Enhancing the Careers of Under-Represented Junior Faculty in Biomedical Research: The Summer Institute Program to Increase Diversity (SIPID)

Abstract

The Summer Institute Program to Increase Diversity (SIPID) in Health-Related Research is a career advancement opportunity sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Three mentored programs address difficulties experienced by junior investigators in establishing independent research careers and academic advancement. Aims are to increase the number of faculty from under-represented minority groups who successfully compete for external research funding. Data were collected using a centralized data-entry system from three Summer Institutes. Outcomes include mentees' satisfaction rating about the program, grant and publications productivity and specific comments. Fifty-eight junior faculty mentees (38% male) noticeably improved their rates of preparing/submitting grant applications and publications, with a 18-23% increase in confidence levels in planning and conducting research. According to survey comments, the training received in grantsmanship skills and one-on-one mentoring were the most valuable program components. The SIPID mentoring program was highly valued by the junior faculty mentees. The program will continue in 2011-2014 as PRIDE (PRogram to Increase Diversity among individuals Engaged in health-related research). Long-term follow-up of current mentees will be indexed at five years post training (2013). In summary, these mentoring programs hope to continue increasing the diversity of the next generation of scientists in biomedical research.

Figure 1

Mean ratings (with standard error bars) for questions relating to Mentee’s experience levels (A is top panel) and attitudes, intentions and knowledge (B is bottom panel). The 5 bars for each question represent responses during the pre-evaluation (prior to the first summer), and at each post evaluation: post 1 (after 1^st summer), post 2 (after Mid-year), post 3 (after 2^nd summer) and post 4 (yearly follow-up). Questions are placed on the categorical X-axis, with mean ratings plotted on the Y-axis. In 1A, Likert categorical scores represent 1 (none), 2 (a little bit), 3 (a fair amount), 4 (a moderate amount), 5 (more than average) and 6 (very much). For the bottom panel (1B), Likert categorical scores are 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (slightly disagree), 4 (slightly agree), 5 (agree) and 6 (strongly agree).

Figure 2

Mean ratings for mentee ratings of mentor and mentoring team (A is top panel) and for mentees assessment of the overall program (B is bottom panel). See Figure 1 for definitions of axes. Likert categorical scores correspond to those in Figure 1B.

Figure 3

Grant and Publication Activities by Cohort. The percent of grants (A is top panel) and publications (B is bottom panel) by Cohort. For example, grant writing activities in Cohort 1 include 42% under development (N = 8 grants), 26% submitted or resubmitted (N = 5 grants) and 32% were funded (N = 6 grants). Similarly, for publication activities in Cohort 1, 15% (N = 12) manuscript are in preparation, 18% (N = 14) have been submitted and 67% (N = 52) are accepted for publication or have been published.