Grant writing coaching groups: A randomized trial to discern the influences of coaching duration and engagement of scientific mentors on participants proposal submission and success rates

Abstract

IntroductionThe acquisition of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants is an increasingly competitive undertaking. Many early-career biomedical investigators lack sufficient grant writing skills. This pragmatic, 2x2 factorial, group-randomized trial tested the effects of coaching duration and mode of engagement of participants scientific mentors in a grant writing coaching group intervention on grant application outcomes. MethodsA national US sample of 367 faculty and postdoctoral fellows, organized into 76 coaching groups across 6 cohorts (2020-2022), was randomized to 1 of 4 arms that differed by coaching duration (5 months vs 5 months plus 18 months of access to 1:1 coaching) and mode of scientific mentor engagement (structured vs unstructured). Primary outcomes were national-level grant application submissions and awards, and success rate among submitters, assessed via surveys and verified through award databases 30 months after study initiation. ResultsAmong 271 faculty and 96 postdoctoral fellows, 69% submitted at least 1 national application and 32% were awarded at least 1 grant. Submission rates did not differ by experimental arm. Among faculty, the structured engagement of a mentor in coaching was associated with significantly higher odds of any award (adjusted OR = 1.87) and any NIH mentored career development (K) award (adjusted OR = 3.32), and with higher success rates for these proposal types. Extended coaching duration showed a positive but not statistically significant association with faculty awards after adjustment. Neither factor significantly affected outcomes for postdoctoral fellows. Faculty success rates exceeded national NIH-reported success rates for research project grants equivalent to the R01 mechanism (43% vs 17.6%) and K awards (51% vs 36.5%). ConclusionParticipation in a national, cross-institutional, group coaching model yielded high grant submission outcomes, and award rates were higher relative to NIH benchmarks. Structured integration of scientific mentors with the coaching intervention had a greater effect than extended coaching duration on faculty outcomes.