Postdoctoral Research Training Research Articles

Editorial introductions

Editorial introductions

Postdoctoral research training and the attainment of faculty careers in social science and STEM fields in the United States

PurposeWhile postdoctoral research (postdoc) training is a common step toward academic careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields, the role of postdoc training in social sciences is less clear. An increasing number of social science PhDs are pursuing postdocs. This paper aims to identify factors associated with participation in postdoc training and examines the relationship between postdoc training and subsequent career outcomes, including attainment of tenure-track faculty positions and early career salaries.Design/methodology/approachUsing data from the National Science Foundation Survey of Earned Doctorates and Survey of Doctorate Recipients, this study applies propensity score matching, regression and decomposition analyses to identify the role of postdoc training on the employment outcomes of PhDs in the social science and STEM fields.FindingsResults from the regression analyses indicate that participation in postdoc training is associated with greater PhD research experience, higher departmental research ranking and departmental job placement norms. When the postdocs and non-postdocs groups are balanced on observable characteristics, postdoc training is associated with a higher likelihood of attaining tenure-track faculty positions 7 to 9 years after PhD completion. The salaries of social science tenure-track faculty with postdoc experience eventually surpass the salaries of non-postdoc PhDs, primarily via placement at institutions that offer relatively higher salaries. This pattern, however, does not apply to STEM PhDs.Originality/valueThis study leverages comprehensive, nationally representative data to investigate the role of postdoc training in the career outcomes of social sciences PhDs, in comparison to STEM PhDs. Research findings suggest that for social sciences PhDs interested in academic careers, postdoc training can contribute to the attainment of tenure-track faculty positions and toward earning relatively higher salaries over time. Research findings provide prospective and current PhDs with information helpful in career planning and decision-making. Academic institutions, administrators, faculty and stakeholders can apply these research findings toward developing programs and interventions to provide doctoral students with career guidance and greater career transparency.

The Impact of Grantsmanship Self-Efficacy on Early Stage Investigators of The National Research Mentoring Network Steps Toward Academic Research (NRMN STAR).

The NRMN STAR program was created to address the persistent underrepresentation in grant submissions and receipt of National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards by racial/ethnic minority groups. In our current study, we assessed program impact on trainees' self-efficacy related to grant writing. The program was conducted with two cohorts: one in June 2014 and one in June 2015. We used a 19-item grant writing self-efficacy scale drawn from the 88-item Clinical Research Assessment Inventory of three domains (conceptualizing, designing, and funding a study) to predict whether self-efficacy influences researchers' grant submissions. Trainees were assessed prior to and following program completion with subsequent assessments at 6 and 12 months beyond participation. The majority of trainees were Black (62%), female (62%), and had obtained a PhD (90%). More than half (52%) were assistant professors and 57% had none or <1 year of research experience beyond postdoctoral training. However, 24% of trainees reported no postdoctoral research training. NRMN STAR trainees' self-efficacy significantly improved on all three domains exhibiting a 2.0-point mean change score on two domains (conceptualizing and design) and 3.7 point mean change score on the domain, funding a study. Findings suggest that NRMN's STAR provides impactful, confidence-building training for diverse, early stage investigators with little-to-no skills, experiences, or low self-efficacy in writing research grants.

Postdoctoral Research Training in Palliative Care: Lessons Learned From a T32 Program

Our aging population and advances in chronic disease management that prolong the time that patients live with a chronic illness have combined to create an enormous need for improved palliative care research across diverse diseases. In this article, we describe the structure and processes of a National Institutes of Health-funded T32 postdoctoral research fellowship at the University of Washington and our experiences in developing and implementing the program. We recognize a broad definition of palliative care research, including research focused on improving quality of life, minimizing symptoms, providing psychological and spiritual support, and improving communication about patients' values and goals of care, all in the context of a serious illness. We describe our four core principles for postdoctoral training in palliative care research, each with a number of specific approaches: 1) mastering a set of essential content and research skills; 2) structured mentoring and academic career development; 3) creating and supporting early success; and 4) interdisciplinary training and team science. In addition, we also describe our framework for the essential competencies necessary for a palliative care research training program, our methods for identification and selection of applicants, our outcomes to date, and our processes of continuous quality assessment and improvement. Our goal is to describe our successful postdoctoral research training program in palliative care to promote development of new programs and share information between programs to continue to build the field of collaborative and interdisciplinary palliative care research.

Leadership Roles and Activities Among Alumni Receiving Postdoctoral Fellowship Training in Cancer Prevention.

