Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Clinical Science Training at the University of Colorado
  1. Deborah A. Hall,
  2. Jeanelle Sheeder,
  3. Tamara Box,
  4. Laurie A. Shroyer
  1. From the Departments of Neurology (D.A.H.) and Pediatrics (J.S.), University of Colorado at Denver Health Sciences Center, Denver, CO; and Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (T.B.) and Division of Cardiac Research (A.L.S.), Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Denver, CO.
  1. This work was supported by an American Academy of Neurology Clinical Research Fellowship (to D.A.H.), National Institutes of Health K23 NS052487 (to D.A.H.), and a National Institutes of Health K30 award (to A.L.S.).
  2. Presented in part at the Clinical Research 2006 meeting, Washington, DC, March 16-18, 2006.
  3. Address correspondence to: Dr. Deborah Hall, 4200 East Ninth Avenue, B183, Denver, CO 80262; e-mail: Deborah.Hall{at}

a Measurement of Trainee Satisfaction


Background Clinical science (CLSC) research education differs from basic science education in that many CLSC programs have an added goal of creating successful academicians. CLSC programs have expanded curricula that include teaching career development techniques, such as manuscript and grant writing, and helping young investigators establish successful mentor-mentee relationships.

Methods A group of K30 CLSC training program students coordinated a pilot survey to determine if the CLSC training programs at the University of Colorado were meeting the needs of the participants in both didactic courses and in other aspects of academic medicine, including research. The small group survey was conducted as part of a clinical outcomes assessment course. Opportunities for improvement in the CLSC training programs were explored based on the results.

Results Of 117 CLSC training program participants surveyed, 56% responded. Overall, there was a positive improvement found for the didactic CLSC research constructs. Participants also reported success in manuscript publication and grant writing applications. The CLSC program, however, was not successful in coordinating faculty mentor support for student research projects for 78% of respondents. Once a mentoring relationship was established, students were satisfied with the mentoring they received.

Conclusion In general, CLSC trainees were satisfied that the K30 clinical research curriculum was meeting their needs. Many of the trainees were successful in developing academic skills during the program. Establishing a mentor relationship was the missing ingredient within the K30 CLSC training program. This may be an important component that should be considered when developing programs to create the next generation of clinician-scientists.

Key words
  • clinical research
  • clinical science
  • mentor
  • K30
  • training

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.