Educating the next generation of undergraduate URM cancer scientists: Results and lessons learned from a cancer research Partnership Scholar Program

Abstract

Background

To improve cancer disparities among underrepresented minority (URM) populations, better representation of URM individuals in cancer research is needed. The San Diego State University and University of California San Diego Moores Cancer Center Partnership is addressing cancer disparities through an educational program targeting undergraduate URM students.

Methods

The Partnership provides a paid intensive summer research internship enriched with year-round activities that include educational sessions, a journal club, mentorship, social activities, and poster sessions and presentations. Program evaluation through follow-up surveys, focus groups and other formal and informal feedback, including advisory and program steering committees are used to improve the program. Long-term follow-up among scholars (minimum of 10 years) provides data to evaluate the program’s long-term impact on scholars’ education and career path.

Results

Since 2016, 63 URM undergraduate students participated in the scholar program. At the Year 2 follow-up (2016 cohort; n=12), 50% had completed their Graduate Record Examination (GRE) and/or applied to graduate or medical school. Lessons learned during the course of the program led to implementation of changes to provide a better learning experience and increase overall program satisfaction. Updates were made to recruitment timeline, improvements of the recruitment processes, refinement of the program contracts and onboarding meetings, identification of essential program coordinator skills and responsibilities, adjustments to program components, and establishment of a well-mapped and scheduled evaluation plan.

Conclusions

The Partnership identified best practices and lessons learned for implementing lab-based internship scholar programs in biomedical and public health fields that could be considered in other programs.

Introduction

Cancer continues to be a significant burden on the United States healthcare system and the population’s quality of life. Underserved minority populations are affected by cancer at a higher rate than those with more ready access to health care. For example, Hispanics/ Latinos experience significantly higher cervical, liver and stomach cancer incidence and mortality rates than non-Hispanic whites (NHWs) [1] and have significantly lower cervical and colorectal cancer screening rates than NHWs [2].

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is addressing these cancer disparities through its Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (PACHE) program. Its aims are to increase the number of scientists engaged in cancer disparity research and to increase the representation of underrepresented minority (URM) individuals pursuing cancer research.

National data for degrees awarded in biological sciences in 2012 show that of 99,900 bachelor degrees 58.4% were earned by White Non- Hispanics, compared with only 8.9% earned by Hispanics, 7.1% earned by Black or African Americans, and 0.6% by American Indians/Alaska Natives [3]. Through U56 (Exploratory Grants - Cooperative Agreements) and U54 (Specialized Center - Cooperative Agreements) grants, NCI provides funding to foster partnerships and collaboration between cancer centers and institutions serving URM students. These institutions work together, leveraging their unique strengths in cancer and disparities research to increase knowledge and to build the pipeline of URM scientists in cancer research. Specifically, the partner institutions collaborate in three core functions: 1) cancer research, 2) cancer research education, and 3) community outreach. San Diego State University (SDSU) and University of California San Diego (UCSD) Moores Cancer Center (MCC) have collaborated since 2000 via a U56 grant, and under the NCI-sponsored PACHE’s U54 grant since 2008. SDSU is a large, diverse, urban university and Hispanic-Serving Institution with a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusive excellence. Located 20 miles from each other, the two institutions are able to collaborate closely creating synergies and joint education and research programs.

This paper focuses on the development and implementation of the cancer research education activities of the SDSU/ UCSD Moores Cancer Center Comprehensive Partnership’s (The Partnership, for short), Partnership Scholar Program (PSP, for short), and reports lessons learned, to help others as they develop similar programs.

The Partnership Scholar Program

Aims

The aims of the Partnership’s cancer research education program are to 1) enhance success and retention of underrepresented undergraduates through educational workshops/summer program sessions, 2) increase the proportion of underrepresented groups participating in cancer research by providing a range of opportunities supported by the PSP, and 3) collaborate at both partnership institutions to supplement and enrich ongoing programs in cancer and cancer disparities research.

Components

To accommodate these aims, the PSP was developed, which is the umbrella to a broad range of cancer research education activities that include an intensive summer research internship, summer education sessions, a journal club, education and social events throughout the academic year, and continuous mentoring from faculty mentors, program leaders, and the program coordinator. The PSP is led by the Partnership Research Education Core and is supported by other cores via links to research, scholarly activities and various professional opportunities.

