators should incorporate the lessons learned from this unique educational inflection point to improve curricula moving forward.

The Youth Enjoy Science (YES) Program at the Case Comprehensive Cancer Center is a National Cancer Institute (NCI) R25- funded training grant, designed to increase the pipeline of underrepresented minor­ity (URM) students entering college and pursuing biomedical research and health care careers in the Cleveland Metropolitan and surrounding school districts. The three components of the program include: Learn to Beat Cancer, engaging middle school students and their families; Research to Beat Cancer, designed for high school students and college undergraduates; and Teach to Beat Cancer, focused on enhancing science, technology, engineering, and mathemat­ics (STEM) teaching capacity among high school teachers. This study focuses on Research to Beat Cancer, which, in 2018 enrolled 36 URM students as paid sum­mer scholars. Students were assigned to a faculty mentor, were taught laboratory safety, responsible conduct of research and the scientific method, and then immersed in full-time laboratory cancer research during an eight-week period. Twice each week, students participated in Lunch and Learn Seminars where faculty members provided combined motivational and scientific guidance lectures. In a capstone poster session at the end of the program, students presented their research to peers, medical and graduate students, family members, faculty, community members and leaders. Students’ perceptions of the program were reported using descriptive statistics and qualitative thematic analyses. Twenty-four of the 2018 YES students (67%) and 19 (53%) mentors completed the online post-program survey. Opportunity was a major qualitative theme from student and mentor responses. Future research will investigate the long-term impacts of YES, including college enrollment.Ethn Dis. 2020;30(1):15-24; doi:10.18865/ed.30.1.15

This version may be subject to change during the production process.

indepth research immersion STEM programs to engage high school students in biomedical research and encourage pursuit of careers in health-related research and clinical care. Due to COVID-19, the 2020 programs were delivered entirely virtually. Student and faculty perceptions of the virtual experience were evaluated using surveys and focus groups. Ninety percent of students felt the virtual program met expectations. Student rankings for programmatic components that could remain virtual in future years showed a preference for highly interactive activities, especially mentorship and dialogue-based activities like discussions of science in the news. Ninety-seven percent of faculty agreed students' scientific knowledge improved. Faculty commented that certain research projects (e.g., data analysis, literature reviews) were highly appropriate for a virtual program, but that the lack of hands-on laboratory activities was challenging. Increased individual attention, flexibility, and independence were hailed as strengths of the virtual program. These findings identify activities that sustain student interest in biomedical, healthcare, and cancer related research using a virtual medium and indicate mentorship and interactive discussion-based activities enhance virtual education. Moreover, the results support incorporation of interactive online pedagogical approaches to enhance student engagement virtually and in-person.

Background Evaluating outcomes of the clinical and translational research (CTR) training of a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hub (eg, the KL2 program) requires the selection of reliable, accessible, and standardized measures. As measures of scholarly success usually focus on publication output and extramural funding, CTSA hubs have started to use bibliometrics to evaluate the impact of their supported scholarly activities. However, the evaluation of KL2 programs across CTSAs is limited, and the use of bibliometrics and follow-on funding is minimal. Objective This study seeks to evaluate scholarly productivity, impact, and collaboration using bibliometrics and federal follow-on funding of KL2 scholars from 3 CTSA hubs and to define and assess CTR training success indicators. Methods The sample included KL2 scholars from 3 CTSA institutions (A-C). Bibliometric data for each scholar in the sample were collected from both SciVal and iCite, including scholarly productivity, citation impact, and research collaboration. Three federal follow-on funding measures (at the 5-year, 8-year, and overall time points) were collected internally and confirmed by examining a federal funding database. Both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were computed using SPSS to assess the bibliometric and federal follow-on funding results. Results A total of 143 KL2 scholars were included in the sample with relatively equal groups across the 3 CTSA institutions. The included KL2 scholars produced more publications and citation counts per year on average at the 8-year time point (3.75 publications and 26.44 citation counts) than the 5-year time point (3.4 publications vs 26.16 citation counts). Overall, the KL2 publications from all 3 institutions were cited twice as much as others in their fields based on the relative citation ratio. KL2 scholars published work with researchers from other US institutions over 2 times (5-year time point) or 3.5 times (8-year time point) more than others in their research fields. Within 5 years and 8 years postmatriculation, 44.1% (63/143) and 51.7% (74/143) of KL2 scholars achieved federal funding, respectively. The KL2-scholars of Institution C had a significantly higher citation rate per publication than the other institutions (P<.001). Institution A had a significantly lower rate of nationally field-weighted collaboration than did the other institutions (P<.001). Institution B scholars were more likely to have received federal funding than scholars at Institution A or C (P<.001). Conclusions Multi-institutional data showed a high level of scholarly productivity, impact, collaboration, and federal follow-on funding achieved by KL2 scholars. This study provides insights on the use of bibliometric and federal follow-on funding data to evaluate CTR training success across institutions. CTSA KL2 programs and other CTR career training programs can benefit from these findings in terms of understanding metrics of career success and using that knowledge to develop highly targeted strategies to support early-stage career development of CTR investigators.

INTRODUCTION: Evaluating clinical and translational research (CTR) mentored training programs is challenging because no two programs are alike. Careful selection of appropriate metrics is required to make valid comparisons between individuals and between programs. The KL2 program provides mentored-training for early stage CTR investigators. Clinical and Translational Awards (CSTAs) across the country have unique KL2 programs. The evaluation of KL2 programs has begun to incorporate bibliometrics to measure KL2 scholar and program impact. METHODS: This study investigated demographic differences in bibliometric performance and post-K award funding of KL2 scholars and compared the bibliometric performance and post-K award federal funding of KL2 scholars and other mentored-K awardees at the same institution. Data for this study included SciVal and iCite bibliometrics and NIH RePORTER grant information for mentored-K awardees (K08, K23, and KL2) at Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) between 2005 and 2013. RESULTS: Results showed no demographics differences within the KL2 program scholars. Bibliometric differences between KL2 and other mentored-K awardee indicated an initial KL2 advantage for the number of publications at five years post-matriculation (i.e., the start of the K-award). Regression analyses indicated the number of initial publications was a significant predictor of federal grant funding at the same time point. Analysis beyond the five-year post matriculation point did not result in a sustained, significant KL2-advantage. CONCLUSIONS: Factors that contributed to the grant funding advantage need to be determined. Additionally, differences between translational and clinical bibliometrics must be interpreted with caution and appropriate metrics for translational science must be established.

No abstract

A Near Peer Mentoring Program (NPMP) was developed in which Medical Student Training Program(MSTP) students met weekly with small groups of high school students who were participating in an intensive summer biomedical research immersion program. The goal of the NPMP was to provide and engage the high school students with opportunities to express and discuss their research and more importantly, their stresses and concerns. After initial reservations, the NPMP provided a comfortable venue for high school students to engage in discussions of both laboratory and personal topics. Overall, their concerns and stresses were expressed in five categories: 1) College Preparation, 2) Preparation for MD and PhD Training and Careers, 3) Summer Research Programmatic Issues and Laboratory Social Structure, 4) Social Issues, and 5) Health and Wellness. High school students identified the following major factors as contributing to programmatic success: relatability, role models, comfort and approachability, organization, and mentor fit. The Near Peer Mentoring initiative revealed the need for STEM and other programs targeting academic success and career development to be alert to social and emotional concerns of students and to provide opportunities for their expression, discussion and guidance.