First-year evaluation of a campus-wide, cross-disciplinary scholarly writing development program supported by a center for biomedical research excellence (COBRE).


Journal

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2024
Historique:
received: 26 02 2024
accepted: 17 09 2024
medline: 29 10 2024
pubmed: 29 10 2024
entrez: 29 10 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Scholarly publications are important indicators of research productivity and investigator development in Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (COBREs). However, no information is available to describe implementation and evaluation of writing development programs within COBREs. Therefore, this paper aimed to evaluate the first year of a campus-wide COBRE-supported writing program. A convergent parallel mixed-methods design (QUAN + QUAL) was used. All writing program participants were invited to complete post-participation surveys, and a subgroup was selected using purposive sampling to complete individual semi-structured interviews. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize survey data, and qualitative content analysis was employed to analyze interview data. Self-determination theory served as the theoretical framework by which themes were developed and interpreted. Professional staff, post-doctoral fellows, and faculty from all academic ranks (n = 29) participated in the writing program during its first year. Survey respondents (n = 18, response rate 62%) rated social support (89%), group accountability (89%), hearing group members' writing goals (78%), receiving group advice (67%), and setting a weekly writing schedule (56%) as beneficial program components. Participants rated program benefits such as breaking away from other responsibilities, staying on task with writing goals, and receiving social support as most beneficial. During interviews, participants (n = 14) described five major themes related to the benefits received: 1) belonging to a community of writers; 2) managing writing-related emotions; 3) improved productivity; 4) establishing helpful writing habits; and 5) improved motivation for scholarly writing. This first-year programmatic evaluation demonstrates the writing program's effectiveness as a campus-level development resource supported by a research center. Both survey and interview data affirmed that participants perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness were supported through participation in the writing program. Participants placed particular emphasis on the writing program's successful development of a community of scholarly writers.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Scholarly publications are important indicators of research productivity and investigator development in Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (COBREs). However, no information is available to describe implementation and evaluation of writing development programs within COBREs. Therefore, this paper aimed to evaluate the first year of a campus-wide COBRE-supported writing program.
METHODS METHODS
A convergent parallel mixed-methods design (QUAN + QUAL) was used. All writing program participants were invited to complete post-participation surveys, and a subgroup was selected using purposive sampling to complete individual semi-structured interviews. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize survey data, and qualitative content analysis was employed to analyze interview data. Self-determination theory served as the theoretical framework by which themes were developed and interpreted.
RESULTS RESULTS
Professional staff, post-doctoral fellows, and faculty from all academic ranks (n = 29) participated in the writing program during its first year. Survey respondents (n = 18, response rate 62%) rated social support (89%), group accountability (89%), hearing group members' writing goals (78%), receiving group advice (67%), and setting a weekly writing schedule (56%) as beneficial program components. Participants rated program benefits such as breaking away from other responsibilities, staying on task with writing goals, and receiving social support as most beneficial. During interviews, participants (n = 14) described five major themes related to the benefits received: 1) belonging to a community of writers; 2) managing writing-related emotions; 3) improved productivity; 4) establishing helpful writing habits; and 5) improved motivation for scholarly writing.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
This first-year programmatic evaluation demonstrates the writing program's effectiveness as a campus-level development resource supported by a research center. Both survey and interview data affirmed that participants perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness were supported through participation in the writing program. Participants placed particular emphasis on the writing program's successful development of a community of scholarly writers.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39471171
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312322
pii: PONE-D-24-07391
pmc: PMC11521313
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e0312322

Informations de copyright

Copyright: © 2024 Franks et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Références

J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
PeerJ. 2015 Sep 24;3:e1262
pubmed: 26421238
Am J Pharm Educ. 2018 Aug;82(6):6556
pubmed: 30181674
J Clin Transl Sci. 2020 Jun 23;4(6):493-497
pubmed: 33948225
PRiMER. 2021 Sep 27;5:34
pubmed: 34841209
J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208
pubmed: 31078660
FASEB J. 2024 Mar 31;38(6):e23560
pubmed: 38498349
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Fam Med. 2003 Mar;35(3):195-201
pubmed: 12670113

Auteurs

Amy M Franks (AM)

Department of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas, United States of America.

Benjamin S Teeter (BS)

Department of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas, United States of America.

Payton Davis (P)

Department of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas, United States of America.

Mallory Allred (M)

Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas, United States of America.

Reid D Landes (RD)

Department of Biostatistics, College of Medicine, University of Arkansas Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas, United States of America.

Igor Koturbash (I)

Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Fay W. Boozman College of Public Health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas, United States of America.

Judith Weber (J)

Science Department, College of Nursing, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas, United States of America.
Arkansas Children's Research Institute, Little Rock, Arkansas, United States of America.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH