This content is restricted to AACP Members. Click here to become a member.
Abstract
Discussion Forum (0)
Poster Category: Research and Education
AACP Section: Pharmacy Practice
Objectives: Sponsored by the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP), the New Investigator Award (NIA) provides start-up funding for the independent research programs of early-career pharmacy faculty. The utility of the NIA award from the perspective of the department chairs is unknown; thus, the objective of this project is to describe department chairs’ perceptions of the NIA award.
Methods: After examining the literature and the NIA award process, a 15-item survey was developed to collect demographic information, perceptions of the NIA award, and department outcomes related to the NIA award. Consensus on the survey was achieved and following a mini pilot test the survey was distributed in Qualtrics to all department chairs (n=318) in accredited pharmacy programs with publicly-available contact information. Three reminders were used to increase response rates. Data were analyzed descriptively in SPSS.
Results: Of the 84 chair respondents, 37% had faculty who had received NIA funding and 14% had served as a mentor. Most departments did not have a NIA development/review process (87%) or a general scholarship/research development program (55%). However, most departments did have a mentoring program (63%) and felt that their faculty were somewhat or extremely likely to be successful in receiving a NIA grant (70%), another entry-level/early-career grant (63%/65%), or a foundation-based grant (76%). Most perceived the NIA program to be valuable/very valuable in faculty progression as a researcher (56%), in academic advancement (58%), and in development of a research program (50%).
Conclusion: Overall, department chairs have positive perceptions of the value of the NIA to future faculty success. This suggests the value of the NIA to the faculty and the Academy.
AACP Section: Pharmacy Practice
Objectives: Sponsored by the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP), the New Investigator Award (NIA) provides start-up funding for the independent research programs of early-career pharmacy faculty. The utility of the NIA award from the perspective of the department chairs is unknown; thus, the objective of this project is to describe department chairs’ perceptions of the NIA award.
Methods: After examining the literature and the NIA award process, a 15-item survey was developed to collect demographic information, perceptions of the NIA award, and department outcomes related to the NIA award. Consensus on the survey was achieved and following a mini pilot test the survey was distributed in Qualtrics to all department chairs (n=318) in accredited pharmacy programs with publicly-available contact information. Three reminders were used to increase response rates. Data were analyzed descriptively in SPSS.
Results: Of the 84 chair respondents, 37% had faculty who had received NIA funding and 14% had served as a mentor. Most departments did not have a NIA development/review process (87%) or a general scholarship/research development program (55%). However, most departments did have a mentoring program (63%) and felt that their faculty were somewhat or extremely likely to be successful in receiving a NIA grant (70%), another entry-level/early-career grant (63%/65%), or a foundation-based grant (76%). Most perceived the NIA program to be valuable/very valuable in faculty progression as a researcher (56%), in academic advancement (58%), and in development of a research program (50%).
Conclusion: Overall, department chairs have positive perceptions of the value of the NIA to future faculty success. This suggests the value of the NIA to the faculty and the Academy.
Poster Category: Research and Education
AACP Section: Pharmacy Practice
Objectives: Sponsored by the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP), the New Investigator Award (NIA) provides start-up funding for the independent research programs of early-career pharmacy faculty. The utility of the NIA award from the perspective of the department chairs is unknown; thus, the objective of this project is to describe department chairs’ perceptions of the NIA award.
Methods: After examining the literature and the NIA award process, a 15-item survey was developed to collect demographic information, perceptions of the NIA award, and department outcomes related to the NIA award. Consensus on the survey was achieved and following a mini pilot test the survey was distributed in Qualtrics to all department chairs (n=318) in accredited pharmacy programs with publicly-available contact information. Three reminders were used to increase response rates. Data were analyzed descriptively in SPSS.
