2015
DOI: 10.17953/aicr.39.1.b42p6267p5222p11
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Accomplishments of a Training Support Program for American Indian and Alaska Native Health Researchers

Abstract: The Native American Research Centers for Health program was designed to foster research training and skill development for American Indian/Alaska Native trainees. Increasing the number of American Indian/Alaska Native researchers with advanced training in science is one strategy to help decrease health disparities in native peoples. Our NARCH program provided financial support and mentorship for professional and academic development of American Indian/Alaska Native award recipients. We report on an assessment … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
4
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(5 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
1
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Even though only a small number answered questions about grant submissions, the majority of respondents reported securing funding from federal sources and foundations. This was similar to findings by Zaback et al (2015). Overall, we have had remarkably successful trainees-particularly nonfaculty members-who have secured significant awards from pools of funding aimed at tribal applicants.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 85%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Even though only a small number answered questions about grant submissions, the majority of respondents reported securing funding from federal sources and foundations. This was similar to findings by Zaback et al (2015). Overall, we have had remarkably successful trainees-particularly nonfaculty members-who have secured significant awards from pools of funding aimed at tribal applicants.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…The limitations of our findings include a low response proportion, an emphasis on traditional benchmarks of success (e.g., publications) versus other measures (e.g., advocacy campaigns or policy development), and lack of in-depth trainee and mentor qualitative assessment of the program. The low response was a disappointing result of this survey and a marked difference from the first follow-up survey (Zaback et al, 2015). A great deal of time was spent performing online searches and phone calls in an attempt to secure responses, but even when contact was made, it did not translate into an increase in response rate for reasons that are not entirely clear.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
See 3 more Smart Citations