Overview of the Training Challenge Survey for All Three Training Challenges (TC1, TC2, and TC3)
| Question | TC1 | TC2 | TC3 |
| Demographics | |||
| Age (years) | 27.9 (2.8) | 27.6 (2.9) | 26.9 (2.0) |
| Male | 40% | 60% | 60% |
| Research experience (years) | 3.6 (2.8) | 2.6 (1.2) | 3.1 (2.3) |
| Number of training events | 4.1 (4.6) | 3.6 (1.9) | 10.6 (12.1) |
| Motivation for TC | |||
| Innovation | 90% | 100% | 100% |
| Multidisciplinarity | 90% | 70% | 100% |
| Location | 30% | 60% | 22% |
| Expenses covered | 40% | 50% | 22% |
| New contacts | 60% | 60% | 67% |
| Pharma-informatics topic | 30% | 20% | 22% |
| Event Characteristics | |||
| Quality organization (very poor—excellent) | 4.2 (0.4) | 4.5 (0.7) | 4.6 (0.5) |
| Infrastructure (very poor—excellent) | 3.6 (1.3) | 4.4 (0.7) | 4.3 (0.7) |
| Venue training challenge (very poor—excellent) | 4.7 (0.7) | 4.6 (0.5) | 4.2 (0.8) |
| Venue opening/closing session (very poor—excellent) | 4.6 (0.5) | 4.1 (0.7) | 4.2 (0.8) |
| Appropriate material & information (very poor—excellent) | 3.9 (0.9) | 3.9 (0.6) | 4.2 (0.8) |
| Schedule TC (highly inadequate—highly adequate) | 4.1 (0.7) | 3.6 (1.0) | 3.9 (0.8) |
| Duration TC (too short—too long) | 2.9 (0.3) | 2.6 (0.7) | 2.3 (0.9) |
| Focus on team work (ineffective—effective) | 4.2 (0.8) | 3.9 (0.9) | 4.9 (0.3) |
| Multidisciplinary teams (ineffective—effective) | 4.6 (0.5) | 3.7 (0.7) | 4.7 (0.5) |
| Number of participants (ineffective—effective) | 4.7 (0.5) | 3.9 (1.0) | 4.7 (0.7) |
| Tutors | |||
| Number (ineffective—effective) | 4.7 (0.5) | 4.1 (1.1) | 4.4 (1.0) |
| Expertise (very irrelevant—very relevant) | 4.1 (0.6) | 3.8 (1.4) | 4.7 (0.7) |
| Helpfulness (not very helpful—very helpful) | 4.8 (0.4) | 4.0 (1.3) | 4.4 (0.5) |
| Availability (highly unavailable—highly available) | 4.6 (0.7) | 4.7 (0.5) | 4.9 (0.3) |
| Experts | |||
| Expertise (very irrelevant—relevant) | 3.4 (1.4) | 3.6 (1.3) | 4.4 (0.7) |
| Helpfulness (not very helpful—very helpful) | 3.8 (1.6) | 3.3 (1.2) | 4.0 (0.9) |
| Availability (highly unavailable—highly available) | 3.6 (1.5) | 3.0 (1.0) | 3.8 (0.7) |
| Impact | |||
| Dynamics (very poor—excellent) | 4.3 (0.8) | 4.1 (0.6) | 4.8 (0.5) |
| Usefulness (useless—extremely useful) | 4.5 (0.5) | 4.0 (0.8) | 4.4 (0.5) |
| Future career (very low—very high) | 3.6 (1.3) | 3.4 (0.7) | 3.7 (0.7) |
| Performing research (very low—very high) | 3.7 (1.1) | 3.3 (1.1) | 4.3 (0.5) |
| Continue collaboration with team members regularly | 20% | 10% | 38% |
| Continue collaboration with team members incidentally | 70% | 70% | 50% |
| Participate in future editions of the TC | 60% | 40% | 89% |
| Recommend the TC to colleagues | 100% | 90% | 100% |
| TC less useful compared to traditional training | 0% | 11% | 0% |
| TC equally useful compared to traditional training | 0% | 33% | 0% |
| TC more useful compared to traditional training | 100% | 44% | 100% |
| overall SSatisfaction with TC (very dissatisfied—very satisfied) | 4.5 (0.5) | 4.2 (0.9) | 4.8 (0.4) |
-
All questions reported as percentages are multiple choice questions with the percentage being the fraction of respondents selecting that choice (Motivation section and 7 questions from the Impact section). Apart from the Demographics section all other questions used a 5-point Likert scale (the Event Characteristics, Tutors, Experts section, the first 4 and last question in the Impact section and the last overall satisfaction question). The range of responses is given for each question. For the Likert scale questions the mean response is computed with its standard deviation.
