National Institutes Of Health Funding Research Articles

The positive association of Association for Academic Surgery membership with academic productivity

BackgroundTo evaluate the academic productivity and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding of members of the Association for Academic Surgery (AAS). MethodsAcademic metrics including, numbers of publications, citations, and NIH funding history were determined for 4015 surgical faculty at the top 55 NIH-funded departments of surgery, using Scopus, NIH RePORT, and the Grantome online databases. ResultsAAS membership included 20.5% (824) of all 4015 surgical faculty in this database. For members of the AAS, publications (P) ± standard deviation and citations (C) ± SD were P: 54 ± 96 and C: 985 ± 3321, compared with P: 31 ± 92, C: 528 ± 3001 for nonmembers, P < 0.001. Higher academic productivity among AAS members was observed across all subspecialty types and was especially pronounced for assistant and associate professors. AAS membership was also associated with increased rates of NIH funding and better productivity for equally funded surgical faculty compared with nonmembers. Analysis of AAS membership by subspecialty revealed that AAS members were most commonly general surgery faculty (57.8%); however, only 7.4% of the faculty was affiliated with cardiothoracic surgery. There was also a lack of dedicated science and/or research faculty (0.6% versus 3.4%) among the members of the AAS. ConclusionsAAS membership appears to be correlated with greater academic performance among junior and midlevel surgical faculty. This improvement is observed regardless of subspecialty. Increased participation of faculty within subspecialties such as cardiothoracic surgery and, a greater focus on increasing the numbers of dedicated research faculty within the AAS may help increase the scientific impact and productivity among members of the society.

The transforming power of early career acute care surgery research scholarships on academic productivity.

More than 75% of respondents to an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma survey felt that barriers to research had increased and that acute care surgeon (ACS) academic productivity had decreased. Recent data confirm this impression and show lower academic productivity of junior ACS faculty compared with peers in other general surgical fields. The purpose of this study was to determine if early career acute care surgery research scholarships are associated with improved ACS academic productivity. Faculty data at the Top 55 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded departments of surgery (Top 55) were obtained using SCOPUS, NIH, department, and professional society databases. Academic productivity was measured using total publications, citations, and the Hirsch index. Scholarship recipients from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma and Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma were identified. A total of 4,101 surgical faculty (8.3% ACS) who belong to the Top 55 NIH-funded departments of surgery and 85 scholarship recipients were identified. After merging, 34 scholarship recipients (40%) were current faculty at a Top 55 NIH-funded department of surgery, and 24 of those (71%) were ACS faculty. Scholarship recipients had higher median total publications compared with nonrecipients at assistant and associate ranks but not at full professor rank. For all ranks, scholarship recipients were more likely to have NIH funding compared with nonrecipients (33% vs. 11%, p < 0.05). On multivariable analysis, only NIH funding was associated with increased total publications, with an average of 89 more publications over a career (p < 0.05). Research scholarships granted by acute care surgery professional organizations remain largely among ACS faculty in Top 55 NIH-funded departments of surgery. Among junior ACS faculty, recipients are associated with increased academic productivity and NIH funding. To fill the academic productivity gap among junior ACSs, professional organizations should consider increasing research funding scholarships for promising investigators.

TU‐FG‐207B‐05: Funding Opportunities at the National Science Foundation

Up‐to‐date knowledge about federal funding opportunities related to medical physics research, as well as obtaining skills for writing effective grant proposals are critical for academic and entrepreneurial medical physicists. In this symposium, program directors from key federal research funding agencies, including the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, and the National Science Foundation, will present information about current funding opportunities relevant to the field of medical physics. They will also provide insight to issues that applicants should pay special attention to when crafting their research grant proposals. In addition, the symposium will include presentations on research funding for small business concerns, and the results of an independent AAPM study of the National Institutes of Health funding of AAPM members from 2002–2015. Learning Objectives: To learn about current federal funding initiatives relevant to medical physics research To learn about tactics important for crafting convincing research proposals To learn about an independent study of NIH funding of research done by AAPM membersB. Whelan, this work was commissioned and funded by the AAPM

