A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 144

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 144
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 212
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3106
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

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

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: 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: 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: 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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11521313PMC
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0312322PLOS

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

writing
12
writing program
12
writing development
8
supported center
8
biomedical excellence
8
program participants
8
interview data
8
social support
8
writing goals
8
writing program's
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!