Program scholars participate in the ten-week paid summer internship and receive a stipend (about $5,400), paid biweekly. In addition to the full-time research internship, scholars are required to attend weekly summer education sessions at UCSD MCC that cover cancer biology, health disparities, epidemiology, and professional development, as well as ten hours of in-person Responsible Conduct of Research instruction per NIH guidelines. The summer sessions are co-taught by SDSU and UCSD faculty. Upon conclusion of the summer program, scholars are encouraged to continue the program until the end of the academic year during which they receive an additional stipend (about $1,500), provided in two payments each semester. During this time, students continue working on their research project and participate in an eight-week Cancer Disparities Journal Club. The Journal Club aims to teach scholars how to 1) efficiently read and evaluate scientific literature from public health, behavioral health, and biological perspectives, 2) identify, understand, use, and communicate and present, research findings related to social and biological determinants of cancer disparities to science and lay audiences, and 3) explore complex relationships between behavior, social interaction, and biology in creating, sustaining, preventing, or reducing cancer-related health disparities. Additional program aspects and activities are offered throughout the academic year including continued access to mentoring, as well as social and scientific events sponsored by SDSU’s Initiative for Maximizing Student Development (IMSD) and Maximizing Access to Research Careers (MARC) programs. Scholars are supported to present their work in poster presentations at the SDSU Student Research Symposium, the UCSD Public Health Research Day, and other symposia. The PSP is an intensive program that requires 40 hours of work during the summer session and 10 hours during the remaining academic year. URM students depend on financial aid and employment to provide financial support during their college education. Stipends are designed to compensate for the weekly time requirement in the program and to allow scholars to participate in the program instead of unrelated employment to make ends meet.

Key personnel

The program is planned and executed by core leaders, a program coordinator and faculty and peer mentors. The program coordinator is responsible for facilitating program activities and acting as the key contact and link between staff, mentors, and scholars during the summer program and academic year activities. Additionally, the coordinator provides mentorship support for scholars, meeting with them at least three times during the program, and provides guidance and support for poster presentation, personal statement and graduate application, and offers school and career advice. Faculty mentors are selected based on having 1) funded research in cancer or cancer disparities, 2) a track record of successful mentorship of undergraduate students, and 3) the presence of graduate student in laboratories to act as peer mentor. Principal Investigators conducting partnership- funded research are encouraged to serve as mentors. Faculty mentors advise and provide feedback on the scholars’ projects during the summer internship. Given the many responsibilities of faculty mentors, scholars are paired with peer mentors who provide close and ongoing mentorship and support. Peer mentors are graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, or research associates in the faculty mentors’ laboratories. The primary responsibility of the peer mentors is to oversee the day-to-day functions of the scholars’ projects.

Scholar qualifications

Each year, 12 to 18 undergraduate students are accepted into the program, with the majority coming from the minority-serving institution (SDSU). To be eligible for the PSP, candidates must be sophomores or juniors in Biology, Biochemistry, Bioengineering, Public Health, Nursing, Sociology, Psychology or a similar major. Students have to meet NIH defined criteria of URM groups in the bio-medical, clinical, behavioral, and social sciences and demonstrate an interest in cancer research with the goal of attending a graduate program in biomedical science, professional health, public health, or medical school.

Recruitment

To recruit scholars, program information is disseminated through the Partnership website, SDSU and UCSD listservs, flyers and posters on both campuses, laboratory tours, information sessions, and announcements by faculty or the program coordinator in classrooms. The partnership also leverages institutional affiliations with student-led groups serving URM students to increase program awareness and support recruitment.

Selection

The program application requires students to provide details about their academic background, community involvement, letters of recommendation, and personal statements that detail academic and professional goals within cancer research and indicate how their participation in the scholar program will help achieve these goals. Once applications are received, materials are reviewed by the program coordinator to ensure candidates meet NIH guidelines for URM [4] and the program criteria. Program leaders and the coordinator are the selection committee and score eligible candidates’ applications based on academic and NIH criteria. Qualified candidates are interviewed by the selection committee. A standard series of questions is used to assess the applicants’ suitability for the program. These questions include candidates background, knowledge and goals regarding research and health disparities and are each scored on a 5-point scale. The top 20 applicants from SDSU and the top three from UCSD are selected based on candidate average scores across their applications and interviews. Mentor-mentee pairings are determined based on scholar interests and faculty mentor research area. Mentors and mentees meet before the assignments are made.

