Title |
Mentoring, Training, and Scholarly Productivity Experiences of Cancer-Related Health Disparities Research Trainees: Do Outcomes Differ for Underrepresented Scientists?
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of Cancer Education, February 2018
|
DOI | 10.1007/s13187-018-1322-z |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Tisha M. Felder, Kathryn L. Braun, Lisa Wigfall, Maria Sevoyan, Shraddha Vyas, Samira Khan, Heather M. Brandt, Charles Rogers, Sora Tanjasiri, Cheryl A. Armstead, James R. Hébert |
Abstract |
The study aims to explore variation in scholarly productivity outcomes by underrepresented status among a diverse sample of researchers in a community-engaged training program. We identified 141 trainees from a web-based survey of researchers in the National Cancer Institute-funded, Community Networks Program Centers (CNPCs) (2011-2016). We conducted a series of multiple logistic regression models to estimate the effect of National Institutes of Health (NIH)-defined underrepresented status on four, self-reported, scholarly productivity outcomes in the previous 5 years: number of publications (first-authored and total) and funded grants (NIH and any agency). Sixty-five percent (n = 92) indicated NIH underrepresented status. In final adjusted models, non-NIH underrepresented (vs. underrepresented) trainees reported an increased odds of having more than the median number of total publications (> 9) (OR = 3.14, 95% CI 1.21-8.65) and any grant funding (OR = 5.10, 95% CI 1.77-14.65). Reporting ≥ 1 mentors (vs. none) was also positively associated (p < 0.05) with these outcomes. The CNPC underrepresented trainees had similar success in first-authored publications and NIH funding as non-underrepresented trainees, but not total publications and grants. Examining trainees' mentoring experiences over time in relation to scholarly productivity outcomes is needed. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 6 | 38% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
Georgia | 1 | 6% |
Unknown | 8 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 8 | 50% |
Scientists | 6 | 38% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 25% |
Librarian | 3 | 19% |
Student > Master | 2 | 13% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 13% |
Student > Bachelor | 1 | 6% |
Other | 1 | 6% |
Unknown | 3 | 19% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 25% |
Psychology | 2 | 13% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
Mathematics | 1 | 6% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
Other | 3 | 19% |
Unknown | 4 | 25% |