This study was conducted in 2016-2017 to better understand formal and informal leadership roles and activities of alumni from postdoctoral research training programs in cancer prevention. Data were obtained from surveys of 254 employed scientists who completed cancer prevention postdoctoral training within the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program, or at US research institutions through NCI-sponsored National Research Service Award (NRSA) individual postdoctoral fellowship (F32) grants, from 1987 to 2011. Fifteen questions categorized under Organizational Leadership, Research Leadership, Professional Society/Conference Leadership, and Broader Scientific/Health Community Leadership domains were analyzed. About 75% of respondents had at least one organizational leadership role or activity during their careers, and 13-34% reported some type of research, professional society/conference, or broader scientific/health community leadership within the past 5years. Characteristics independently associated with leadership from regression models were being in earlier postdoctoral cohorts (8 items, range for statistically significant ORs = 2.8 to 10.8) and employment sector (8 items, range for statistically significant ORs = 0.4 to 11.7). Scientists whose race/ethnicity was other than white were less likely to report organizational leadership or management responsibilities (OR = 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.9). Here, many alumni from NCI-supported cancer prevention postdoctoral programs were involved in leadership, with postdoctoral cohort and employment sector being the factors most often associated with leadership roles and activities. Currently, there is relatively little research on leadership roles of biomedical scientists in general, or in cancer prevention specifically. This study begins to address this gap and provide a basis for more extensive studies of leadership roles and training of scientists.

Meet the First Authors.

Meet the First Authors.

Editorial introductions

Editorial introductions

Editorial introductions

Current Opinion in Gastroenterology was launched in 1985. It is one of a successful series of review journals whose unique format is designed to provide a systematic and critical assessment of the literature as presented in the many primary journals. The field of gastroenterology is divided into 12 sections that are reviewed once a year. Each section is assigned a Section Editor, a leading authority in the area, who identifies the most important topics at that time. Here we are pleased to introduce one of the Section Editors for this issue. SECTION EDITORS Anthony KallooAnthony KallooDr Anthony Kalloo is a Professor of Medicine at Johns Hopkins University, USA. He is the Director of The Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Johns Hopkins Hospital. He has special interests in natural orifice surgery, therapeutic endoscopy, biliary and pancreatic diseases and sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. After receiving his medical degree from the University of West Indies Medical School, West Indies, Dr Kalloo interned and completed his residency in internal medicine at Howard University Hospital in Washington, DC, USA. He completed his fellowship training program at the combined Georgetown University, USA, VA Medical Center, USA and NIH program. He was an instructor in medicine at Georgetown University prior to joining the faculty at Johns Hopkins in 1988. He was an associate editor of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. He is the Founder and Immediate Past Medical Director of The Hopkins Gastroenterology and Hepatology Resource Center (www.hopkins-gi.org), a 3000 page multilingual web resource for patients and physicians. He has authored over 150 scientific papers, review articles and book chapters. He has pioneered and has multiple patents including the use of Botulinum Toxin in the gastrointestinal tract, endoscopic cryotherapy and the winged biliary/pancreatic stent. He is the pioneer of Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES), a technique that will enable abdominal surgery without the use of incisions. Dr Kalloo is a Past Panel Chair for Gastroenterology and Urology Devices with the United States Food and Drug Administration. He is the recipient of the 2009 Distinguished Educator of the Year of the Award from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Rodger LiddleRodger LiddleDr Rodger Liddle is Professor of Medicine at Duke University Medical Center. Dr Liddle received his medical degree from Vanderbilt University and performed his internship and residency in medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. He was a fellow in gastroenterology at UCSF where he also performed his postdoctoral research training. Dr Liddle has served on the faculties of UCSF and Duke University. At Duke, Dr Liddle has held numerous leadership positions, including Chief of the Gastroenterology Division. Dr Liddle is an internationally recognized investigator in the physiology of the gastrointestinal tract. Dr Liddle's research focuses on neurohormonal regulation of the pancreas and experimental models of pancreatitis.

Mentorship Training for Postdoctoral Researchers: Results from a Four Week Intervention Program

