Developing a Sustained and Productive Clinical Research Seminar

TY - JOUR

T1 - Developing a Sustained and Productive Clinical Research Seminar

AU - Brown, E. Sherwood

N1 - Funding Information: The CREW has been active as a monthly meeting for more than 7 years. Typical attendance over the years has been approximately 8 to 10 participants per meeting. Because the problems discussed at meetings are selected by presenters, the topics have been diverse. Examples include advice on clinical trial design, how to develop a manuscript based on unexpected findings, and issues surrounding the development of a junior faculty member's clinical research program. Most presentations, however, are related to upcoming grant submissions or resubmissions. Advice on developing specific aims and on responding to grant reviewers is a common topic of discussion. Some investigators have presented numerous times over the years. The backgrounds of attendees are diverse and include psychopharmacology, clinical trials, neuroimaging, neuropsychology, and statistics. Although causality is not clear and multiple factors are likely involved, total departmental National Institutes of Health funding for clinical research has increased by approximately 150% since CREW meetings started. New grant funding by CREW attendees include 2 K awards and 12 “R” grants, including 9 R01s. Some basic scientists have started attending the meetings, and translational grants involving junior clinical and preclinical researchers have been submitted by departmental faculty. Researchers other than the core group occasionally present. For example, researchers from outside the department, often with collaborations or other ties to the department, sometimes ask to present to receive feedback on their ideas. Findings from an anonymous survey of attendees (determined by the institutional review board to not be considered human subjects research and not requiring institutional review board review) administered approximately 1 year after the seminar series began were favorable. All agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that “Good feedback was provided to presenters” and 75% agreed or strongly agreed that “The research training experience is useful in my work.” However, only 50% agreed or strongly agreed that “The topics covered were relevant to me,” which may reflect the diversity of presentations and the intentional focus on the needs of the presenter rather than the interests of the attendees. Comments suggested that the members enjoyed hearing about research in the department and appreciated “the collaborative nature of the meetings.”

PY - 2021/9/1

Y1 - 2021/9/1

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85115055758&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85115055758&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/JCP.0000000000001455

DO - 10.1097/JCP.0000000000001455

M3 - Letter

C2 - 34411005

AN - SCOPUS:85115055758

SN - 0271-0749

VL - 41

SP - 614

EP - 615

JO - Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology

JF - Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology

IS - 5

ER -