Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jun;28(6):854-861.
doi: 10.1017/S1047951118000483. Epub 2018 Apr 16.

The Pediatric Heart Network Scholar Award Programme: A Unique Mentored Award Embedded Within a Multicentre Network

Free PMC article

The Pediatric Heart Network Scholar Award Programme: A Unique Mentored Award Embedded Within a Multicentre Network

L LuAnn Minich et al. Cardiol Young. .
Free PMC article


Background: The Pediatric Heart Network designed a career development award to train the next generation of clinician scientists in paediatric-cardiology-related research, a historically underfunded area. We sought to identify the strengths/weaknesses of the programme and describe the scholars' academic achievements and the network's return on investment.

Methods: Survey questions designed to evaluate the programme were sent to applicants - 13 funded and 19 unfunded applicants - and 20 mentors and/or principal investigators. Response distributions were calculated. χ2 tests of association assessed differences in ratings of the application/selection processes among funded scholars, unfunded applicants, and mentors/principal investigators. Scholars reported post-funding academic achievements.

Results: Survey response rates were 88% for applicants and 100% for mentor/principal investigators. Clarity and fairness of the review were rated as "clear/fair" or "very clear/very fair" by 98% of respondents, but the responses varied among funded scholars, unfunded applicants, and mentors/principal investigators (clarity χ2=10.85, p=0.03; fairness χ2=16.97, p=0.002). Nearly half of the unfunded applicants rated feedback as "not useful" (47%). "Expanding their collaborative network" and "increasing publication potential" were the highest-rated benefits for scholars. Mentors/principal investigators found the programme "very" valuable for the scholars (100%) and the network (75%). The 13 scholars were first/senior authors for 97 abstracts and 109 manuscripts, served on 22 Pediatric Heart Network committees, and were awarded $9,673,660 in subsequent extramural funding for a return of ~$10 for every scholar dollar spent.

Conclusions: Overall, patient satisfaction with the Scholar Award was high and scholars met many academic markers of success. Despite this, programme challenges were identified and improvement strategies were developed.

Keywords: CHD; funding; mentoring.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest. None.


Figure 1
Figure 1
Ratings of the clarity of the evaluation criteria (a), fairness of the selection process (b), and overall perception of the application/selection process (c) by the funded scholars, unfunded applicants, and funded scholars’ mentors/principal investigators. Applicants were asked to rate the application process, whereas mentors/principal investigators were asked to rate both the application and selection process.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 1 article