Four-year outcomes from an HIV research pathway program for aspiring scientists at the University of California, San Francisco Center for AIDS Research

Technical Summary: Four-Year Outcomes of the UCSF CFAR Scholars Program

Problem Statement
Persistent inequities exist within the biomedical research workforce, with first-generation, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and racial/ethnic minority students remaining significantly less likely to enter, persist in, or advance within academic research careers. Existing literature suggests that later-stage or episodic training programs are insufficient to diversify the research pipeline. Instead, evidence indicates a need for early, sustained, and developmentally appropriate training that builds foundational research skills, scientific self-efficacy, and professional identity. While the national CFAR Pathway Initiative established a framework for multi-level training, there were no prior reports detailing multi-year outcomes from a single participating institution.

Methodology
The study evaluated the UCSF Center for AIDS Research (CFAR) Scholars Program, a paid, mentored research initiative for pre-doctoral students (undergraduate and master's level) from the San Francisco Bay Area, conducted from 2022 to 2025 across four cohorts (N=23).

• Recruitment and Selection: Scholars were selected from local colleges using an "achievement relative to opportunity" criterion. Selection factors included career goal articulation, prior research experience, faculty recommendations, and lived experiences relevant to applied research.
• Program Structure: The program paired scholars with UCSF HIV investigators for independent research projects. Core activities included:
  • Mentorship: Weekly 1-on-1 meetings with mentors trained in undergraduate mentoring.
  • Curriculum: Weekly didactic seminars on HIV science, research methods, and professional development; clinical and community shadowing at HIV clinics and community organizations.
  • Cohort Activities: Peer-learning sessions, networking, virtual attendance at the International AIDS Conference, and a final research symposium.
  • Duration Adjustments: The program duration varied by year due to external constraints: 16 weeks (Year 1), 12 weeks (Years 2–3), and 4 weeks (Year 4, due to funding changes). In Year 4, scholars were hired full-time (40 hours/week) to compensate for the shortened duration.
• Evaluation Design: A mixed-methods approach was employed:
  • Quantitative: Pre- and post-program surveys using the 20-item Survey of Undergraduate Research Experience (SURE) to measure gains in research readiness, confidence, and career clarity. Specific metrics included self-confidence in academic work and interest in HIV research.
  • Qualitative: Four focus group discussions with scholars (5 participants each) and 23 in-depth interviews with faculty mentors. Data were analyzed using modified thematic analysis.
  • Independent Review: An external consultant with expertise in pathway program evaluation conducted the qualitative analysis and generated improvement recommendations.

Key Results
Across the four cohorts, scholars demonstrated consistent and significant gains in research readiness and scientific identity:

• Quantitative Outcomes:
  • Research Readiness: Scholars showed the largest gains in "readiness for more demanding research" (+1.1 points) and "understanding of how scientists work on real problems" (+1.1 points) on a 5-point scale.
  • Career Clarity and Confidence: The proportion of scholars reporting high confidence in pursuing academic work increased from 52.2% to 86.4%. Interest in HIV research rose from 30.4% to 68.2%.
  • Scientist Identity: At baseline, 21.7% of scholars had no clear visualization of a "career scientist." Post-program, 100% reported a clear or good understanding of the role.
  • Overall Improvement: Across all 20 SURE items, the average score improved by 0.6 points (from 3.4 to 4.0), indicating a shift from moderate to large gains.
• Qualitative Outcomes:
  • Mentorship: Scholars described mentorship as transformative, citing mentors as supportive, culturally responsive, and approachable. The "buddy system" and structured communication were highlighted as critical.
  • Community: A strong sense of belonging within the HIV research community was identified as a central factor in retention and engagement.
  • Program Value: 95.5% of scholars would recommend the program. Shadowing and seminars were rated 100% valuable.
  • Iterative Improvements: Feedback loops allowed the program to adapt, such as adjusting project scopes for shorter durations and enhancing mentor orientation.

Key Contributions

1. Longitudinal Evidence: This study provides the first multi-year (4-year) evaluation of a single site within the national CFAR Pathway Initiative, demonstrating sustained feasibility and impact.
2. Early-Stage Intervention: It validates that intensive, paid, mentored research experiences for undergraduate and master's students—particularly those with little prior research exposure—can effectively accelerate progression toward research careers.
3. Scalability and Adaptability: The program successfully adapted to varying constraints (e.g., reducing duration from 16 to 4 weeks) while maintaining high satisfaction and learning outcomes, suggesting a model that can be operationalized across different institutional contexts.
4. Mentorship Model: The research confirms that structured, one-on-one mentorship combined with cohort-based learning and clinical exposure is effective for early-stage trainees, a model previously more common in post-doctoral training.

Significance and Claims
The authors claim that the UCSF CFAR Scholars Program demonstrates that well-structured, equity-focused training programs can effectively strengthen the pipeline of diverse leaders in public health and academic research. The study concludes that early mentored research pathways are a viable strategy to diversify the HIV research workforce. The findings support the integration of paid research, intentional mentorship, and community building as essential components for retaining underrepresented talent in biomedical sciences. The authors emphasize that the program's success was not due to a single component but the intentional integration of mentoring, structure, evaluation, and adaptability to trainee needs.