Because translational research is not clearly defined, developers of translational research programs are struggling to articulate specific program objectives, delineate the knowledge and skills (competencies) that trainees are expected to develop, create an appropriate curriculum, and track outcomes to assess whether program objectives and competency requirements are being met. Members of the Evaluation Committee of the Association for Clinical Research Training (ACRT) reviewed current definitions of translational research and proposed an operational definition to use in the educational framework. In this article, the authors posit that translational research fosters the multidirectional and multidisciplinary integration of basic research, patient-oriented research, and population-based research, with the long-term aim of improving the health of the public. The authors argue that the approach to designing and evaluating the success of translational training programs must therefore be flexible enough to accommodate the needs of individual institutions and individual trainees within the institutions but that it must also be rigorous enough to document that the program is meeting its short-, intermediate-, and long-term objectives and that its trainees are meeting preestablished competency requirements. A logic model is proposed for the evaluation of translational research programs.

Background and purposeEffective mentorship is critical to the success of early stage investigators, and has been linked to enhanced mentee productivity, self-efficacy, and career satisfaction. The mission of the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) is to provide all trainees across the biomedical, behavioral, clinical, and social sciences with evidence-based mentorship and professional development programming that emphasizes the benefits and challenges of diversity, inclusivity, and culture within mentoring relationships, and more broadly the research workforce. The purpose of this paper is to describe the structure and activities of NRMN.Key highlightsNRMN serves as a national training hub for mentors and mentees striving to improve their relationships by better aligning expectations, promoting professional development, maintaining effective communication, addressing equity and inclusion, assessing understanding, fostering independence, and cultivating ethical behavior. Training is offered in-person at institutions, regional training, or national meetings, as well as via synchronous and asynchronous platforms; the growing training demand is being met by a cadre of NRMN Master Facilitators. NRMN offers career stage-focused coaching models for grant writing, and other professional development programs. NRMN partners with diverse stakeholders from the NIH-sponsored Diversity Program Consortium (DPC), as well as organizations outside the DPC to work synergistically towards common diversity goals. NRMN offers a virtual portal to the Network and all NRMN program offerings for mentees and mentors across career development stages. NRMNet provides access to a wide array of mentoring experiences and resources including MyNRMN, Guided Virtual Mentorship Program, news, training calendar, videos, and workshops. National scale and sustainability are being addressed by NRMN “Coaches-in-Training” offerings for more senior researchers to implement coaching models across the nation. “Shark Tanks” provide intensive review and coaching for early career health disparities investigators, focusing on grant writing for graduate students, postdoctoral trainees, and junior faculty.ImplicationsPartners from diverse perspectives are building the national capacity and sparking the institutional changes necessary to truly diversify and transform the biomedical research workforce. NRMN works to leverage resources towards the goals of sustainability, scalability, and expanded reach.

Junior investigators often have limited access to networks of scientific experts and resources that facilitate competitive grant submissions. Since environments in which scientists are trained are critically important for long-term success, we built and tested a virtual environment for early-stage investigators (ESIs) working on grant proposals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the virtual community’s influence on grant submission patterns among participants from underrepresented groups. As part of a grant writing coaching model, junior investigators were recruited into a professional development program designed to develop competitive grantsmanship skills. Designed by the Research Resources and Outreach Core (RROC) of the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN), the Health Equity Learning Collaboratory (EQ-Collaboratory) provided a virtual community for social support, accountability, constructive feedback, and access to peer networks to help investigators overcome barriers to grant submission. This study assessed differences in outcomes for participants who completed the training within the EQ-Collaboratory compared to those who did not. The analyzed data revealed a statistically significant difference in the average time to submission for participants enrolled in the EQ-Collaboratory. EQ-Collaboratory ESIs submitted proposals 148.6 days earlier, (p < 0.0001). The results suggest that a supportive virtual environment can help investigators more quickly overcome barriers to grant submission.

Objective: Morehouse School of Medicine, a collaborative partner in the National Research Mentoring Network, established the Mentoring Academy Institutional Plan­ning Forum (MA Forum) to help minority-serving institutions (MSI) optimize research mentoring. In this commentary, we describe the policy workshop and review survey data from six MSIs to assess the current state of organizational policies and activities that advance research mentoring.Participants: Twenty-eight institutional leaders, representing six MSIs, participated in an MA Forum between May 20, 2016 and May 11, 2017.Methods: After describing the MA Forum’s background, design and recruitment strat­egy, we present a synthesis of institutional summaries built from responses to a 45-item survey that explored existing mentoring infrastructure, policies, and activities at each institution.Results: There is a heavy reliance on extra­mural funds to facilitate research mentoring initiatives. Mentoring policies and activities were most often governed by individual programs rather than the institution. Thus, the research mentoring expertise was concentrated at the local level, which may prevent opportunities for future scalability and optimization.Conclusions: Given these findings, we offer recommendations to help MSIs establish a mentoring culture backed by institutional policy. Ethn Dis. 2019;29(Suppl 2): 371- 376; doi:10.18865/ed.29.S2.371.

Research projects in translational science are increasingly complex and require interdisciplinary collaborations. In the context of training translational researchers, this suggests that multiple mentors may be needed in different content areas. This study explored mentoring structure as it relates to perceived mentoring effectiveness and other characteristics of masters-level trainees in clinical-translational research training programs. A cross-sectional online survey of recent graduates of clinical research master’s program was conducted. Of 73 surveys distributed, 56.2% (n=41) complete responses were analyzed. Trainees were overwhelmingly positive about participation in their master’s programs and the impact it had on their professional development. Overall the majority (≥75%) of trainees perceived they had effective mentoring in terms of developing skills needed for conducting clinical-translational research. Fewer trainees perceived effective mentoring in career development and work-life balance. In all 15 areas of mentoring effectiveness assessed, higher rates of perceived mentor effectiveness was seen among trainees with ≥2 mentors compared to those with solo mentoring. In addition, trainees with ≥2 mentors perceived having effective mentoring in more mentoring aspects (median 14.0; IQR:12.0–15.0) than trainees with solo mentoring (10.5; IQR:8.0–14.5). Results from this survey suggest having ≥2 mentors may be beneficial in fulfilling trainee expectations for mentoring in clinical-translational training.