TU‐FG‐207B‐00: Federal Funding Opportunities and Grantsmanship

Up‐to‐date knowledge about federal funding opportunities related to medical physics research, as well as obtaining skills for writing effective grant proposals are critical for academic and entrepreneurial medical physicists. In this symposium, program directors from key federal research funding agencies, including the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, and the National Science Foundation, will present information about current funding opportunities relevant to the field of medical physics. They will also provide insight to issues that applicants should pay special attention to when crafting their research grant proposals. In addition, the symposium will include presentations on research funding for small business concerns, and the results of an independent AAPM study of the National Institutes of Health funding of AAPM members from 2002–2015. Learning Objectives: To learn about current federal funding initiatives relevant to medical physics research To learn about tactics important for crafting convincing research proposals To learn about an independent study of NIH funding of research done by AAPM membersB. Whelan, this work was commissioned and funded by the AAPM

TU‐FG‐207B‐02: NIBIB Funding Opportunities

Up‐to‐date knowledge about federal funding opportunities related to medical physics research, as well as obtaining skills for writing effective grant proposals are critical for academic and entrepreneurial medical physicists. In this symposium, program directors from key federal research funding agencies, including the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, and the National Science Foundation, will present information about current funding opportunities relevant to the field of medical physics. They will also provide insight to issues that applicants should pay special attention to when crafting their research grant proposals. In addition, the symposium will include presentations on research funding for small business concerns, and the results of an independent AAPM study of the National Institutes of Health funding of AAPM members from 2002–2015. Learning Objectives: To learn about current federal funding initiatives relevant to medical physics research To learn about tactics important for crafting convincing research proposals To learn about an independent study of NIH funding of research done by AAPM membersB. Whelan, this work was commissioned and funded by the AAPM

TU‐FG‐207B‐04: NCI Funding Opportunities in Imaging and Image‐Guided Therapy

Up‐to‐date knowledge about federal funding opportunities related to medical physics research, as well as obtaining skills for writing effective grant proposals are critical for academic and entrepreneurial medical physicists. In this symposium, program directors from key federal research funding agencies, including the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, and the National Science Foundation, will present information about current funding opportunities relevant to the field of medical physics. They will also provide insight to issues that applicants should pay special attention to when crafting their research grant proposals. In addition, the symposium will include presentations on research funding for small business concerns, and the results of an independent AAPM study of the National Institutes of Health funding of AAPM members from 2002–2015. Learning Objectives: To learn about current federal funding initiatives relevant to medical physics research To learn about tactics important for crafting convincing research proposals To learn about an independent study of NIH funding of research done by AAPM membersB. Whelan, this work was commissioned and funded by the AAPM

TU‐FG‐207B‐03: NCI Small Business Funding Opportunities

Up‐to‐date knowledge about federal funding opportunities related to medical physics research, as well as obtaining skills for writing effective grant proposals are critical for academic and entrepreneurial medical physicists. In this symposium, program directors from key federal research funding agencies, including the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, and the National Science Foundation, will present information about current funding opportunities relevant to the field of medical physics. They will also provide insight to issues that applicants should pay special attention to when crafting their research grant proposals. In addition, the symposium will include presentations on research funding for small business concerns, and the results of an independent AAPM study of the National Institutes of Health funding of AAPM members from 2002–2015. Learning Objectives: To learn about current federal funding initiatives relevant to medical physics research To learn about tactics important for crafting convincing research proposals To learn about an independent study of NIH funding of research done by AAPM membersB. Whelan, this work was commissioned and funded by the AAPM

"The Good Old R01": Challenging Downward Funding Success Trends at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) remains the largest source of funding for biomedical research in the United States. However, the current tight fiscal climate is creating concerns related to the success in obtaining NIH funding. In this report, we focused on analyzing the trend of new and renewal competing R01 applications, as a measure of the most prevalent NIH funding mechanism that supports many US laboratories, and the new science being proposed in the field. We analyzed data on R01 applications submitted to the NIH, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), the Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, and the Vascular Biology and Hypertension Branch for fiscal years 2010 through 2014. This comparative analysis at multiple levels allowed us to position the situation of cardiovascular research R01s, from within the big picture of NIH funding to looking at specific trends at the level of particular areas of investigation within Vascular Biology and Hypertension Branch. We found that the success rates of competing R01s decreased at all levels: NIH, NHLBI, Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, and Vascular Biology and Hypertension Branch. Interestingly, we found that competitive renewal R01 applications remained more successful (≈2×) than new R01 applications at all levels during this period. By identifying and analyzing some variances to the general trends, we found that some successes may be attributed to effectively using the specific R01 structure that supports team science (ie, Multiple Principal Investigator awards), which enables the active collaborations among investigators with different expertise to pursue together a novel scientific hypothesis. National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest funding source for biomedical research and development in the world1 and supports research projects, resources, facilities, and personnel costs via various funding mechanisms. NIH investments in extramural research contribute to the overall economy in many ways, through creation …

