This study describes the design and implementation of remote Summer undergraduate research programs during the COVID-19 pandemic, including program strengths and recommendations for improvement from the perspectives of undergraduate researchers.

Background: A vancomycin target of area under the curve to minimum inhibitory concentration (AUC:MIC) ratio ≥400 is recommended for treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia. Objective: To evaluate vancomycin total daily dose (TDD) achieving trough targets versus a calculated strategy achieving AUC targets based on body mass index (BMI). Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed within a large hospital network. Patients with MRSA bacteremia were eligible if they received vancomycin with a steady-state trough (15-20 mg/L). Cockcroft-Gault was used to estimate creatinine clearance, calculating vancomycin clearance and AUC. Patients were stratified by BMI (less than/greater than 30 kg/m2). The primary outcome was vancomycin TDD for the trough-based strategy compared with an AUC-dosing strategy. Results: A total of 119 patients were included, including 51 (42.9%) and 68 (57.1%) patients with high- and low-BMI, respectively. The TDD for trough-based dosing (2390.76 ± 1224.59 mg) differed significantly from AUC-based dosing (1985.07 ± 616.18 mg) across the cohort ( P = 0.0014). For patients with high BMI, there was a significant difference ( P < 0.0001) in TDD between trough (2637.25 ± 1327.89 mg) versus AUC (1918.71 ± 625.89 mg) strategies. No difference in TDD between dosing strategies was observed among low-BMI patients. Across all patients, 46 (38.7%) experienced acute kidney injury (AKI); high-BMI patients experienced higher rates of AKI compared with low-BMI patients (54.9 vs 26.5%; P = 0.002). Conclusions and Relevance: An AUC-based dosing strategy may reduce vancomycin TDD required for MRSA bacteremia compared with trough-based dosing, particularly for patients with higher BMI.

Undergraduates participating in remote research programs experienced gains in scientific self-efficacy similar those observed in in-person research. Students experienced gains in scientific identity, graduate and career intentions, and perceptions of benefits and costs of doing research only if they started their remote undergraduate research experiences at lower levels.

In-person undergraduate research experiences (UREs) promote students' integration into careers in life science research. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted institutions hosting summer URE programs to offer them remotely, raising questions about whether undergraduates who participate in remote research can experience scientific integration. To address this, we investigated indicators of scientific integration for students who participated in remote life science URE programs in summer 2020. We found that these students experienced gains in their scientific self-efficacy and scientific identity similar to results reported for in-person UREs. We also found that these students perceived high benefits and low costs of doing research at the outset of their programs, and their perceptions did not change despite the remote circumstances. Yet, their perceptions differed by program, indicating that programs differentially affected students' perceptions of the costs of doing research. Finally, we observed that students with prior research experience made greater gains in self-efficacy and identity, as well as in their perceptions of the alignment of their values with those of the scientific community, in comparison to students with no prior research experience. This finding suggests that additional programming may be needed for undergraduates with no prior experience to benefit from remote research.

The COVID-19 pandemic shut down undergraduate research programs across the U.S. Twenty-three sites offered remote undergraduate research programs in the life sciences during summer 2020. Given the unprecedented offering of remote research experiences, we carried out a study to describe and evaluate these programs. Using structured templates, we documented how programs were designed and implemented, including who participated. Through focus groups and surveys, we identified programmatic strengths and shortcomings as well as recommendations for improvements from the perspectives of participating students. Strengths included the quality of mentorship, opportunities for learning and professional development, and development of a sense of community. Weaknesses included limited cohort building, challenges with insufficient structure, and issues with technology. Although all programs had one or more activities related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice, these topics were largely absent from student reports even though programs coincided with a peak in national consciousness about racial inequities and structural racism. Our results provide evidence for designing remote REUs that are experienced favorably by students. Our results also indicate that remote REUs are sufficiently positive to further investigate their affordances and constraints, including the potential to scale up offerings, with minimal concern about disenfranchising students.

No abstract

Background. Studying science identity development has been useful for understanding students' continuation in science-related education and career paths. Yet, how science contexts shape students' science identity development, especially as students engage in research at the undergraduate and graduate level, is still largely unexplored. Here we integrate science identity and professional identity theories to investigate how research training shapes science identity. We focus on a specialized form of science identity we call science researcher identity. We characterize how the features of an individual's research experience, and their personal characteristics interact to influence whether and how they see themselves as a science researcher. We accomplished this in two phases of qualitative research. First, we surveyed 548 undergraduate researchers about how their research experience influenced their identity as a scientist. Then we interviewed 30 early career researchers, including undergraduate, postbaccalaureate, and doctoral students, about their views of themselves as researchers and how elements of their research training shaped their views. Results. Early career researchers (ECRs) viewed themselves as either science students or science researchers. How ECRs recognized themselves depended on how they viewed the purpose of their daily work and the extent to which they perceived autonomy and intellectual responsibility in their research. Individual-level factors, including research and researcher conceptions, research skill perceptions, and career intentions, influenced whether ECRs identified as science students or science researchers. ECRs also recognized themselves more or less as researchers based on contextual factors like the nature of their work, social interactions, and their perceptions of the norms within their research group and institution. ECRs considered how individual and contextual factors affected their science researcher identity through a lens we call sense-making. We further detail the processes ECRs use to make sense of their science identity and the factors that influence it. Conclusions. We synthesized our findings to form a conceptual model of science researcher identity development, which hypothesizes relationships among constructs related to science identity and professional identity development. Our results advance theory related to science identity, offer avenues for future investigation, and inform efforts to promote science researcher identity development.