Strengthening the research workforce is essential for meeting the evolving needs and challenges in the health and biomedical fields. To do so effectively, it requires an understanding of how the experiences of a researcher shift over time and how one’s research career evolves, particularly as supports are put in place to foster research. This narrative review provides a summary of published individual-level assessment measures and survey tools from 2000–2024. All measures were abstracted, classified, and coded during analyses to describe the areas of focus, and they were organized into one of six research categories. The review identified a range of measures and methods across all categories. However, the measures were often narrow, focused on outputs, and not ideal for assessing the full range of experiences a researcher may have throughout their career. The most common metrics were related to research productivity and bibliometric measures. Our review of survey tools revealed a gap in comprehensive approaches available to assess an individual’s research experience, efforts, supports, and impact. As efforts expand to evaluate and study the research workforce, tools that focus on a broad range of individual-level measures, tied to specific underlying constructs and drawn from the literature, may prove useful.

Rutgers Health, Clinical Research Management (CRM) program with support from New Jersey Alliance for Clinical and Translational Science (NJ ACTS) provide scholarships to establish a “Clinical Research Experience” (CRE). The CRE focuses on building an entry-level Clinical Research Coordinator (CRC) workforce. The six-month precepted CRE is embedded in an accelerated master’s degree and demonstrates a skill-based approach to developing CRC resources. The CRE structure affiliated site collaboration; competency based curriculum objectives; standardized competency aligned on-boarding; and preceptor-evaluated performance. The experiential education is designed for academic medical centers (AMCs) to foster the development of qualified research coordinators. The CRE model supports “teach one, see one, do one” coupled with preceptor-evaluated feedback to cultivate clinical research competency.

Mentorship is a vital part of the training provided in the K and T programs funded by the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA). However, the inputs, indicators, and outcomes associated with a successful mentoring relationship remain poorly understood. In this review, we critically examine the current body of literature on mentorship in a CTSA context. We conducted a comprehensive search of the literature for relevant research articles. We included articles that were contextualized within a CTSA hub, examined a mentorship program, and conducted evaluation research. Through an initial search of online databases and by reviewing reference sections of relevant articles, we identified 141 potentially relevant articles. Twenty-five of these articles met our inclusion criteria. We identified three categories of research: nationwide institutional surveys of CTSA mentorship programs, mentored research training programs, and mentor training programs. While the findings highlighted the effectiveness of mentor training and mentored training programs, there is a notable lack of assessment of mentoring inputs and indicators. Based on our review, we propose a model for the evaluation of CTSA mentorship that includes measurable inputs, indicators, and outcomes. This model provides a holistic framework for evaluators and CTSA program directors to better understand their mentorship programs.

Alcohol misuse among women has risen compared to men. Women experience barriers to engaging in patient-centered comparative effectiveness research (CER) that, in turn, limits the evidence base for addressing alcohol misuse in this population. In this manuscript, we describe WomenWise, a community-partnered project and outline how we co-developed community focused CER training curriculum and collaboratively planned future partnered learning sessions (PLSs) with Community Advisory Board (CAB) feedback. Through this approach we aim to empower women to contribute to future patient-centered CER and enhance the stakeholder capacity for future patient-centered research.