The impact of members of the Society of University Surgeons on the scholarship of American surgery

A core objective of the Society of University Surgeons (SUS) is research focused: to "advance the art and science of surgery through original investigation." This study sought to determine the current impact of the SUS on academic surgical productivity. Individual faculty data for numbers of publications, citations, and National Institute of Health (NIH) funding history were collected for 4,015 surgical faculty at the top 55 NIH-funded departments of surgery using SCOPUS and the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools. SUS membership was determined from membership registry data. Overall, 502 surgical faculty (12.5%) were SUS members with 92.7% holding positions of associate or full professor (versus 59% of nonmembers). Median publications (P) and citations (C) among SUS members were P: 112, C: 2,460 versus P: 29, C: 467 for nonmembers (P<.001). Academic productivity was considerably higher by rank for SUS members than for nonmembers: associate professors (P: 61 vs 36, C: 1,199 vs 591, P<.001) and full professors (P: 141 vs 81, C: 3,537 vs 1,856, P<.001). Among full professors, SUS members had much higher rates of NIH funding than did nonmembers (52.6% vs 26%, P<.05) and specifically for R01, P01, and U01 awards (37% vs 17.7%, P<.01). SUS members were 2 times more likely to serve in divisional leadership or chair positions (23.5% vs 10.2%, P<.05). SUS society members are a highly productive academic group. These data support the premise that the SUS is meeting its research mission and identify its members as very academically productive contributors to research and scholarship in American surgery and medicine.

Scholarly Productivity and National Institutes of Health Funding of Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research Grant Recipients

BACKGROUND The Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research (FAER) grant program provides fellows and junior faculty members with grant support to stimulate their careers. The authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of recipients of FAER grants since 1987. METHODS Recipients were identified in the FAER alumni database. Each recipient's affiliation was identified using an Internet search (keyword anesthesiology). The duration of activity, publications, publication rate, citations, citation rate, h-index, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for each recipient were obtained using the Scopus (Elsevier, USA) and NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (National Institutes of Health, USA) databases. RESULTS Three hundred ninety-seven individuals who received 430 FAER grants were analyzed, 79.1% of whom currently hold full-time academic appointments. Recipients published 19,647 papers with 548,563 citations and received 391 NIH grants totaling $448.44 million. Publications, citations, h-index, the number of NIH grants, and amount of support were dependent on academic rank and years of activity (P < 0.0001). Recipients who acquired NIH grants (40.3%) had greater scholarly output than those who did not. Recipients with more publications were also more likely to secure NIH grants. Women had fewer publications and lower h-index than men, but there were no gender-based differences in NIH funding. Scholarly output was similar in recipients with MD and PhD degrees versus those with MD degrees alone, but recipients with MD and PhD degrees were more likely to receive NIH funding than those with MDs alone. CONCLUSION Most FAER alumni remain in academic anesthesiology and have established a consistent record of scholarly output that appears to exceed reported productivity for average faculty members identified in previous studies.

Characteristics of Early Recipients of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Funding.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is grounded in the goals of increasing access, improving quality, and reducing cost in the U.S. health care system. The ACA established the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) to help accomplish these goals through patient-focused research. PCORI has a different charge than its federally supported counterpart, the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-to fund research that ultimately helps patients make better-informed health care decisions. The authors examined characteristics of the recipients and settings of the first six rounds of PCORI funding and differentiated PCORI and NIH funding patterns to analyze the extent to which PCORI is accomplishing the goals set out by the ACA. The authors performed a retrospective review of publicly available datasets, supplemented by a short questionnaire to funded PCORI principal investigators (PIs). The authors analyzed PCORI's first six funding cycles (2011-2014) and data on NIH funding patterns (2000-2013) to determine whether PCORI and NIH funding patterns differed by investigator, department, and institution, and whether PCORI had funded research in primary care settings. The authors found that PCORI is funding a more diverse cadre of PIs and biomedical departments than is NIH, but not a greater diversity of institutions, and that less than one-third of PCORI studies involve or are relevant to primary care--the largest patient care platform in the United States. As PCORI looks to be refunded, it is important that research funding is further evaluated and publicly acknowledged to assess whether goals are being achieved.

