No abstract

The individual development plan (IDP) is a career planning tool that aims to assist PhD trainees in self-assessing skills, exploring career paths, developing short- and long-term career goals, and creating action plans to achieve those goals. The National Institutes of Health and many academic institutions have created policies that mandate completion of the IDP by both graduate students and postdoctoral researchers. Despite these policies, little information exists regarding how widely the tool is used and whether it is useful to the career development of PhD trainees. Herein, we present data from a multi-institutional, online survey on the use and effectiveness of the IDP among a group of 183 postdoctoral researchers. The overall IDP completion rate was 54% and 38% of IDP users reported that the tool was helpful to their career development. Positive relationships with one’s advisor, confidence regarding completing training, trainees’ confidence about their post-training career, and a positive experience with institutional career development resources are associated with respondents’ perception that the IDP is useful for their career development. We suggest that there is a need to further understand the nuanced use and effectiveness of the IDP in order to determine how to execute the use of the tool to maximize trainees’ career development.

Background: The Individual Development Plan (IDP) was introduced as a tool to aid in career planning for doctoral trainees. Despite the National Institutes of Health and academic institutions creating policies that mandate the use of IDPs, little information exists regarding the use and effectiveness of the career planning tool. Methods: We conducted a multi-institutional, online survey to measure IDP use and effectiveness. The survey was distributed to potential respondents via social media and direct email. IDP survey questions were formatted using a five-point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree). For data analysis purposes, responses were grouped into two categories (agree versus does not agree/disagree). The data were summarized as one-way frequencies and the Pearson chi-square test was used to determine the statistical significance of univariate associations between the survey variables and an outcome measure of the effectiveness of the IDP. Results: Among all respondents, fifty-three percent reported that they are required to complete an IDP while thirty-three percent reported that the tool is helpful to their career development. Further, our data suggests that the IDP is most effective when doctoral students complete the tool with faculty mentors with whom they have a positive relationship. Respondents who are confident about their career plans and who take advantage of career development resources at their institution are also more likely to perceive that the IDP is useful for their career development. Conclusion: Given the nuanced use and effectiveness of the IDP, we call for additional research to characterize the overall use and effectiveness of the IDP and to determine whether there are unintended negative consequences created through the use of the tool. Furthermore, we recommend an enhancement of career development infrastructure that would include mentorship training for faculty in order to provide substantially more career planning support to trainees.

Background Trauma-focused psychotherapies for combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in military veterans are efficacious, but there are many barriers to receiving treatment. The objective of this study was to determine if cognitive processing therapy (CPT) for PTSD among active duty military personnel and veterans would result in increased acceptability, fewer dropouts, and better outcomes when delivered In-Home or by Telehealth as compared to In-Office treatment. Methods The trial used an equipoise-stratified randomization design in which participants (N = 120) could decline none or any 1 arm of the study and were then randomized equally to 1 of the remaining arms. Therapists delivered CPT in 12 sessions lasting 60-min each. Self-reported PTSD symptoms on the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) served as the primary outcome. Results Over half of the participants (57%) declined 1 treatment arm. Telehealth was the most acceptable and least often refused delivery format (17%), followed by In-Office (29%), and In-Home (54%); these differences were significant (p = 0.0008). Significant reductions in PTSD symptoms occurred with all treatment formats (p < .0001). Improvement on the PCL-5 was about twice as large in the In-Home (d = 2.1) and Telehealth (d = 2.0) formats than In-Office (d = 1.3); those differences were statistically large and significant (d = 0.8, 0.7 and p = 0.009, 0.014, respectively). There were no significant differences between In-Home and Telehealth outcomes (p = 0.77, d = −.08). Dropout from treatment was numerically lowest when therapy was delivered In-Home (25%) compared to Telehealth (34%) and In-Office (43%), but these differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions CPT delivered by telehealth is an efficient and effective treatment modality for PTSD, especially considering in-person restrictions resulting from COVID-19. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02290847 (Registered 13/08/2014; First Posted Date 14/11/2014).

IMPORTANCEPosttraumatic headache is the most disabling complication of mild traumatic brain injury. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms are often comorbid with posttraumatic headache, and there are no established treatments for this comorbidity.OBJECTIVE To compare cognitive behavioral therapies (CBTs) for headache and PTSD with treatment per usual (TPU) for posttraumatic headache attributable to mild traumatic brain injury. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis was a single-site, 3-parallel group, randomized clinical trial with outcomes at posttreatment, 3-month follow-up, and 6-month follow-up.