Orientation

Scholars and faculty mentors are required (optional for peer mentors) to attend separate orientations prior to the program start. For the scholars, the orientation focuses on evaluation components of the program, such as creating and maintaining a LinkedIn profile, submitting weekly time sheets documenting their research activities, and responding to surveys sent from the evaluation coordinator. Students are informed that they are expected to present their summer internship project in the early fall to faculty mentors and program scholars. For faculty mentors, the orientation emphasizes the importance and purpose of their mentorship role with focus on the needs and workload of URM scholars. Mentors also learn about scholars’ summer program expectations.

Contracts

Contracts are an important tool to ensure program participants understand expectations and make a conscious commitment to the program. The scholar contract clarifies program expectations which is encompassed in three general areas: 1) Engagement in the program, such as attendance of enrichment activities, spending a minimum number of hours on assigned research activities, communication with partnership staff and meetings with supervisors and mentors, recording and submitting of hours worked and tasks completed; 2) educational achievements, such as completion of poster presentation and submission of at least one abstract annually, and application to graduate and/or professional degree programs with support by the partnership; and 3) program evaluation steps such as completing survey follow-ups, creating a LinkedIn profile, joining the partnership LinkedIn group, and listing of the grant as funding source in publications and presentations.

The faculty mentor contract outlines the expectations including providing an environment in which the scholar can gain hands-on experiences in biomedical and other bench and population-based research. Other areas of mentor interaction are related to student achievements, support and encouragement of scholar presentations and publications, the scholars’ preparedness for the graduate application process, and providing recommendation letters.

Evaluation

The evaluation plan for the PSP is based on the New World Kirkpatrick Model [5]. The model is a framework to evaluate the effectiveness of training programs. It consists of four levels that represent the stages that must be reached for a program to achieve the highest level of impact. Levels 1 (Reaction) and 2 (Learning) evaluate the design and delivery of training programs. Levels 3 (Behavior) and 4 (Results) evaluate the overall training effectiveness with regard to achieving behavioral change that impacts the overall goals of the organization.

Evaluation data is collected from scholars and mentors at each level. To better evaluate long-term outcomes (Level 4), qualified program applicants who were interviewed but not selected for the program (non-scholars) are included in annual follow-up surveys to serve as a non-equivalent comparison group. The Partnership also uses other formal and informal feedback systems notably an internal advisory committee and a program steering committee. These committees provide feedback to help improve the program. Evaluation levels, metrics and tools used are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Partnership Scholar Program Evaluation Plan.

Program metrics and methodology tools used for each Kirkpatrick Model level [4].

Kirkpatrick Model		Program Evaluation Components
Level	Evaluation Areas	Metrics	Methodology
Level 1 - Reaction	Satisfaction	Satisfaction with workshop presentation and overall program	Post-workshop surveys; end-of-summer surveys, end of summery focus groups
	Relevance	Self-reported applicability of workshop content	End-of-summer survey
	Engagement	Level of comfort participating in workshop sessions; time (hours) spent on research projects	Post-workshop surveys, student timesheets
Level 2 - Learning	Knowledge	Knowledge of workshop content	Pre-post workshop surveys
	Skills	Mentor and student self-report on newly acquired lab or research skills	Faculty mentor evaluations; student end-of-summer and annual surveys
	Attitude	Satisfaction of applicability of information/skills learned; students’ continued interest in cancer research	Post-workshop survey, end-of-program, annual surveys
	Confidence	Self-reported self-efficacy of carrying out cancer research	End-of-program, annual surveys, end-of-summer focus groups
	Commitment	Self-reported commitment to the program and area of research	End-of-program, annual surveys
Level 3 -Behavior	Critical Behaviors	Completion of graduate entrance exams, application and acceptance into graduate degree programs, completion of graduate degree, attainment of academic research positions	End of program, annual follow-up survey
	Required Drivers	Program support for graduate school applications; continued funding for year-round a program	Administrative records
	On-the-job Learning	Frequency of usage of learned knowledge and skills	End of program, annual surveys
Level 4 - Results	Desired Outcomes	Completion of graduate/professional degree; career in cancer/ cancer disparities research	Annual follow-up survey, LinkedIn Network/group
	Leading Indicators	Enrollment in graduate/professional degree programs; publications, conference presentations	Annual follow-up survey, LinkedIn Network/group

Each year, the Evaluation core of the Partnership creates an executive report of the annual program evaluation metrics, which is provided to the Research Education core leaders and the Partnership Principal Investigators. These reports are used to make program adjustments and improvements, many of which are discussed in the lessons learned below.