The acquisition of mentoring skills in biomedical research has traditionally been a passive process via apprenticeships. Moreover, mentorship quality directly affects scientific productivity. Consequently, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has strongly encouraged formal mentorship training for academic researchers including postdoctoral trainees (postdocs). While the acquisition of knowledge and skills in mentoring is encouraged, it is unclear whether postdocs value these skills and how greatly their mentoring ability can be improved by formal training. Furthermore, outcomes assessment following formal mentor training is necessary to ensure effective instruction. The present program and programmatic assessment was designed to address these important questions.The Offices of Postdoctoral Affairs and Career Development implemented a mentoring intervention program for postdoctoral trainees with the goals to increase awareness of trainee mentoring ability as well as improve trainee mentoring skills. This program, which consisted of four, two hour weekly sessions, included facilitated discussions and case studies centered around key competencies of mentoring: Elements of a mentoring relationship, effective communication, problem solving, and self‐evaluation. Program participants rated the importance and their development of 15 mentoring skills that aligned with these competencies in a pre and post intervention assessment via a Likert scale. Data were compiled across seven cohorts from 2012 to 2016 (n=34).All postdocs highly valued each of the mentoring skills prior to participation in this intervention program. These views were unchanged after intervention. In contrast to unchanged valuation of mentoring skills upon completion of the program, postdocs reported a substantial positive gain in skill development in all mentoring skills. The greatest skill improvement was ‘setting reasonable goals for a mentee’. The lowest skill improvement was ‘keeping a mentee engaged’.Postdoctoral research trainees highly value mentoring skills. Of importance, a formal process for mentorship training aids in trainee development of vital mentoring skills. Future studies are needed to address additional variables that may impact the outcomes of formal mentor training among postdoctoral trainees. Among these are trainee demographics including gender, area of research emphasis, duration of postdoctoral research training, trainee citizenship status, and the international location of predoctoral studies. Equally important will be consideration of the sustained impact of short term mentor training.Support or Funding InformationSupported in part San Antonio Biomedical Education and Research (SABER) K12 GM11726 and Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) 1KL2RR025766‐01.

Career Satisfaction and Perceived Salary Competitiveness among Individuals Who Completed Postdoctoral Research Training in Cancer Prevention.

Studies examining career satisfaction of biomedical scientists are limited, especially in the context of prior postdoctoral training. Here we focused on career satisfaction defined as satisfaction with one’s career trajectory and perceived salary competitiveness among a predominantly Ph.D.-trained population of scientists who completed cancer prevention-related postdoctoral training between 1987–2011. National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program (CPFP) alumni (n = 114), and previous recipients of NCI-sponsored Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA/F32) postdoctoral fellowships (n = 140) completed online surveys. Associations of career satisfaction and perception of salary competitiveness with demographic, training, and employment-related factors were examined using logistic regression. Overall, 61% reported high levels of satisfaction with their career trajectory to-date. Higher salary (odds ratio [OR] = 2.86, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.07–7.69) and having more leadership roles (OR = 2.26, 95% CI:1.04–4.90) were independently associated with higher career satisfaction. Persons with race/ethnicity other than white (OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.20–0.82) or age ≥ 50 (OR = 0.40, 95%CI: 0.17–0.94) had lower career satisfaction levels. There were no statistically significant differences in career satisfaction levels by gender, scientific discipline, or employment sector. 74% perceived their current salary as competitive, but persons with 5–9, or ≥10 years in their current position reported lower levels (OR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.15–0.65; and OR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.16–0.87, respectively), as did individuals in government positions (OR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.11–0.98). These data add to the understanding of career satisfaction of those with advanced training in biomedical research by examining these measures in relation to prior postdoctoral research training and across multiple career sectors.

Building research careers in a changing environment

Building research careers in a changing environment

Editorial introductions

Editorial introductions

Competency-based postdoctoral research training for clinical psychologists: An example and implications.

Competency-based postdoctoral research training for clinical psychologists: An example and implications.

An Institutional Postdoctoral Research Training Program: Increasing Productivity of Postdoctoral Trainees.

Postdoctoral training is a critical stage of career development, and there has been a national effort to increase the consistency and quality of postdoctoral experiences. However, much of the effort has gone towards improving the process of training with less effort focusing on the content of what should be achieved during postdoctoral training, primarily because of a lack of empirical evidence in this area. One possible predictor of later scientific productivity is the number of peer-reviewed papers published during postdoctoral training. This manuscript reports on efforts to increase postdoctoral productivity. A single institution made postdoctoral training program changes designed to increase postdoctoral publication productivity. Postdoctoral publication productivity was compared between 114 trainees who matriculated prior to the changes and 20 trainees who matriculated after the changes. Postdoctoral trainees who matriculated after program changes had higher publication rates than postdoctoral trainees who matriculated prior to program changes [χ(2)(df = 15) = 31.4, p = .002]. Four or more postdoctoral publications are associated with the greatest likelihood of sustained posttraining publications; postdocs matriculating after the program changes were more than twice as likely to have four or more publications (55 vs 26%). Postdoctoral program changes designed to increase postdoctoral publication rates can be successful. Defining, for each postdoc, a minimal postdoctoral publication rate may be an appropriate component of individualized development plans.

