To succeed as a biomedical researcher, the ability to flourish in interdisciplinary teams of scientists is becoming ever more important. Institutions supported by the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) from the National Institutes of Health have a specific mandate to educate the next generation of clinical and translational researchers. While they strive to advance integrated and interdisciplinary approaches to education and career development in clinical and translational science, general approaches and evaluation strategies may differ, as there is no single, universally accepted or standardized approach. It is important, therefore, to learn about the different approaches used to determine what is effective. We implemented a Web-based survey distributed to education leaders at the 60 funded CTSA institutions; 95% responded to the survey, which included questions on the importance of preparation for interdisciplinary team science careers, methods used to provide such training, and perceived effectiveness of these training programs. The vast majority (86%) of education leaders reported that such training is important, and about half (52%) of the institutions offer such training. Methods of training most often take the form of courses and seminars, both credit bearing and noncredit. These efforts are, by and large, perceived as effective by the training program leaders, although long-term follow-up of trainees would be required to fully evaluate ultimate effectiveness. Results from the survey suggest that CTSA education directors believe that specific training in interdisciplinary team science for young investigators is very important, but few methodologies are universally practiced in CTSA institutions to provide training or to assess performance. Four specific recommendations are suggested to provide measurable strategic goals for education in team science in the context of clinical and translational research.

Purpose To conduct a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the effects of different mentoring interventions on the basic psychological need satisfaction of underrepresented minorities and women in academia. Method Participants were 150 mentor/protégé dyads from three academic medical centers and eight other colleges and universities in western and central New York, randomized from 2010–2013 into: mentor training (using principles of self-determination theory); peer mentoring for protégés; mentor training and peer mentoring for protégés combined; or control/usual practice. Protégé participants were graduate students, fellows and junior faculty who were from underrepresented groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, or disability. The primary analysis was a comparison of intervention effects on changes in protégés’ satisfaction of their basic psychological needs (competence, autonomy and relatedness) with their mentor. They completed a well-validated, online questionnaire every 2 months for 1 year. Results There was no significant effect at the end of 1 year of either mentor training or peer mentoring on protégés’ psychological basic need satisfaction with mentor specifically or at work in general. Exploratory analyses showed a significant effect of the mentor-based intervention on the protégés’ overall psychological need satisfaction with their mentor at 2 months, the time point closest to completing mentor training. Conclusions This RCT showed a potential short-term effect of mentor training on changing basic psychological need satisfaction of underrepresented scholars with their mentors. Despite the lack of sustained effect of either mentor training or peer mentoring, these short-term changes suggest feasibility and potential for future study.