Katherine Cornelius

M.D.-Ph.D. programs in the United States have traditionally followed a “2- n -2” curricular model, with the graduate phase occurring between the pre-clerkship and clerkship portions of medical training. While well established, this format can limit trainee autonomy in shaping their physician-scientist training trajectories. In response, some programs have introduced a “3- n -1” model, allowing students to complete clerkships before beginning Ph.D. training. Our institution implemented multiple flexible curricula in 2017. Understanding why trainees choose one pathway is important as programs consider implementing more adaptable training structures. To investigate these factors, we surveyed M.D.-Ph.D. students at our institution, which offers multiple flexible curricular alternatives, about contributions to their curricular decisions. Responses supported that trainees weigh considerations across medical education, scientific development, and integrated physician-scientist training domains. Although the traditional pathway was a popular option, most students pursued one of the flexible pathways. Our findings suggest that introducing flexibility in the timing of undergraduate medical education and graduate training can support diverse educational, logistical, and personal priorities while maintaining the rigor of physician-scientist training. Offering multiple pathways empowers trainees to design trajectories that best fit their needs. Continued longitudinal studies are needed to assess the long-term impacts of flexible curricula on physician-scientist career outcomes.

Purpose: Clinicians and scientists often take a different path in developing competence and confidence as educators compared with peers who have received formal pedagogical teaching. This study explores how award-winning health professions educators reflect on the development and fluctuation of their teaching self-efficacy over time. Guided by social cognitive theory, the study investigates how educators notice, make meaning of, and respond to diverse teaching-related experiences across their careers. Method: Between May and August 2023, 31 Mayo Clinic educators in clinical medicine, basic science, and allied health who had been recognized for teaching excellence in the past 10 years were invited to participate in semistructured interviews. Each participant first completed a preinterview survey and created a graph of their teaching confidence over time, which served as an anchor for the interview discussion. Reflexive thematic analysis identified patterns in how participants described sources of fluctuation in teaching self-efficacy. Results: Of the 31 invited educators, 21 (11 women, 10 men) took part in an interview. Educators described varied trajectories of teaching self-efficacy over time shaped by different experiences, interpretations, and instructional experimentation. Four themes were identified: (1) interpreting implicit and explicit feedback, (2) revising beliefs in response to successes and setbacks, (3) adapting to changing contexts, and (4) using social models to gauge effectiveness. Participants reported becoming more responsive to situational demands and learner needs over time. Conclusions: For these award-winning educators, teaching self-efficacy was constructed and reconstructed through an adaptive, socially situated process of interpretation and reflection. The same events may have affected self-efficacy differently, depending on how individuals framed and acted on their experiences. Findings support a model that emphasizes adaptive expertise and offers implications for faculty development.

Introduction The needs and expectations of health professional educators and learners are evolving. Therefore, physical and virtual learning environments will look and function differently in the f...