Outcomes

The following includes details on scholar and non-scholar cohorts, and intermediate outcomes.

Accepted vs. non-accepted applicants

For the 2016 summer program, 48 applications were received of which 34 met the program requirements. A total of 12 students were accepted into the program. In 2017, 50 applications were received; 38 met the program requirements and 17 were accepted into the program. In 2018, of 38 applicants, 28 met program requirements, and 16 scholars were accepted into the program. For the year of 2019, 34 applications were received, resulting in 26 qualified candidates of which 18 were accepted into the program. The demographic profiles of scholars and comparison group non-scholars are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Scholar and Non-Scholar Demographics.

Gender and race/ethnicity for Scholars and Non-Scholars for 2016 to 2019.

	Scholars						Non-Scholars
Cohort	2016	2017	2018	2019	Total		2016	2017	2018	2019	Total
Total n	12	17	16	18	63		7	7	12	4	30
Female	7 (58.3%)	11 (64.7%)	12 (75%)	11 (61.1%)	41 (65.1%)		6 (85.7%)	7 (100%)	9 (75%)	3 (75%)	25 (83.3%)
Race/ Ethnicity
Hispanic	7 (58.3%)	9 (52.9%)	7 (43.8%)	8 (44.4%)	31 (49.2%)		1 (14.3%)	0 (0%)	5 (41.7%)	0 (0%)	6 (20%)
Asian	0 (0%)	5 (29.4%)	1 (6.3%)	2 (11.1%)	8 (12.7%)		1 (14.3%)	3 (42.9%)	3 (25%)	2 (50%)	9 (30%)
African American	4 (33.3%)	2 (11.8%)	2 (12.5%)	7 (38.9%)	15 (23.8%)		0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (8.3%)	1 (25%)	2 (6.7%)
American Indian/ Alaska Native	0 (0%)	1 (5.9%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (1.6%)		0 (0%)	1 (14.3%)	1 (8.3%)	0 (0%)	2 (6.7%)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (5.6%)	1 (1.6%)		0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
White	0 (0%)	6 (35.3%)	6 (37.5%)	0 (0%)	12 (19%)		5 (71.4%)	3 (42.9%)	4 (33.3%)	1 (25%)	13 (43.3%)
Other	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)		0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Not reported	1 (8.3%)	0 (0%)	7 (43.8%)	0 (0%)	8 (12.7%)		0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (25%)	0 (0%)	3 (10%)

^*Ethnicity/Race is asked as a multiple select question. Percentages add up to more than 100%

Intermediate outcomes

Annual follow-up surveys are conducted for each cohort of scholars and non-scholars for at least ten years. The survey collects data on recent accomplishments, including graduate school acceptance, publications, and employment information.

Results for the 2016 scholar cohort (Fig. 1) show that at Year-1 follow-up, 25.0% of scholars (3 of 12) completed their GRE and/or applied to graduate school; none had been admitted to graduate school. At the Year-2 follow-up, the number of scholars who had completed their GRE and/or applied to graduate school had doubled to 50% (6 of 12 scholars), and 33.3% (4 of 12) had been accepted to graduate programs. For 2017 scholar, progress toward graduate school is promising: 23.5% of scholars (4 of 17) had completed their GRE and/or applied to graduate school and 5.9% (1 of 17) had been accepted to a graduate program. At the time of writing, the 2017 cohort had only reached Year-1 follow-up timing, hence no Year-2 data is available.

Fig. 1.

Annual survey results for 2016 scholars and non-scholars for Year-1 and Year-2 follow-up, their reported GRE and/or graduate school applications, and graduate school acceptance

In comparison, non-scholars show lower progress toward graduate school (Fig. 1). At Year-1 follow-up of the 2016 non-scholar cohort, 42.9% (3 of 7) had completed the follow-up survey but none of them had completed their GRE and/or applied to graduate school. At Year-2 follow up, 28.6% (2 of 7) non-scholars had completed the follow-up survey, 14.3% (1 of 7) had completed GRE and/or applied to graduate school and had been accepted to a graduate program. GRE completion/ application to graduate school was significantly higher among 2016 scholars at year 2 compared to non-scholars (50.0% vs. 14.3%; p<0.1). For the 2017 non-scholar cohort at the Year-1 follow-up, none of the students reported making progress toward graduate school. GRE completion/ application to graduate school was significantly higher among 2017 scholars at year 1 compared to non-scholars (23.5% vs. 0%; p<0.05).

