bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Engler, J.

Publications and source records attributed to Engler, J..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

A randomized trial of grant writing coaching groups: Qualitative interviews revealing key elements of intervention efficacy

Background Training in grant proposal writing is an essential component of professional development for academic scientists in the biomedical and behavioral sciences. Despite the expansion of inter- and intra-institutional grant writing coaching groups as an approach to honing these skills, specific features that enhance or limit coaching group effectiveness have not been rigorously studied. Methods Qualitative inerviews were conducted with a subset of early-career investigators (n=204 and coaches (n=36) engaged in a national, U.S. based, group-randomized trial of grant writing coaching groups to test the effects of two variables on submission and funding of national-level proposals: (1) coaching duration (regular/extended dose) and (2) mode of engaging a scientific advisor (someone with content-aligned expertise) in the coaching process. This report focuses on interviews conducted upon completion of the regular coaching dose - 5 months of biweekly, group-based coaching sessions to support active proposal writing. Interviews were designed to identify which coaching group elements were perceived to be the most critical. Transcribed interviews were analyzed using deductive (participants) or open (coaches) coding to identify themes. Results Triangulation of results from participant and coach interviews showed strong concordance that coaches, peers, and scientific advisors all played key roles in supporting intervention efficacy. Sufficient alignment of scientific fields and/or methodologies among group members was important, although breadth of perspectives was also valued. Other critical group features were skilled and well-organized coaches, detailed feedback, peer-to-peer support (technical and psychosocial), and clear expectations for group functioning. Factors attenuating impact included variation in participants' engagement and "readiness to write," within-group mismatches of expertise or grant mechanisms, and limited research support at some participants' home institutions. Conclusion This study identified key elements of successful grant writing coaching groups and potential barriers to their effectiveness, while yielding insights about tailoring this approach for individuals at different stages of proposal development.

scientific communication and education↗

Grant writing coaching groups: A randomized trial to discern the influences of coaching duration and engagement of scientific mentors on participants proposal submission and success rates

IntroductionThe acquisition of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants is an increasingly competitive undertaking. Many early-career biomedical investigators lack sufficient grant writing skills. This pragmatic, 2x2 factorial, group-randomized trial tested the effects of coaching duration and mode of engagement of participants scientific mentors in a grant writing coaching group intervention on grant application outcomes. MethodsA national US sample of 367 faculty and postdoctoral fellows, organized into 76 coaching groups across 6 cohorts (2020-2022), was randomized to 1 of 4 arms that differed by coaching duration (5 months vs 5 months plus 18 months of access to 1:1 coaching) and mode of scientific mentor engagement (structured vs unstructured). Primary outcomes were national-level grant application submissions and awards, and success rate among submitters, assessed via surveys and verified through award databases 30 months after study initiation. ResultsAmong 271 faculty and 96 postdoctoral fellows, 69% submitted at least 1 national application and 32% were awarded at least 1 grant. Submission rates did not differ by experimental arm. Among faculty, the structured engagement of a mentor in coaching was associated with significantly higher odds of any award (adjusted OR = 1.87) and any NIH mentored career development (K) award (adjusted OR = 3.32), and with higher success rates for these proposal types. Extended coaching duration showed a positive but not statistically significant association with faculty awards after adjustment. Neither factor significantly affected outcomes for postdoctoral fellows. Faculty success rates exceeded national NIH-reported success rates for research project grants equivalent to the R01 mechanism (43% vs 17.6%) and K awards (51% vs 36.5%). ConclusionParticipation in a national, cross-institutional, group coaching model yielded high grant submission outcomes, and award rates were higher relative to NIH benchmarks. Structured integration of scientific mentors with the coaching intervention had a greater effect than extended coaching duration on faculty outcomes.

scientific communication and education↗