Background: Evaluating outcomes of the clinical and translational research (CTR) training of a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hub (eg, the KL2 program) requires the selection of reliable, accessible, and standardized measures. As measures of scholarly success usually focus on publication output and extramural funding, CTSA hubs have started to use bibliometrics to evaluate the impact of their supported scholarly activities. However, the evaluation of KL2 programs across CTSAs is limited, and the use of bibliometrics and follow-on funding is minimal. Objective: This study seeks to evaluate scholarly productivity, impact, and collaboration using bibliometrics and federal follow-on funding of KL2 scholars from 3 CTSA hubs and to define and assess CTR training success indicators. Methods: The sample included KL2 scholars from 3 CTSA institutions (A-C). Bibliometric data for each scholar in the sample were collected from both SciVal and iCite, including scholarly productivity, citation impact, and research collaboration. Three federal follow-on funding measures (at the 5-year, 8-year, and overall time points) were collected internally and confirmed by examining a federal funding database. Both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were computed using SPSS to assess the bibliometric and federal follow-on funding results. Results: A total of 143 KL2 scholars were included in the sample with relatively equal groups across the 3 CTSA institutions. The included KL2 scholars produced more publications and citation counts per year on average at the 8-year time point (3.75 publications and 26.44 citation counts) than the 5-year time point (3.4 publications vs 26.16 citation counts). Overall, the KL2 publications from all 3 institutions were cited twice as much as others in their fields based on the relative citation ratio. KL2 scholars published work with researchers from other US institutions over 2 times (5-year time point) or 3.5 times (8-year time point) more than others in their research fields. Within 5 years and 8 years postmatriculation, 44.1% (63/143) and 51.7% (74/143) of KL2 scholars achieved federal funding, respectively. The KL2-scholars of Institution C had a significantly higher citation rate per publication than the other institutions (P<.001). Institution A had a significantly lower rate of nationally field-weighted collaboration than did the other institutions (P<.001). Institution B scholars were more likely to have received federal funding than scholars at Institution A or C (P<.001). Conclusions: Multi-institutional data showed a high level of scholarly productivity, impact, collaboration, and federal follow-on funding achieved by KL2 scholars. This study provides insights on the use of bibliometric and federal follow-on funding data to evaluate CTR training success across institutions. CTSA KL2 programs and other CTR career training programs can benefit from these findings in terms of understanding metrics of career success and using that knowledge to develop highly targeted strategies to support early-stage career development of CTR investigators.

BACKGROUND Evaluating outcomes of the clinical and translational research (CTR) training of a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hub (eg, the KL2 program) requires the selection of reliable, accessible, and standardized measures. As measures of scholarly success usually focus on publication output and extramural funding, CTSA hubs have started to use bibliometrics to evaluate the impact of their supported scholarly activities. However, the evaluation of KL2 programs across CTSAs is limited, and the use of bibliometrics and follow-on funding is minimal. OBJECTIVE This study seeks to evaluate scholarly productivity, impact, and collaboration using bibliometrics and federal follow-on funding of KL2 scholars from 3 CTSA hubs and to define and assess CTR training success indicators. METHODS The sample included KL2 scholars from 3 CTSA institutions (A-C). Bibliometric data for each scholar in the sample were collected from both SciVal and iCite, including scholarly productivity, citation impact, and research collaboration. Three federal follow-on funding measures (at the 5-year, 8-year, and overall time points) were collected internally and confirmed by examining a federal funding database. Both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were computed using SPSS to assess the bibliometric and federal follow-on funding results. RESULTS A total of 143 KL2 scholars were included in the sample with relatively equal groups across the 3 CTSA institutions. The included KL2 scholars produced more publications and citation counts per year on average at the 8-year time point (3.75 publications and 26.44 citation counts) than the 5-year time point (3.4 publications vs 26.16 citation counts). Overall, the KL2 publications from all 3 institutions were cited twice as much as others in their fields based on the relative citation ratio. KL2 scholars published work with researchers from other US institutions over 2 times (5-year time point) or 3.5 times (8-year time point) more than others in their research fields. Within 5 years and 8 years postmatriculation, 44.1% (63/143) and 51.7% (74/143) of KL2 scholars achieved federal funding, respectively. The KL2-scholars of Institution C had a significantly higher citation rate per publication than the other institutions (P<.001). Institution A had a significantly lower rate of nationally field-weighted collaboration than did the other institutions (P<.001). Institution B scholars were more likely to have received federal funding than scholars at Institution A or C (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS Multi-institutional data showed a high level of scholarly productivity, impact, collaboration, and federal follow-on funding achieved by KL2 scholars. This study provides insights on the use of bibliometric and federal follow-on funding data to evaluate CTR training success across institutions. CTSA KL2 programs and other CTR career training programs can benefit from these findings in terms of understanding metrics of career success and using that knowledge to develop highly targeted strategies to support early-stage career development of CTR investigators.