ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the Grant Generating Project (GGP), a program designed to train and assist family medicine researchers to secure research funding as part of an overall strategy to increase research capacity in family medicine in the United States and Canada.
STUDY DESIGN: We surveyed participants in the GGP program. • POPULATION First- through fourth-year participants in the GGP program starting from 1995. Participants were faculty members of American and Canadian family medicine departments.
OUTCOMES MEASURED: Information was obtained on the number of grants/contracts submitted, funded, not funded, and pending by GGP participants following their participation in the GGP research training program. In addition, respondents were asked to evaluate the different components of the GGP program.
RESULTS: Eighteen of the 23 former GGP participants completed the survey. A total of 58 grants/contracts were submitted by respondents, representing approximately US$19.3 million. Currently, 17 (29%) are pending, representing $10.8 million (including training grants). Given the current track record, $4.8 million additional grants funds could be generated. GGP strengths cited by respondents included an effort to enhance family medicine research; personal attention, guidance, motivation, and feedback from GGP faculty and mentors; development of grant-writing skills, including the concept paper; encouragement to attend family medicine meetings; ability to meet and learn from peers; mock study section experience; and the ability to teach, mentor, and encourage others as the GGP experience did for them. Major challenges cited were a variable degree of commitment from mentors, lack of a long-term commitment to participants, and difficulty accommodating the research focus and skill level of participants. In general, most respondents regarded the GGP program as well worth the time and effort invested.
CONCLUSIONS: One to 2 years after participating in the program, participants achieved a remarkable track record of grant submissions. Moreover, the GGP program has had a substantial impact on participants; many are now teaching and mentoring others in their department. If sustained, the program will greatly increase the research capacity of the discipline of family medicine.
In 1995, in recognition of the need for trained family medicine researchers,1-6 the North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG) Committee on Building Research Capacity launched the Family Medicine Grant Generating Project (GGP) to help family medicine researchers successfully apply for their first major research grant. Between 1995 and the time of the evaluation, 23 faculty participants from 21 family medicine departments enrolled in this year-long “fellowship without walls” designed to permit participants to remain housed in their home department while working on their research proposal. Participants attended 3 GGP sessions held in conjunction with the annual meeting of the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM), and the NACPRG and the Primary Care Research Methods and Statistics meetings over the course of 1 year. Additionally, participants worked via e-mail, telephone, and postal mail with GGP faculty and research mentors during the year. Many participants met in person with mentors.
Although the program is referred to as a “fellowship” and participants as “fellows,” this is neither a traditional family medicine “fellowship” in which participants are housed for a designated time period (usually 2 years), nor an innovative fellowship in which individuals spend concentrated time at another institution. Traditional fellowships usually offer courses for academic credit in a variety of topics such as statistics and epidemiology and typically result in a master’s degree. GGP, however, is designed to train fellows in the design and writing of competitive external grant proposals: it does not offer courses or a degree. Over the fellowship year, fellows attend sessions that focus on the various tools, techniques, and methods required to produce a competitive proposal. These sessions include time devoted to concept paper development, conducting a literature review, development of specific aims, and elaboration of various research methodologies. GGP uses the term “fellowship” to identify the program as a special 1-year period with at least 25% of the time devoted to developing “grantsmanship skills” and producing a competitive proposal. This program is the only one of its kind in family medicine and therefore cannot be compared with more traditional fellowships programs. This article reports on the evaluation results.
Methods
From December 1999 through April 2000 we mailed surveys to 23 former GGP participants. Respondents were asked to evaluate the GGP’s components (statistics, concept paper, grant writing, mentoring) on a scale from “not at all helpful” to “very helpful.” Several open-ended questions were asked about their program expectations; what they considered GGP’s strengths and weaknesses; how participation contributed to their academic career and helped increase research capacity; the barriers encountered in achieving their research goals; the skills learned; suggestions for improving the program; and advice they would give to future applicants. Respondents were asked to indicate the grants/contracts that they submitted after their fellowship. In addition, demographic information was obtained on age, employment position, date of initiation of GGP, the year they graduated from medical school, and the year they participated in the GGP program.