Results: Of the 84 chair respondents, 37% had faculty who had received NIA funding and 14% had served as a mentor. Most departments did not have a NIA development/review process (87%) or a general scholarship/research development program (55%). However, most departments did have a mentoring program (63%) and felt that their faculty were somewhat or extremely likely to be successful in receiving a NIA grant (70%), another entry-level/early-career grant (63%/65%), or a foundation-based grant (76%). Most perceived the NIA program to be valuable/very valuable in faculty progression as a researcher (56%), in academic advancement (58%), and in development of a research program (50%).
Conclusion: Overall, department chairs have positive perceptions of the value of the NIA to future faculty success. This suggests the value of the NIA to the faculty and the Academy.
AACP Section: Pharmacy Practice
Objectives: Sponsored by the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP), the New Investigator Award (NIA) provides start-up funding for the independent research programs of early-career pharmacy faculty. The utility of the NIA award from the perspective of the department chairs is unknown; thus, the objective of this project is to describe department chairs’ perceptions of the NIA award.
Methods: After examining the literature and the NIA award process, a 15-item survey was developed to collect demographic information, perceptions of the NIA award, and department outcomes related to the NIA award. Consensus on the survey was achieved and following a mini pilot test the survey was distributed in Qualtrics to all department chairs (n=318) in accredited pharmacy programs with publicly-available contact information. Three reminders were used to increase response rates. Data were analyzed descriptively in SPSS.
Results: Of the 84 chair respondents, 37% had faculty who had received NIA funding and 14% had served as a mentor. Most departments did not have a NIA development/review process (87%) or a general scholarship/research development program (55%). However, most departments did have a mentoring program (63%) and felt that their faculty were somewhat or extremely likely to be successful in receiving a NIA grant (70%), another entry-level/early-career grant (63%/65%), or a foundation-based grant (76%). Most perceived the NIA program to be valuable/very valuable in faculty progression as a researcher (56%), in academic advancement (58%), and in development of a research program (50%).
Conclusion: Overall, department chairs have positive perceptions of the value of the NIA to future faculty success. This suggests the value of the NIA to the faculty and the Academy.
Department Chair Perceptions of the New Investigator Award (NIA)
Jill Borchert
Abstract
Discussion Forum (0)
Poster Category: Research and Education
AACP Section: Pharmacy Practice
Objectives: Sponsored by the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP), the New Investigator Award (NIA) provides start-up funding for the independent research programs of early-career pharmacy faculty. The utility of the NIA award from the perspective of the department chairs is unknown; thus, the objective of this project is to describe department chairs’ perceptions of the NIA award.
Methods: After examining the literature and the NIA award process, a 15-item survey was developed to collect demographic information, perceptions of the NIA award, and department outcomes related to the NIA award. Consensus on the survey was achieved and following a mini pilot test the survey was distributed in Qualtrics to all department chairs (n=318) in accredited pharmacy programs with publicly-available contact information. Three reminders were used to increase response rates. Data were analyzed descriptively in SPSS.
Results: Of the 84 chair respondents, 37% had faculty who had received NIA funding and 14% had served as a mentor. Most departments did not have a NIA development/review process (87%) or a general scholarship/research development program (55%). However, most departments did have a mentoring program (63%) and felt that their faculty were somewhat or extremely likely to be successful in receiving a NIA grant (70%), another entry-level/early-career grant (63%/65%), or a foundation-based grant (76%). Most perceived the NIA program to be valuable/very valuable in faculty progression as a researcher (56%), in academic advancement (58%), and in development of a research program (50%).
Conclusion: Overall, department chairs have positive perceptions of the value of the NIA to future faculty success. This suggests the value of the NIA to the faculty and the Academy.
AACP Section: Pharmacy Practice
Objectives: Sponsored by the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP), the New Investigator Award (NIA) provides start-up funding for the independent research programs of early-career pharmacy faculty. The utility of the NIA award from the perspective of the department chairs is unknown; thus, the objective of this project is to describe department chairs’ perceptions of the NIA award.
