IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0241851.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Grant application outcomes for biomedical researchers who participated in the National Research Mentoring Network’s Grant Writing Coaching Programs

Author

Listed:
  • Anne Marie Weber-Main
  • Richard McGee
  • Kristin Eide Boman
  • Japera Hemming
  • Meldra Hall
  • Thaddeus Unold
  • Eileen M Harwood
  • Laurie E Risner
  • Ann Smith
  • Kimberly Lawson
  • Jeffrey Engler
  • Clifford J Steer
  • Dedra Buchwald
  • Harlan P Jones
  • Spero M Manson
  • Elizabeth Ofili
  • Nancy B Schwartz
  • Jamboor K Vishwanatha
  • Kolawole S Okuyemi

Abstract

Background: A diverse research workforce is essential for catalyzing biomedical advancements, but this workforce goal is hindered by persistent sex and racial/ethnic disparities among investigators receiving research grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In response, the NIH-funded National Research Mentoring Network implemented a Grant Writing Coaching Program (GCP) to provide diverse cohorts of early-career investigators across the United States with intensive coaching throughout the proposal development process. We evaluated the GCP’s national reach and short-term impact on participants’ proposal submissions and funding outcomes. Methods: The GCP was delivered as six similar but distinct models. All models began with an in-person group session, followed by a series of coaching sessions over 4 to 12 months. Participants were surveyed at 6-, 12- and 18-months after program completion to assess proposal outcomes (submissions, awards). Self-reported data were verified and supplemented by searches of public repositories of awarded grants when available. Submission and award rates were derived from counts of participants who submitted or were awarded at least one grant proposal in a category (NIH, other federal, non-federal). Results: From June 2015 through March 2019, 545 investigators (67% female, 61% under-represented racial/ethnic minority, URM) from 187 different institutions participated in the GCP. Among them, 324 (59% of participants) submitted at least one grant application and 134 (41% of submitters) received funding. A total of 164 grants were awarded, the majority being from the NIH (93, 56%). Of the 74 R01 (or similar) NIH research proposals submitted by GCP participants, 16 have been funded thus far (56% to URM, 75% to women). This 22% award rate exceeded the 2016–2018 NIH success rates for new R01s. Conclusion: Inter- and intra-institutional grant writing coaching groups are a feasible and effective approach to supporting the grant acquisition efforts of early-career biomedical investigators, including women and those from URM groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Anne Marie Weber-Main & Richard McGee & Kristin Eide Boman & Japera Hemming & Meldra Hall & Thaddeus Unold & Eileen M Harwood & Laurie E Risner & Ann Smith & Kimberly Lawson & Jeffrey Engler & Cliffor, 2020. "Grant application outcomes for biomedical researchers who participated in the National Research Mentoring Network’s Grant Writing Coaching Programs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-23, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0241851
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241851
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0241851
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0241851&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0241851?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mohamed Mubasher & Thomas Pearson & Muhammed Y. Idris & Kimberly Lawson & Jada Holmes & Priscilla Pemu & Adriana Baez & Jonathan K. Stiles & Maritza S. Salazar & Winston E. Thompson & Alexander Quarsh, 2023. "The Role of Mock Reviewing Sessions in the National Research Mentoring Network Strategic Empowerment Tailored for Health Equity Investigators: A Randomized Controlled Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(9), pages 1-12, May.
    2. Elizabeth O. Ofili & Daniel Sarpong & Richard Yanagihara & Paul B. Tchounwou & Emma Fernández-Repollet & Mohamad Malouhi & Muhammed Y. Idris & Kimberly Lawson & Nadine H. Spring & Brian M. Rivers, 2021. "The Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI) Consortium: A Blueprint for Inclusive Excellence," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-17, June.
    3. Adriana Báez & Muhammed Y. Idris & Kimberly Lawson & Mohamed Mubasher & Yulia Strekalova & Keith Green & Priscilla Pemu & Jonathan K. Stiles & Martiza Salazar & Alexander Quarshie & Lee S. Caplan & Er, 2023. "Impact of COVID-19 on the Research Career Advancement of Health Equity Scholars from Diverse Backgrounds," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-11, March.
    4. Yulia A. Levites Strekalova & Diana L. Kornetti & Ruixuan Wang & Adriana Báez & Lee S. Caplan & Muhammed Y. Idris & Kimberly Lawson & Jada Holmes & Mohamed Mubasher & Priscilla Pemu & Jonathan K. Stil, 2023. "Individual and Institutional Factors Contribute to Research Capacity Building for Early-Stage Investigators from Groups Underrepresented in Biomedical Research: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(9), pages 1-11, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0241851. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.