Editorial introductions

Editorial introductions

What is the most cost-effective advertising strategy for alcohol pharmacotherapy clinical trials?

s / Drug and Alcohol Dependence 146 (2015) e2–e33 e5 and TM use patterns and preferences pertaining to their substance treatment. Results: Mobile phone ownership was common (93%) with no significant differences in ownership among self-reported homeless, recently incarcerated, and unemployed respondents. Most reported sending or receiving TM (93%) and reporting ‘very much’ or ‘somewhat’ comfort sending TM (79%). Contacting buprenorphine providers by phone (30%) or TM (17%) was uncommon, however most preferred to use either form of communication to reach their provider (67%). Older patients received less TM (25) compared to younger age groups (128) yet were as interested as the rest of the clinic population to have their provider’s mobile phone number (96%) and send TM if at risk of relapse (78%). Conclusions:Ourfindingshighlight the acceptability of enhancing patient-provider mobile phone and TM communications in a public sector, office-based buprenorphine clinic, even among respondents that were not comfortable in using TM. Although mobile phone ownership was very common, frequent turnover in phone ownership and changing phone numbers highlights challenges in feasibility for any future mhealth interventions in this clinical setting. Financial Support: Babak Tofighi is supported by a NRSA T32: Postdoctoral Primary Care Research Training Program (HRSA T32HP22238-01-00) and the Research in AddictionMedicine Scholars Program (R25DA03211). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.09.694 What is the most cost-effective advertising strategy for alcohol pharmacotherapy clinical trials? David A. Tompkins, Joseph A. Harrison, Eric C. Strain Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United

Supplemental Material for Competency-Based Postdoctoral Research Training for Clinical Psychologists: An Example and Implications

Supplemental Material for Competency-Based Postdoctoral Research Training for Clinical Psychologists: An Example and Implications

Transdifferentiation of hepatocytes to biliary epithelial cells requires expression of reprogramming factor Oct3/4 (398.8)

Transdifferentiation of liver epithelial cells (hepatocytes and biliary cells) into each other provides a rescue mechanism in liver disease under situations where either cell compartment fails to regenerate by itself. The mechanisms underlying such transdifferentiation of terminally differentiated epithelial are not known. Recently we reported that adult rat liver expresses reprogramming factors Oct3/4, Nanog, and KLF4, and their expression is important for hepatocyte proliferation and liver regeneration. To test if reprogramming factor Oct3/4 plays a role in transdifferentiation of hepatocytes to BECs, we used the hepatocyte organoid culture: an in vitro hepatocyte to biliary transdifferentiation model. In this model, primary hepatocytes when plated on collagen coated roller bottles and cultured in presence of HGF, EGF, and dexamethasone, transdifferentiate to form BECs between 6‐8 days in culture. We found that Oct3/4 is upregulated at day 6 in this model as assessed by mRNA and protein levels suggesting its possible involvement in transdifferentiation. When expression of Oct3/4 was blocked in hepatocytes using adenovirus containing Oct shRNA, there was a significant decrease in appearance of biliary cells (compared to controls) as assessed by biliary marker HNF1‐beta, strongly supporting the role of Oct3/4 in transdifferentiation of hepatocyte to biliary epithelial cells. Experiments to investigate mechanisms through which Oct3/4 might regulate transdifferentiation are under way.Grant Funding Source: 1. Pathology Post‐doctoral Research Training grant, 2. Center for chronic diseases of aging grant

NIH research funding and early career physician scientists: continuing challenges in the 21st century

Physician scientists (researchers with either M.D. or M.D.-Ph.D. degrees) have the unique potential to combine clinical perspectives with scientific insight, and their participation in biomedical research has long been an important topic for policymakers and educators. Given the recent changes in the research environment, an update and extension of earlier studies of this population was needed. Our findings show that physician scientists are less likely to take a major role in biomedical research than they were in the past. The number of physician scientists receiving postdoctoral research training and career development awards is at an all-time low. Physician scientists today, on average, receive their first major research award (R01 equivalent) at a later age than in the 1980s. The number of first-time R01-equivalent awards to physicians is at the same level as it was 30 yr ago, but physicians now represent a smaller percentage of the grant recipients. The long-term decline in the number of physicians entering research careers was temporarily halted during the period of substantial U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget growth (1998–2003). These gains are lost, however, in the subsequent years when NIH budgets failed to keep pace with rising costs.— Garrison, H. H., Deschamps, A. M. NIH research funding and early career physician scientists: continuing challenges in the 21st century.

Interview: Disease-specific therapeutic interventions in Type 1 diabetes

Pere Santamaria is a professor in the Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Infectious Diseases and director of the Julia McFarlane Diabetes Research Centre in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary (AB, Canada). He is also a group leader at the Institut d‘Investigacions Biomediques August Pi i Sunyer in Barcelona, Spain, and Scientific Founder of Parvus Therapeutics, Inc. He earned an MD and PhD degree from the University of Barcelona (Barcelona, Spain) in 1983 and 1987, respectively, and completed his medical speciality training in clinical immunology in 1987, also in Barcelona. From 1988 to 1992, he pursued postdoctoral research training in the Department of Medicine and Institute of Human Genetics at the University of Minnesota (MN, USA). He joined the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary in 1992 as an assistant professor. In 2009, he was the founder of Parvus Therapeutics Inc., a biopharmaceutical company that specializes in the development of nanovaccines for the treat...