Analysis of National Institutes of Health Funding to Departments of Urology

To elucidate the current portfolio of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding to departments of urology at U.S. medical schools. The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results was used to generate a comprehensive analysis of NIH research grants awarded to urology departments during 2014. Costs, mechanisms, and institutes were summarized with descriptive statistics. Demographic data were obtained for principal investigators and project abstracts were categorized by research type and area. Fiscal totals were calculated for 2005-2014 and compared with other surgical departments during 2014. One hundred one investigators at 36 urology departments received $55,564,952 in NIH funding during 2014. NIH-funded investigators were predominately male (79%) and PhD scientists (52%). Funding totals did not vary by terminal degree or sex, but increased with higher academic rank (P < .001). The National Cancer Institute (54.7%) and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (32.2%) supported the majority of NIH-funded urologic research. The R01 grant accounted for 41.0% of all costs. The top 3 NIH-funded clinical areas were urologic oncology (62.1%), urinary tract infection (8.8%), and neurourology (7.6%). A minority of costs supported clinical research (12.9%). In 2014, urology had the least number of NIH grants relative to general surgery, ophthalmology, obstetrics & gynecology, otolaryngology, and orthopedic surgery. NIH funding to urology departments lags behind awards to departments of other surgical disciplines. Future interventions may be warranted to increase NIH grant procurement in urology.

The Changing Nature of Scientific Sharing and Withholding in Academic Life Sciences Research: Trends From National Surveys in 2000 and 2013.

Since 2000, federal funders and many journals have established policies requiring more open sharing of data and materials post-publication, primarily through online supplements and third-party repositories. This study examined changes in sharing and withholding practices among academic life scientists, particularly geneticists, between 2000 and 2013. In 2000 and 2013, the authors surveyed separate samples of 3,000 academic life scientists at the 100 U.S. universities receiving the most National Institutes of Health funding. Respondents were asked to estimate the number of requests for information, data, and materials they made to and received from other academic researchers in the past three years. They were also asked about potential consequences of sharing and withholding. Response rates were 63.9% (1,849/2,893) in 2000 and 40.8% (1,165/2,853) in 2013. Proportions of faculty in 2000 and 2013 who received, denied, made, or were denied at least one request were not statistically different. However, the total volume of requests received from or made to other scientists dropped substantially (19.4 received in 2000 versus 10.8 in 2013, P < .001; 8.4 made in 2000 versus 6.6 in 2013, P < .001). Faculty in 2013 also made an average of 8.4 requests to third-party repositories. Researchers in 2013 were less likely to report sharing resulted in new research or collaborations. The results show a dramatic shift in sharing mechanisms, away from a peer-to-peer sharing model toward one based on central repositories. This may increase efficiency, but collaborations may suffer if personal communication among scientists is deemphasized.

Support for nursing science

BackgroundThe mission of the Department of Health and Human Services is to enhance the health and well-being of the American people. It does this by providing oversight for more than 1,000 grant programs across 26 federal agencies at an annual cost of approximately $500 billion. The National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is one institute originated to support health care research from a nursing perspective. However, funding of nursing research from federal agencies has remained relatively flat for more than a decade, despite increases in total NIH funding. PurposeThe purpose of this report is to describe the types of funding support provided by federal government agencies (including the NIH) to schools of nursing. MethodThe NIH's Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool, Expenditures and Results system from 1988 to 2014 was accessed to collect information on the grant recipient institutions as well as the source, number, type, and dollar amounts of grants. DiscussionThe funding level and its implications for the future of nursing science are considered.

The Impact of National Institutes of Health Funding on Scholarly Productivity in Academic Plastic Surgery.

The h-index is an objective measure of an investigator's scholarly impact. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the association between scholarly impact, as measured by the h-index, and the procurement of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding among academic plastic surgeons. This was a case-control study of NIH-funded plastic surgery faculty identified on the RePORTER database. Non-NIH-funded faculty from the top 10 NIH-funded programs served as a control group. The mean h-index was calculated from Scopus (Elsevier, London, United Kingdom) and compared by funding status, academic rank, and terminal degree(s). The relationship between h-index and career NIH funding was elucidated via Spearman's correlation coefficient. NIH-funded faculty had higher h-indices than nonNIH-funded faculty (23.9 versus 9.9, p < 0.001), an effect that persisted when controlling for academic rank. Higher rank correlated with higher h-indices and predicted greater NIH funding (p < 0.05). The h-index did not vary by terminal degree (p > 0.05), but investigators with a master's degree exhibited a trend toward greater NIH funding. Higher h-indices correlated with greater NIH funding (r = 0.481, p < 0.001). A strong relationship exists between scholarly impact and the procurement of NIH funding. Faculty with greater funding had greater scholarly impact, as measured by the h-index, which suggests that this tool may have utility during the NIH grant application process.