Methods: After examining the literature and the NIA award process, a 15-item survey was developed to collect demographic information, perceptions of the NIA award, and department outcomes related to the NIA award. Consensus on the survey was achieved and following a mini pilot test the survey was distributed in Qualtrics to all department chairs (n=318) in accredited pharmacy programs with publicly-available contact information. Three reminders were used to increase response rates. Data were analyzed descriptively in SPSS.
Results: Of the 84 chair respondents, 37% had faculty who had received NIA funding and 14% had served as a mentor. Most departments did not have a NIA development/review process (87%) or a general scholarship/research development program (55%). However, most departments did have a mentoring program (63%) and felt that their faculty were somewhat or extremely likely to be successful in receiving a NIA grant (70%), another entry-level/early-career grant (63%/65%), or a foundation-based grant (76%). Most perceived the NIA program to be valuable/very valuable in faculty progression as a researcher (56%), in academic advancement (58%), and in development of a research program (50%).
Conclusion: Overall, department chairs have positive perceptions of the value of the NIA to future faculty success. This suggests the value of the NIA to the faculty and the Academy.
Poster Category: Research and Education
AACP Section: Pharmacy Practice
Objectives: Sponsored by the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP), the New Investigator Award (NIA) provides start-up funding for the independent research programs of early-career pharmacy faculty. The utility of the NIA award from the perspective of the department chairs is unknown; thus, the objective of this project is to describe department chairs’ perceptions of the NIA award.
Methods: After examining the literature and the NIA award process, a 15-item survey was developed to collect demographic information, perceptions of the NIA award, and department outcomes related to the NIA award. Consensus on the survey was achieved and following a mini pilot test the survey was distributed in Qualtrics to all department chairs (n=318) in accredited pharmacy programs with publicly-available contact information. Three reminders were used to increase response rates. Data were analyzed descriptively in SPSS.
Results: Of the 84 chair respondents, 37% had faculty who had received NIA funding and 14% had served as a mentor. Most departments did not have a NIA development/review process (87%) or a general scholarship/research development program (55%). However, most departments did have a mentoring program (63%) and felt that their faculty were somewhat or extremely likely to be successful in receiving a NIA grant (70%), another entry-level/early-career grant (63%/65%), or a foundation-based grant (76%). Most perceived the NIA program to be valuable/very valuable in faculty progression as a researcher (56%), in academic advancement (58%), and in development of a research program (50%).
Conclusion: Overall, department chairs have positive perceptions of the value of the NIA to future faculty success. This suggests the value of the NIA to the faculty and the Academy.
AACP Section: Pharmacy Practice
Objectives: Sponsored by the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP), the New Investigator Award (NIA) provides start-up funding for the independent research programs of early-career pharmacy faculty. The utility of the NIA award from the perspective of the department chairs is unknown; thus, the objective of this project is to describe department chairs’ perceptions of the NIA award.
Methods: After examining the literature and the NIA award process, a 15-item survey was developed to collect demographic information, perceptions of the NIA award, and department outcomes related to the NIA award. Consensus on the survey was achieved and following a mini pilot test the survey was distributed in Qualtrics to all department chairs (n=318) in accredited pharmacy programs with publicly-available contact information. Three reminders were used to increase response rates. Data were analyzed descriptively in SPSS.
Results: Of the 84 chair respondents, 37% had faculty who had received NIA funding and 14% had served as a mentor. Most departments did not have a NIA development/review process (87%) or a general scholarship/research development program (55%). However, most departments did have a mentoring program (63%) and felt that their faculty were somewhat or extremely likely to be successful in receiving a NIA grant (70%), another entry-level/early-career grant (63%/65%), or a foundation-based grant (76%). Most perceived the NIA program to be valuable/very valuable in faculty progression as a researcher (56%), in academic advancement (58%), and in development of a research program (50%).
Conclusion: Overall, department chairs have positive perceptions of the value of the NIA to future faculty success. This suggests the value of the NIA to the faculty and the Academy.
{{ help_message }}
{{filter}}