Introduction: Research is an important aspect of many medical students’ training. However, many medical students are not required to complete a scholarly project, and formal research training is often fragmented across the medical school curriculum. Thus, we developed an online, structured, asynchronous set of modules to introduce trainees to multiple topics relevant to the conduct of research. Methods: Research 101 was piloted by 27 first-year medical students at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. Students’ knowledge, confidence, and satisfaction were assessed using a final quiz and pre- and post-module surveys with five-point Likert-scaled questions and open-ended text responses. Results: Pre-module survey results showed that learners felt most confident in Conducting a literature search and least confident in Submitting an Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocol at UC. Post-module mean scores were significantly increased compared to pre-module results for all modules and questions (P < 0.05). The response to “The content of this module met my needs” was high across all modules with 236 (84.0%) “yes” responses. Thematic analysis of open-ended text responses from post-module surveys identified several improvements to individual modules and to the overall structure of Research 101. A final quiz of 25 multiple choice questions covering content from all required modules was required. The median score was 21. Conclusions: Comparison of post-module to pre-module survey scores provided clear evidence of improved learning across all topics. The modules developed were responsive to the students’ needs, and students provided additional improvements for subsequent iterations of Research 101.
Introduction: Research is an important aspect of many students’ training. However, formal research training is rarely included in curricula. Thus, we developed an online, asynchronous series of modules to introduce trainees to multiple topics that are relevant to the conduct of research. Methods: Research 101 was utilized by first-year medical students and undergraduate students conducting mentored research projects. Students’ knowledge, confidence, and satisfaction were assessed using pre- and post-module surveys with five-point Likert scaled questions, open-ended text responses, and a final quiz. Results: Pre-module survey results showed that learners felt most confident with the Conducting a literature search and Race and racism in medicine modules and least confident with the Submitting an Institutional Review Board protocol at UC module. Post-module survey responses were significantly increased compared to pre-module results for all modules and questions (p < 0.0001). The response to “The content of this module met my needs” was endorsed across all modules (84.9% “yes” responses). A final quiz of 25 multiple-choice questions was completed by 92 participants who received a median score of 21. Content analysis of open-ended post-module survey responses identified several strengths and opportunities for improvement in course content and instructional methods. Conclusions: These data demonstrate that significant learning resulted from completion of Research 101, as post-module survey scores were significantly higher than pre-module survey scores for all modules and questions. Final quiz scores were positive but also highlighted opportunity for additional trainee learning and will guide evolution of future modules.
The COVID-19 pandemic has been a devastating, global public health crisis. Public health systems in the United States heavily focused on getting people to adhere to preventive behaviors, and later, to get vaccinated. January through May of 2021 was a critical and volatile time period for COVID-19 cases, deaths, and expanding vaccination programs coinciding with important political and social events which will have a lasting impact on how the public views science, places trust in our government, and views individual rights. Having collected almost 1400 surveys, our goal was to assess vaccine behavior, explore attitudes toward receiving the vaccine, and identify trusted information sources. More than 83% of our survey respondents said they were at least partially vaccinated. Of 246 unvaccinated, 31.3% were somewhat or extremely likely to get vaccinated when available. Their two most common concerns were vaccine effectiveness (41.1%) and safety (40.2%). Significant differences were observed between respondents who were likely to be vaccinated in the future and those who were hesitant on three of five demographic variables. Our data provide unique insight into the history of behavior and motivations related to COVID-19 vaccines—what will be seen as a “wicked problem” for years to come.
OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The grant writing process provides investigators with critical thinking, problem solving, and communication skills, crucial for personal and professional development. However, opportunities for junior faculty to learn these skills are highly variable. Thus, we developed a grant writing program to assist in the preparation of an NIH R proposal. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The R Club Grant Program was implemented in 2021 for junior faculty of the University of Cincinnati’s College of Medicine and Center for Clinical & Translational Science & Training (CCTST). The program consists of a series of workshops (e.g., How to Craft a Specific Aims Page, How to Construct a Competitive R01 Proposal) utilizing examples of successful proposals and grant review criteria to demonstrate how to translate a conceptual framework into a research proposal (level 1). All participants can receive constructive feedback on a Specific Aims page from an experienced grant writer (level 2), and for a select cohort, the program provides comprehensive scientific content edits and iterative feedback on a full research proposal, with a focus on grantsmanship, presentation, and overall competitiveness (level 3). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Over three NIH grant cycles, the program to date has provided 38 early-career investigators with multi-level grant writing support. All participants attended the workshops and received supporting documents, 21 received feedback on a Specific Aims page, and 6 received one-on-one writing assistance on their full research proposal. Of the 6 investigators who received the greatest level of support, 3 have received NIH scientific review, with a 66.6% funding success rate for either an original (R01, n=1) or subsequent overlapping (R35, n=1) proposal. In a survey sent to workshop attendees, 100% of respondents (n=23) reported ( Strongly Agreed or Agreed ) that the training was a worthwhile investment in their professional development and 96% stated that they will be able to apply the knowledge and skills learned. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Initial evaluation measures suggest that grant writing support programs have great potential to enhance funding success rates. As the program evolves it will be crucial to evaluate both qualitative and quantitative feedback measures to ensure efforts are directed to the appropriate level(s) of service to maximize the funding success of our faculty.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.