Respondents were asked to describe their major expectations of the GGP. Most respondents replied that they expected to receive help in grant writing, to better understand the grant application process, and to develop helpful relationships with experienced researchers.
All of the respondents indicated that most of their expectations were met. However, respondents were mixed regarding the mentoring process. Although 8 indicated that the mentoring was very helpful, some respondents had difficulty in identifying a mentor or were never successful in finding a mentor, whereas others indicated problems with long distance mentoring.
Strengths of the GGP
Respondents indicated that program strengths include enhancing the value of family medicine research, receiving guidance and feedback, learning from the experiences of their peers, and developing grant-writing skills. Respondents specifically mentioned the focus on the NIH grant process and the mock study section as strengths.
With respect to how the GGP contributed to their career, 7 of the respondents said that the program helped them connect with other researchers and gave them confidence in grant writing. In other instances, the GGP program helped respondents to achieve a more secure position, obtain a promotion, start a career, or change academic departments/institutions. As one respondent mentioned, “I think more critically and more daringly . . . I [was] promoted after that from assistant to associate.”
Most respondents indicated that the GGP program enabled them to mentor, teach, and encourage other faculty members in their department in their grant-writing efforts. As one respondent mentioned, the GGP experience ”. . . has helped me to bridge the gap between clinicians and researchers.”
Challenges of the GGP
The most specific challenge of the GGP program mentioned by respondents was the variable commitment of mentors and the lack of having a mentor with expertise in a respondent’s area of research. The major barriers to respondents toward achieving their research goals were (1) the lack of a supportive research environment including a lack of financial support, few peers engaged in research, a lack of local mentoring, and infrastructural and administrative barriers (eg, no links to statisticians, confused priorities within department, and lack of diversity and foresight in department); (2) the lack of time to do research while participating in clinical duties and academic activities; and (3) the lack of information about funding opportunities at their institution. One respondent mentioned not having any external barriers but that the GGP experience “. . . did cause me to reevaluate and ultimately redefine my research goals.”
When asked what skills they learned during the GGP that helped them address these barriers, several respondents indicated (1) time management, including how to realistically organize the research process; (2) the ability to make connections with outside mentors and consultants; and (3) confidence development, such as contacting a program specialist despite poor information from their institution. However, respondents who mentioned the barrier of a nonsupportive research environment indicated that skills to address this barrier were not taught in the GGP program. Recommendations for improving the GGP
Suggestions for improving the GGP program included having 2 GGP entry levels (for beginning researchers and experienced researchers), continuing networking opportunities for “graduates,” addressing the need for female mentors, following up with consultations and mentoring, and having a mentor with expertise in participants’ area of research.
With respect to advice to future applicants, respondents mentioned being more aggressive in working with a mentor, having reasonable expectations, having long-term support from the department, using time efficiently to network, and reflecting on one’s motivation toward an intensive research career. As one participant said, “I would support the application 100% and notify them that it is one of the best investments of time they can make for their academic career.”
Discussion
The respondents’ comments made clear that the GGP is an “excellent place to start a career.” Most respondents appeared to regard the program as well worth the time and effort invested. Aside from some adjustments, such as consistency in mentoring and accommodating the research focus and skill level of participants, it is “. . . very important to continue [the] effort to train new researchers.” Interestingly, the GGP had a substantial impact on the extent to which many participants are now teaching and mentoring others to help develop the skills necessary for meaningful research.
Moreover, within 1 to 2 years of the program participants achieved a remarkable track record of grant submissions. Although for some participants “. . . breaking in [getting grant awards] still seems mysterious and forbidding,” they appreciated the opportunity to learn how to write a coherent concept paper, how to apply “good methods,” the importance of a track record, and to learn from experienced researchers.