Neurology Advocacy 2.0: After Sustainable Growth Rate Repeal.

Neurology Advocacy 2.0: After Sustainable Growth Rate Repeal.

Do Plastic Surgery Programs with Integrated Residencies or Subspecialty Fellowships Have Increased Academic Productivity?

Background:The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different surgical training pathways on the academic performance of plastic surgical divisions.Methods:Eighty-two academic parameters for 338 plastic surgeons (PS), 1737 general surgeons (GS), and 1689 specialist surgeons (SS) from the top 55 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded academic departments of surgery were examined using data gathered from websites, SCOPUS, and NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools.Results:The median size of a PS division was 7 faculty members. PS faculty had lower median publications (P)/citations (C) (ie, P/C) than GS and SS (PS: 25/328, GS: 35/607, and SS: 40/713, P < 0.05). Publication and citation differences were observed at all ranks: assistant professor (PS: 11/101, GS: 13/169, and SS: 19/249), associate professor (PS: 33/342, GS: 40/691, and SS: 44/780), and professor (PS: 57/968, GS: 97/2451, and SS: 101/2376). PS had a lower percentage of faculty with current/former NIH funding (PS: 13.5%, GS: 22.8%, and SS: 25.1%, P < 0.05). Academic productivity for PS faculty was improved in integrated programs. P/C for PS faculty from divisions with traditional 3-year fellowships was 19/153, integrated 6-year residency was 25/329, and both traditional and 6-year programs were 27/344, P < 0.05. Craniofacial and hand fellowships increased productivity within the integrated residency programs. P/C for programs with a craniofacial fellowship were 32/364 and for those that additionally had a hand fellowship were 45/536. PS faculty at divisions with integrated training programs also had a higher frequency of NIH funding.Conclusions:PS divisions vary in degree of academic productivity. Dramatically improved scholarly output is observed with integrated residency training programs and advanced specialty fellowships.

Does Formal Research Training Lead to Academic Success in Plastic Surgery? A Comprehensive Analysis of U.S. Academic Plastic Surgeons

It is currently unknown whether formal research training has an influence on academic advancement in plastic surgery. The purpose of this study was to determine whether formal research training was associated with higher research productivity, academic rank, and procurement of extramural National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding in plastic surgery, comparing academic surgeons who completed said research training with those without. This was a cross-sectional study of full-time academic plastic surgeons in the United States. The main predictor variable was formal research training, defined as completion of a postdoctoral research fellowship or attainment of a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). The primary outcome was scientific productivity measured by the Hirsh-index (h-index, the number of publications, h that have at least h citations each). The secondary outcomes were academic rank and NIH funding. Descriptive, bivariate, and multiple regression statistics were computed. A total of 607 academic surgeons were identified from 94 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited plastic surgery training programs. In all, 179 (29.5%) surgeons completed formal research training. The mean h-index was 11.7 ± 9.9. And, 58 (9.6%) surgeons successfully procured NIH funding. The distribution of academic rank was the following: endowed professor (5.4%), professor (23.9%), associate professor (23.4%), assistant professor (46.0%), and instructor (1.3%). In a multiple regression analysis, completion of formal research training was significantly predictive of a higher h-index and successful procurement of NIH funding. Current evidence demonstrates that formal research training is associated with higher scientific productivity and increased likelihood of future NIH funding.

Academic characteristics for successful national institutes of health funding in dermatology

Academic characteristics for successful national institutes of health funding in dermatology

Trends in National Institutes of Health Funding for Clinical Trials Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov

Clinical trials inform evidence-based prevention and treatment recommendations. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the pharmaceutical industry have been major funders of trials. In general, the pharmaceutical industry funds trials that test their own products, whereas the NIH’s funding strategies are not commercially motivated. In 2005, registration of trials became required for publication in major journals. Registration is also required for trials that meet the definition of an “applicable clinical trial” from the US Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act 801 and that were either initiated after September 27, 2007, or initiated on or before that date and were still ongoing as of December 26, 2007. There are legal repercussions if sponsors or principal investigators do not register accurately. We hypothesized that the number of NIH-funded trials has decreased. We investigated trends in funding of trials using the NIH-built database, ClinicalTrials.gov, with a focus on NIH and industry funding.