Heritage College Office of Research and Grants Faculty/Staff Needs Assessment Preliminary Report November 8, 017 Executive Summary On August, 017 the Heritage College Office of Research and Grants (ORG), along with Primary Care Research Initiatives, deployed a needs assessment survey to all Heritage College faculty and staff. The purpose of the survey was to understand the barriers to conducting research and scholarly activity in the college, and identify potential resources that would optimize the research environment. Survey responses will be considered in strategic planning, budgetary decisions, and resource allocation in ORG and the Heritage College. This report provides a preliminary assessment of the results. More in-depth analyses are being conducted and will be made available when finalized. The complete set of results (minus individual comments) are available at https://www.ohio.edu/medicine/about/offices/researchand-grants/survey-017.cfm. We received 3 responses (3% response rate) representing most areas of the college. Most respondents indicated that they were eager to increase their research productivity and that having more dedicated research time and support services would be helpful. We also learned that there is a significant lack of awareness of the resources currently available, as well as how to access those resources. In addition, we received valuable input on new services that people would like to see. Most notably, there was widespread enthusiasm for the spectrum of grant support that starts with identifying grant opportunities, and includes grant development, budget development, methodological and statistical support, project implementation, and post-award budget and personnel management. Other areas of interest were access to core facilities and opportunities to learn to be more innovative and creative. ORG would like to thank everyone who took the time to submit their responses. We will continue to review the data and use it to guide how we become a more service-oriented office. 1
Highlights of ORG Faculty/Staff Needs Assessment Results Characteristics of Respondents The survey was sent to all Heritage College faculty and staff. There were 3 respondents (3%). 50 faculty o 6 tenured; 13 tenure-track; 10 non-tenure-track o 1 full professor; 16 associate professor; 10 assistant professor 34 administrative staff (post-doctoral fellow, research assistant, laboratory technician) classified staff Most departments were represented. Pediatrics 0 Obstetrics and Gynecology 1 Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine 5 Specialty Medicine 6 Social Medicine Family Medicine 1 Non-Academic Department (i.e. Community Health Programs, Rural and Underserved Programs, etc.) 17 Biomedical Sciences 34
5% of respondents were affiliated with an institute or center. Appalachian Rural Health Institute Ohio Center for Ecology and Evolutionary Studies Edison Biotechnology Institute 4 4 4 Ohio Musculoskeletal and Neurological Institute 8 Infectious and Tropical Disease Institute Diabetes Institute Most respondents identified Athens as their primary campus. o Athens n=66 (84%) o Dublin n=7 (%) o Cleveland n=6 (8%) Definition of Primary Care Research The definition of primary care research, developed in 014, was provided and respondents were asked if this definition still encompasses the work that they do. The majority of people responding to this question (n=; 56%) said yes. Not At All Somewhat 5 Yes 3
Types of Research 70% of respondents were actively engaged in research, and this encompassed many areas of research. 7 Primary Care/Health Systems Research 16 Human Subjects Research 6 Basic Science Research 6 Most people reported having 5 or more active projects. 5 or more 0 3-4 17 1-14 4
A large number of students and postdoctoral fellows are involved in Heritage College research. Post-Doctoral Fellows 18 Graduate Undergraduate 34 Medical 35 Research Funding Most respondents (n=3; 76%) have funding for their research project(s), and this funding comes from a variety of intramural and extramural sources. Foundation (i.e. PCORI, Robert Wood Johnson, Macy Foundation, etc.) Industry (Pharmaceutical, Device) Federal, Non-NIH (i.e. NSF, AHRQ, NLM, etc.) NIH Intramural (i.e. OURC, 1804, RSAC, Innovation Strategy, etc.) (Please Specify 0 5 10 15 0 5 or More Projects 3-4 Projects 1- Projects Protected Research Time Most respondents (37 of 51; 73%) report having protected research time and most (1 of 36; 58%) feel it is sufficient. 5
Barriers to Conducting Research The most common barriers to research were balancing research with other commitment (41 respondents) and lack of funding (7 respondents). Most people agreed that identifying a research topic of interest and understanding how to initiate and develop a research project were not barriers. Shared Facilities with Technical Expertise and Training The shared facilities that were identified as most commonly desired were space for interviews/focus groups (8 respondents), nutritional assessments for human subjects (4 respondents), and histology/pathology ( respondents). Transmission Electron Microscopy Shared Wet Labs Metabolic Phenotyping (Mouse) Scanning Electron Microscopy Biorepository Blood Metabolite Analyses Histology/Pathology Nutritional Assessments for Human Space for Interviews or Focus Groups 0 5 10 15 0 5 30 35 40 No Yes 6
Services Likely to be Used When asked what services people would most likely use if offered, the highest-ranking responses had to do with grants and publications: assistance with grant submission (30 respondents), assistance creating publication-quality graphs/charts/illustrations (6 respondents), budget preparation for proposals (1 respondents), assistance with manuscripts and publication (18 respondents), and post-award budget management (18 respondents). Liasion with Technology Transfer Office Inventory Management On-Site Supply Center Programs for Select Companies (e.g. Purchasing Managing a Reporting Database of Scholarly Works (such as Assistance with Research-Related Agreements and Contracts Facilitation of Potential Collaborations Mock Grant Reviews Regulatory and Compliance Assistance for IRB, IACUC, External Identifying Potential Funding Sources Recruiting Graduate Students, Medical Students, Post-Doctoral Post-Award Budget Management Development Assistance for Manuscripts and Other Publications Preparing Budgets for Internal and External Proposals Assistance Creating Publication-Quality Graphs, Charts, Assistance Preparing Grant Submissions (does not include 5 6 7 8 11 11 1 1 18 18 1 6 30 0 5 10 15 0 5 30 35 7
Training Opportunities The training opportunities most likely to be used included grant writing (38 respondents), team science (36 respondents), identifying funding opportunities (33 respondents), and evaluating journal quality and suitability (6 respondents). Training opportunities least likely to be used included animal-based research (34 respondents), laboratory management (31 respondents), human subjects research (7 respondents), team science (7 respondents), research compliance (6 respondents), and technology transfer (5 respondents). Animal-Based Research Laboratory Management Technology Transfer Human Subject Research Research Compliance Training for Medical Team Science Evaluating Journal Quality and Suitability Identify Funding Opportunities Effective Brainstorming to Enhance Innovation and Grant Writing 0 5 10 15 0 5 30 35 40 No Yes 8
Statistical Services The majority of respondents (n=5; 75%) indicated they are interested in using statistical services. The services desired included various types of basic statistical support, data collection tools, and data analysis. Latent Class, Mixture, Growth Mixture or Cluster Models Developing Aims, Objectives and Research Questions Structural Equation and Factor Analytic Models Selecting/Designing Measurement Scales Randomization Schedule Designing Data Collection Template Network Analysis Generalized Mixed Linear and Non-Linear Mixed Models General Linear and Generalized Linear Models Entering and Cleaning Data for Analysis Statistical Inference Including Hypothesis Testing and Descriptive and Summary Statistics and Graphics Calculating Sample Size and Power Choosing Statistical Analysis Methods 0 5 10 15 0 5 30 35 40 45 No Yes Mentorship and Collaboration More than half (n=30; 57%) did not feel they would benefit from research mentorship, while more than half (n=8; 54%) said they are willing to mentor other faculty members or provide other support to a researcher (n=3; 6%). Three quarters (n=3; 75%) indicated they would like to participate in collaborative research groups such as journal clubs, writing groups or think tanks.