The proportion of physician-investigators involved in biomedical research is shrinking even as the need for high-quality, interdisciplinary research is growing. Building the physician-investigator workforce is thus a pressing concern. Flexible, “light-weight” training modalities can help busy physician-investigators prepare for key stages of the research life cycle and personalize their learning to their own needs. Such training can also support researchers from diverse backgrounds and lighten the work of mentors.

The University of Pittsburgh’s Institute for Clinical Research Education designed the Stackables Microcredentials in Clinical and Translational Research (Stackables) program to provide flexible, online training to supplement and enhance formal training programs. This training utilizes a self-paced, just-in-time format along with an interactive, storytelling approach to sustain learner engagement. Learners earn badges for completing modules and certificates for completing “stacks” in key competency areas. In this paper, we describe the genesis and development of the Stackables program and report the results of a pilot study in which we evaluated changes in confidence in key skill areas from pretest to posttest, as well as engagement and perceived effectiveness.

Our Stackables pilot study showed statistically significant gains in learner confidence in all skill areas from pretest to posttest. Pilot participants reported that the module generated high levels of engagement and enhanced their skills, knowledge, and interest in the subject.

Stackables provide an important complement to formal coursework by focusing on discrete skill areas and allowing learners to access the training they need when they need it.

High writing self-efficacy and self-regulation are tied to publication and grant submission. Writers with these attributes are more productive. We investigated whether participating in a Shut Up & Write!®-style intervention (SUAW) would produce statistically significant gains in writing self-efficacy and self-regulation when comparing pre-post-participation surveys.

Forty-seven medical students, TL1/KL2, and early-career faculty from across the USA expressed interest in participating, with 37 completing the pre-survey. We conducted (on Zoom) a 12-week SUAW series and measured the effect using a pre-post survey adapted from the Writer Self-Perception Scale. Paired t-tests (α = 0.05) were conducted on three subscales to test for significant differences between pre- and post-test means. The subscales reflected writing attitudes, writing strategies, and avoiding writing distractions. Subscales showed acceptable internal consistency with Cronbach’s alphas of 0.80, 0.71, and 0.72, respectively.

Twenty-seven participants attended at least one session. Of these, 81% presented as female, and 60% were from NIH-defined Underrepresented Backgrounds and/or were from Minority-Serving Institutions. Twenty-four completed both the pre- and post-surveys. Sixty percent previously participated in an activity similar to SUAW. We found significant improvements in writing attitudes (p = 0.020) and writing strategies (p = 0.041) for those who previously participated. For those who had not previously participated, we found improved writing strategies (p = 0.002). Eighty percent were very satisfied/satisfied with SUAW.

Researchers have tied writing self-efficacy and self-regulation to timely publication and grant submission. We found significant gains in self-efficacy and self-regulation, suggesting that participation in a SUAW-style intervention may increase writing productivity.

In 2015, the University of Pittsburgh partnered with several Minority Serving Institutions to develop the Leading Emerging and Diverse Scientists to Success (LEADS) Program. LEADS was designed to provide skills development, mentoring, and networking support to early career underrepresented faculty.

LEADS included three components: skills training (e.g., grant and manuscript writing and team science), mentoring, and networking opportunities. Scholars completed a pre- and post-test survey and an annual alumni survey that included measures on burnout, motivation, leadership, professionalism, mentoring, job and career satisfaction, networking, and an assessment of their research self-efficacy.

Scholars demonstrated a significant increase in their research self-efficacy having completed all the modules (t = 6.12; P < 0.001). Collectively, LEADS scholars submitted 73 grants and secured 46 grants for a 63% success rate. Most scholars either agreed or strongly agreed that their mentor was effective in helping to develop their research skills (65%) and provided effective counseling (56%). Scholars did experience increased burnout with 50% feeling burned out at the exit survey (t = 1.42; P = 0.16) and 58% reporting feelings of burnout at the most recent survey in 2020 (t = 3.96; P < 0.001).

Our findings support the claim that participation in LEADS enhanced critical research skills, provided networking and mentoring opportunities, and contributed to research productivity for scientists from underrepresented backgrounds.

Human-centered design (HCD) training offers the potential to improve both team processes and products. However, the use of HCD to improve the quality of team science is a relatively recent application, and its benefits and challenges have not been rigorously evaluated. We conducted a qualitative study with health sciences researchers trained in HCD methods. We aimed to determine how researchers applied HCD methods and perceived the benefits and barriers to using HCD on research teams.

We conducted 1-hour, semi-structured interviews with trainees from three training cohorts. Interviews focused on perceptions of the training, subsequent uses of HCD, barriers and facilitators, and perceptions of the utility of HCD to science teams. Data analysis was conducted using Braun and Clarke’s process for thematic analysis.

We interviewed nine faculty and nine staff trained in HCD methods and identified four themes encompassing HCD use, benefits, challenges, and tensions between HCD approaches and academic culture.

Trainees found HCD relevant to research teams for stakeholder engagement, research design, project planning, meeting facilitation, and team management. They also described benefits of HCD in five distinct areas: creativity, egalitarianism, structure, efficiency, and visibility. Our data suggest that HCD has the potential to help researchers work more inclusively and collaboratively on interdisciplinary teams and generate more innovative and impactful science. The application of HCD methods is not without challenges; however, we believe these challenges can be overcome with institutional investment.

High impact biomedical research is increasingly conducted by large, transdisciplinary, multisite teams in an increasingly collaborative environment. Thriving in this environment requires robust teamwork skills, which are not acquired automatically in the course of traditional scientific education. Team science skills training does exist, but most is directed at clinical care teams, not research teams, and little is focused on the specific training needs of early-career investigators, whose early team leadership experiences may shape their career trajectories positively or negatively. Our research indicated a need for team science training designed specifically for early-career investigators.

To address this need, we designed and delivered a 2-day workshop focused on teaching team science skills to early-career investigators. We operationalized team science competencies, sought the advice of team science experts, and performed a needs assessment composed of a survey and a qualitative study. Through these multiple approaches, we identified and grouped training priorities into three broad training areas and developed four robust, hands-on workshop sessions.

Attendees comprised 30 pre- and post-doc fellows (TL1) and early-career faculty (KL2 and K12). We assessed impact with a pre- and post-workshop survey adapted from the Team Skills Scale. Results from the pre- and post-test Wilcoxon signed-rank analysis (n = 25) showed statistically significant improvement in team science skills and confidence. Open-ended responses indicated that the workshop focus was appropriate and well targeted to the trainees’ needs.

Although team science education is still very much in its infancy, these results suggest that training targeted to early-career investigators improves team skills and may foster improved collaboration.

Little has been published about competency-based education in academic medicine, in particular how competencies are or should be assessed. This paper re-examines a competency-based assessment for M.S. students in clinical research, and “assesses the assessment” 4 years into its implementation.

Data were gathered from student surveys and interviews with program advisors, and common themes were identified. We then made refinements to the assessment, and student surveys were administered to evaluate the impact of the changes.

Research results suggested the need to improve communication, time the assessment to align with skills development and opportunities for planning, streamline, and clarify expectations with examples and templates. After implementing these changes, data suggest that student satisfaction has improved without any reduction in academic rigor.

The effective implementation of competency-based training in clinical and translational research requires the development of a scholarly literature on effective methods of assessment. This paper contributes to that nascent body of research.