Lessons learned

Since the implementation of the Partnership Scholar Program, program evaluations through surveys, feedback and informal assessments have allowed the Partnership to keep improving its program. The lessons learned are summarized below and encompass areas such as recruitment timeline and process, communication of guidelines and expectations, personnel skills and responsibilities, stipends, program components, and evaluation practices.

Recruitment timelines and processes

Over the course of the program several recruitment aspects have been adjusted to increase the reach of potential applicants and optimize the experience of scholars and mentors in the program. Program investigators and staff have learned that starting recruitment activities as early as possible improves its ability to increase student awareness of the Scholar Program and to attract qualified candidates. In the first year, recruiting and onboarding occurred during the three months prior to start of the summer internship program. The timeframe has since been increased to up to seven months to allow ample time to advertise the program, interview candidates, match scholars with mentors and complete paperwork and onboarding prior to program start. Other process improvements include leveraging existing resources to reach potential candidates. The Partnership closely collaborates with the SDSU Center for the Advancement of Students in Academia (CASA), whose mission is to support underrepresented students in becoming research scientists and health professionals. Besides offering an ideal recruitment pool for the Scholar Program, CASA’s name recognition among potential candidates helps build trust in the Partnership Scholar Program.

Clear guidelines and contracts

During recruitment and onboarding, it is essential to ensure clear communication of important information with scholars and mentors. These include clarifying program expectations such as details relating to professional behavior, expectations of time requirements, laboratory experience, and presentations. Over the past years, improvements to the scholar contract included placement and wording of expectations with regard to enrichment activities, required weekly research hours, communication with the faculty mentor and laboratory/project supervisor, and research outputs. Placement of key expectations and program details at the beginning of the contract, using bold text, helps clarify the expectations with scholars.

Similar to the scholar contract, faculty mentors sign a contract that clarifies the expectations of the mentor interaction with the scholar to maximize the learning experience and preparedness for a graduate or professional degree. The mentor contract improvements over the years included clarification of mentor-student interactions and mentor teaching goals. Mentors are asked to provide an orientation, thorough explanation of research relevance to cancer disparities, and facilitate personal interactions and networking opportunities for scholars. Both contracts show expectations as numbered listings that require the signer to provide their initials as an acknowledgment of agreement with the requirements and expectations.

Coordinator skills and responsibilities

The summer internship is an intensive experience for students who are still exploring their academic and professional path. Clear communication and information to help them take full advantage of this opportunity are essential. The coordinator is the key contact and link between staff, faculty mentors, direct supervisors, and scholars during the summer program and academic year activities. Given the diversity of individuals participating and contributing to the program, the program coordinator needs to have excellent communication skills and strong dedication to helping students navigate the program, connecting them with information and resources, and facilitating regular check-ins between faculty mentors and scholars. Throughout the program, the coordinator acts as an ongoing source for mentorship, providing advice and creating a strong supportive program environment. These efforts are aimed at increasing retention rates beyond the summer program and throughout the academic year.

Scholar stipends and mentor compensation

The amount of the scholar stipends has varied somewhat based on the length of the program (e.g., nine vs. ten-week summer internship), student time expectation, the number of scholars in the program and funds available. It is important to ensure that stipends are appropriate based on other similar programs at the institution to make participation for underrepresented students financially feasible. An appropriate stipend allocated between the summer program versus the academic year need also be considered.

Faculty mentors do not receive direct compensation for their participation in the program. The Partnership has used ways to support faculty mentor involvement in the program, for example by providing funds for laboratory or project expenses, as a way to make participation for mentors more attractive and feasible. The amounts offered depend on available funding and laboratory or project scope. Additional ways to provide support to faculty mentors are explored especially for researchers in public health, psychology and other disciplines that do not incur laboratory expenses.

