166 Individual Retention Conversations (IRC): Unlocking clinical research professional engagement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives/Goals: The clinical research professional (CRP) workforce suffers from high turnover. Stay interviews have led to increased satisfaction and reduced turnover in other industries. We describe a multi-institutional project to develop, disseminate, and evaluate a CRP-tailored Stay Interview tool reimagined as the Individual Retention Conversation (IRC) toolkit. Methods/Study Population: In August 2022, following on the heels of a series of un-meeting conversations focused on CRP workforce development, the CRP taskforce initiated a working group to tackle issues related to CRP workforce retention. As a first initiative, this multi-institutional working group set out to develop, disseminate, and evaluate a Stay Interview tool tailored for a CRP audience and reimagined as the IRC toolkit. A 2-phase pilot study was initiated across six academic medical centers (AMCs: ASU, Duke, MUSC, UAB, UPenn, VCU) to: 1) optimize the toolkit for the CRP audience and 2) evaluate the impact of the toolkit using a standardized CRP satisfaction survey. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected via surveys using the REDCap platform. Results/Anticipated Results: The optimization phase of the pilot included 69 participants (16 managers and 53 of their CRP team members) from 6 AMCs. Respondents identified most and least useful questions for stimulating meaningful conversations regarding job satisfaction and retention issues with additional feedback on the IRC experience and tools. CRPs and managers represented a variety of roles, with 77% patient facing. The majority were satisfied with the IRC experience (82%) and found the experience personally beneficial (76%). Managers were satisfied with the manager’s guide (90%). Quantitative and qualitative feedback was used to optimize the toolkit prior to launch of phase 2 in September 2024, which includes a longitudinal survey-based assessment of CRP job satisfaction and IRC-consequent work environment changes. Discussion/Significance of Impact: CRP retention is impacted by complex factors, many related to job satisfaction, supervisor /employee relationships, and beneficial work environments. Initial evaluation of the IRC suggests that this intervention fosters positive supervisor/employee relationships and beneficial work environment changes, which may lead to improved retention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.092 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".