Minich L LuAnn, Pemberton Victoria L, Shekerdemian Lara S, Millar Morgan M, Newburger Jane W, Glatz Andrew C, Graham Eric M, Czosek Richard J, Pasquali Sara K, Seed Mike, Border William L
1Primary Children's Hospital and University of Utah,Salt Lake City,UT,USA.
2National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute,Bethesda,MD,USA.
Cardiol Young. 2018 Jun;28(6):854-861. doi: 10.1017/S1047951118000483. Epub 2018 Apr 16.
The Pediatric Heart Network designed a career development award to train the next generation of clinician scientists in paediatric-cardiology-related research, a historically underfunded area. We sought to identify the strengths/weaknesses of the programme and describe the scholars' academic achievements and the network's return on investment.
Survey questions designed to evaluate the programme were sent to applicants - 13 funded and 19 unfunded applicants - and 20 mentors and/or principal investigators. Response distributions were calculated. χ2 tests of association assessed differences in ratings of the application/selection processes among funded scholars, unfunded applicants, and mentors/principal investigators. Scholars reported post-funding academic achievements.
Survey response rates were 88% for applicants and 100% for mentor/principal investigators. Clarity and fairness of the review were rated as "clear/fair" or "very clear/very fair" by 98% of respondents, but the responses varied among funded scholars, unfunded applicants, and mentors/principal investigators (clarity χ2=10.85, p=0.03; fairness χ2=16.97, p=0.002). Nearly half of the unfunded applicants rated feedback as "not useful" (47%). "Expanding their collaborative network" and "increasing publication potential" were the highest-rated benefits for scholars. Mentors/principal investigators found the programme "very" valuable for the scholars (100%) and the network (75%). The 13 scholars were first/senior authors for 97 abstracts and 109 manuscripts, served on 22 Pediatric Heart Network committees, and were awarded $9,673,660 in subsequent extramural funding for a return of ~$10 for every scholar dollar spent.
Overall, patient satisfaction with the Scholar Award was high and scholars met many academic markers of success. Despite this, programme challenges were identified and improvement strategies were developed.
儿科心脏网络设立了一项职业发展奖，旨在培养下一代从事儿科心脏病学相关研究的临床科学家，该领域历来资金不足。我们试图确定该项目的优势和劣势，并描述学者们的学术成就以及该网络的投资回报率。
向申请者（13名获得资助的申请者和19名未获得资助的申请者）以及20名导师和/或主要研究者发送了旨在评估该项目的调查问卷。计算了回答分布情况。关联χ²检验评估了获得资助的学者、未获得资助的申请者以及导师/主要研究者对申请/选拔过程评分的差异。学者们报告了获得资助后的学术成就。
申请者的调查回复率为88%，导师/主要研究者的回复率为100%。98%的受访者将评审的清晰度和公平性评为“清晰/公平”或“非常清晰/非常公平”，但获得资助的学者、未获得资助的申请者以及导师/主要研究者的回答存在差异（清晰度χ² = 10.85，p = 0.03；公平性χ² = 16.97，p = 0.002）。近一半未获得资助的申请者将反馈评为“无用”（47%）。“扩大合作网络”和“提高发表潜力”是学者们认为最有价值的益处。导师/主要研究者认为该项目对学者（100%）和网络（75%）“非常”有价值。这13名学者作为第一作者/资深作者发表了97篇摘要和109篇手稿，在22个儿科心脏网络委员会任职，并获得了9,673,660美元的后续校外资助，每花费一美元资助学者，回报约为10美元。
总体而言，患者对学者奖的满意度较高，学者们达到了许多学术成功指标。尽管如此，仍发现了项目存在的挑战并制定了改进策略。
