Comparison of academic productivity and funding support between United States and international medical graduate vascular surgeons

Abstract

ObjectiveThe demand for vascular surgeons in the United States stands to far exceed the current supply. International medical graduates (IMGs) are not only vital to meeting the country’s growing health care needs, but also help to advance clinical research and medical education in the field of vascular surgery. Nearly 17% of practicing vascular surgeons in the United States are IMGs, yet little is known about their relative contributions to academic vascular surgery. Our study aims to compare the academic profiles and funding support for IMG vascular surgeons to that of their US medical graduate (USMG) counterparts. MethodsA cross-sectional study was performed on all IMG and USMG academic vascular surgeons practicing in US-based hospitals with vascular surgery residency and/or fellowship programs. In addition to the baseline surgeon characteristics, academic profiles and research output were also collected. Furthermore, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) research reporting tool and open payments database were queried for any funding/payments to surgeons in both groups. Matching for year of vascular surgery training program graduation was performed where appropriate. ResultsA total of 908 academic vascular surgeons were included; 759 (83.6%) were USMGs and 149 (16.4%) were IMGs. The median year of graduation was comparable between the two groups, but USMGs had a significantly higher proportion of female surgeons (23.6% vs 10.7%; P = .0003). There were no significant differences in the academic profiles and leadership positions between the two groups. Although research productivity is similar between the two groups, IMG surgeons were more likely to have first or senior-authorship papers (47.1% vs 37.5%; P < .001). Additionally, faculty departments chaired/cheifed by a USMG were less likely to be staffed with IMG vascular surgeons (1.6 surgeons vs 3.1 surgeons; P < .0001). Following grant analysis, USMG surgeons received more NIH R01 grants (5.7% vs 1.3%; P = .026). R01-funded surgeons had significantly greater research output by number of publications (121.0 vs 47.5), citations (3872 vs 938), H-index (32.0 vs 17.5), and average journal impact factor (>10: 86.7% vs 33.3%) (all P < .001). ConclusionsThe efforts to further diversify vascular surgery are vital to better serving an increasingly diverse US population, amid growing disparities in health care. Although IMGs account for a minority of academic vascular surgeons, and contribute significantly to their published research, they had less NIH R01 funding, warranting further investigation.