Program components

Continuous improvements to the program components have been implemented, largely resulting from close collaboration between the program coordinator, the Evaluation Core team, and feedback from the Internal Advisory Board and the Program Steering Committee. In response to evaluation feedback, updates to the summer education session curricula, session locations and times were made. Initially, summer education sessions could be attended remotely, but the student focus or participation during sessions was not optimal. To facilitate attendance, sessions are being structured to accommodate student commuting needs and laboratory schedules. More intensive curriculum topics were updated to align better with scholars’ undergraduate education levels. Further, the order of topics was adjusted so each topic builds optimally on previous topics, creating an improved learning experience. Events were added to increase student interaction in educational, recreational, and social settings encouraging scholars, faculty, staff and program alumni to network. These events are intended to increase the familiarity and comfort level of students across institutes.

Adjustments to the end-of-summer final presentations have been made. Initially, presentations were held in form of poster sessions with presentations for each scholar. Preparation for a poster presentation was considered by scholar and mentors to extensive given the scholars full-time work on their projects during the short internship. Scholars and mentors felt that the time spent on the posters could have been better spent on working on the research projects. As a result, presentations have been reduced to two-minute “elevator pitch” at the end of the summer program with full poster presentations during the academic year in connection with presentations at conferences or symposia.

The program also added innovative educational opportunities built on the strength of the Partnership and its faculty. By pairing scholars with clinicians, the students are able to observe clinical cancer screenings. Participatory tours are offered to see pathology laboratories, basic science research laboratories, and to observe clinical procedures such as endoscopies. Scholars are able to see the varied responsibilities of physician scientists in a university setting and the shared duties of treating patients and conducting research. This provides scholars with an understanding of potential career and research opportunities.

A science communication component was added to the Journal Club conducted during the academic year. The main goal of this addition was for scholars to learn and practice how to prepare and present a scientific presentation to a lay audience. This component allows scholars to have more opportunity to interact with the public and promote cancer health prevention.

Additionally, the program added funding for scholars to enroll in San Diego State College of Sciences Comprehensive GRE review course as well as for students and alumni to take the GRE or MCAT exams. Funding for other relevant graduate exam preparation has also been made available to support scholars’ ability to apply and get accepted into graduate school or medical school.

Achieving long-term outcome data

Key evaluation metrics for the PSP include long-term follow-up of scholars and non-scholars to understand their ongoing career path with respect to cancer disparity research. Past research [6] and the initial program data reveal the challenges for long-term follow-up, particularly of comparison group participants who tend to be less engaged by study interventions. The evaluation team found that a small monetary incentive for non-scholars to complete annual follow-up surveys was essential to ensure participation.

A well-designed evaluation plan that optimizes survey timing and reduces respondent fatigue is another important aspect. The Partnership evaluation team sends follow-up surveys at strategic timepoints during program execution and at intervals that keep the program in students’ minds while making sure to not create a burden. To facilitate the ongoing evaluation and survey needs, the Partnership uses a research calendar or roadmap that sets dates for all surveys and related program activities. This allows the evaluation team to align research activities closely with program components and manage all survey and evaluation touchpoints efficiently.

The use of automated publication and grant notification systems allows the evaluation team to collect scholar achievements automatically and independently. These automated systems provide updates on publications and grant awards for specified individuals. This information is then compiled for each scholar and non-scholar on an ongoing basis. When annual surveys are distributed, this information is included in each individual’s survey. Respondents are asked to confirm the information on their achievements and add any that are not included. This process greatly reduces the time respondents spent completing follow-up surveys and improves accuracy for data.

Conclusion

Programs that expose URM undergraduate students to cancer research are important approaches to increase students’ awareness, interest, and preparedness for graduate studies in this field. Research internships and mentorships have been found to be effective in supporting URM students in their professional development [7–9], but unless planned and executed well, these programs may not be effective [10]. The current article outlines best practices and lessons learned for implementing laboratory-based internship scholar programs in biomedical and public health fields. Well-planned and implemented recruitment, detailed orientation for participating students and faculty, a dedicated and skilled staff, and relevant and engaging program components are all key for the success of a program. A detailed plan for evaluation activities including process and outcome evaluations is also essential to running and improving such a training program with the overall goal of increasing the number of URM in cancer research and outreach.

Beyond program components, cancer education programs have to identify and secure funding sources outside of their original NCI grant funding. A program that can show its improvements over time and its effectiveness through long-term outcomes metrics should be able to attract funding from a variety of donors including local and state organizations, universities and other funders, to achieve program sustainability.