National Institutes Of Health Funding Research Articles

Maternal Morbidity and Mortality.

Maternal Morbidity and Mortality.

Allocation of National Institutes of Health Funding by Disease Category in 2008 and 2019

Prior research suggests an association between burden of disease and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. The allocation of NIH funding should reflect, to some extent, the health needs of the population, along with other factors. To examine the factors associated with NIH funding in 2019 for 46 diseases. This cohort study used disability-adjusted life-years to measure the 2008 and 2019 US burden of disease and compared them with NIH categoric funding for 46 diseases. Disability-adjusted life-years to measure the 2008 and 2019 US burden of disease, 2016 health spending, and 2008 NIH funding levels for 46 diseases. 2019 NIH funding levels for 46 diseases. The 46 diseases accounted for 62 392 713 of 94 399 784 disability-adjusted life-years (66.1%) in 2008 and 75 706 718 of 111 074 472 disability-adjusted life-years (68.2%) in 2019, representing more than 66% of all disability-adjusted life-years in both years. By dollar volume, Alzheimer and dementia increased the most, with approximately $1.8 billion more funding in 2019 than 2008 (from $530 million in 2008 to $2398 million in 2019, a 352% increase), whereas interpersonal violence had the greatest decrease, $95 million, in 2019 NIH funding (from $236 million in 2008 to $141 million in 2019, a 40% decrease). For the 46 diseases in this study, the variable with the greatest association with NIH funding in 2019 was the level of NIH funding in 2008, with a simple correlation of 0.88. Burden of disease and changes in burden of disease were not statistically significantly associated with NIH funding levels once the prior level of funding was included in the model. The models suggested that a 1% higher level of NIH funding in 2008 was associated with a 0.91% higher level of NIH funding in 2019. In this study, NIH spending for most diseases seemed to be based primarily on the level of NIH spending more than 10 years earlier, despite changes in burden of disease. Congress and the NIH should examine the allocation process to ensure NIH investments are responsive to changes in the health of the population.

ASO Author Reflections: National Institutes of Health Funding to Surgical Oncology Research.

ASO Author Reflections: National Institutes of Health Funding to Surgical Oncology Research.

National Institutes of Health Funding in Internal Medicine: Analysis of Physicians Receiving an R01 Grant Between 2008 and 2017.

IntroductionAs the world’s largest funding source for biomedical research, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) supports physician-scientists with a discipline-specific R01 grant. Recently, scholarly activity disparities regarding investigator degree and gender have been highlighted in the medical literature among allopathic and osteopathic investigators of various medical backgrounds. We aimed to assess trends in internal medicine NIH R01 grants over the past decade.MethodologyInternal medicine R01 funding was retrospectively obtained from a centralized online NIH database encompassing 2008 through 2017. Principal investigators (PIs) were then categorized by gender and academic degree(s). Two-way analysis of variance was used to analyze NIH grant funding trends over the time period studied.ResultsA total of 5,089 NIH R01s were awarded to internal medicine PIs, with an average value per grant of $469,270. Awardees were predominantly male (71.5%, 3,639/5,089). Most awards were issued to PIs with an MD degree (62.4%, 3,173/5,089), followed by PhD degree (36.3%, 1,845/5,089). DOs accounted for five awards over the time period studied (0.15%). MDs were awarded higher funding than PhDs ($466,494 and $421,576, p < 0.001), and females were awarded higher amounts than males ($462,771 and $444,868, p < 0.001). Investigators who held a second degree received more funding than PIs with a single degree ($476,693 and $439,693, p < 0.001).ConclusionIn the decade under investigation, both gender and degree disparities existed within NIH R01 funding for PIs in the field of internal medicine, and osteopathic representation accounted for a paucity of R01 funding.

Influence of Department Leadership on Scholarly Productivity and Research Funding in Academic Urology

To determine whether the academic achievement of Department Chairperson (DC) and Research Director (RD), when present, is associated with increased scholarly productivity and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding of faculty members in academic urology departments. We identified the DC, RD and faculty members of 145 academic urology departments. The scholarly productivity and NIH funding for each individual faculty member was assessed from 2018 to 2019 using an h-index extrapolated from the Scopus database and the NIH RePORTER tool, respectively. The Spearman correlation coefficient was employed to define the correlation of these parameters. Hypothesis testing was conducted using the Mann-Whitney U test. After excluding 13 departments due to missing faculty listing, our final sample included 132 departments and 2227 faculty members. In 2018, the NIH provided $55,243,658 in urology research grants to 24.2% of departments and 4.0% of faculty members. Of departments with NIH funding, 68.8% employed a RD. DC and RD h-index were positively correlated with departmental h-index. DC h-index positively correlated with department NIH funding. Moreover, NIH funding was significantly higher for departments with a RD vs those without a RD ($1,268,028 vs $62,941, P < .001); interestingly, NIH funding was higher for departments employing unfunded RDs vs those without a RD ($2,079,948 vs $579,055, P < .001). Academic success of a DC and RD was associated with urology departmental scholarly productivity and NIH funding. The presence of a RD, funded or unfunded, was associated with increased departmental NIH funding.

National Institutes of Health Research Funding to Academic Surgical Oncologists: Who Are We and Where Do We Stand?

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the primary public funding source for surgical research in the United States. Surgical oncology is a highly academic career, but NIH funding for surgical oncologists (SOs) is not well characterized. The NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results) was queried to identify R01-and-equivalents grants awarded to departments of surgery (DoS) between 2008 and 2018. Surgical oncologists were considered to be those who completed a Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO)-accredited fellowship (breast or complex surgical oncology). Of 1101 projects, 510 (46.3%) were led by practicing surgeons. Among these, general surgeons accounted for most grants (31%), followed by SOs (20.8%). Women represented 211 (24.1%) of the grantees. However, SOs had a higher proportion of female investigators than other surgeons (30.0% vs. 16.1%; P = 0.001). The SO grantees had fewer years of experience (YoE) (12years; interquartile range [IQR], 8.75 vs. 13years; IQR, 13years; P = 0.003), lower senior status (≥ 24 YoE), fewer investigators (4.0% vs. 18.9%; P < 0.001), and fewer PhD holders (30.8% vs. 65.5%; P < 0.001) than the overall cohort. Projects led by SOs accounted for 1121 publications (14.1%), with a higher proportion of high-impact articles (26.3% vs. 9.7%; P < 0.001), and were more likely to hold a registered patent (odds ratio [OR], 3.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-8.74; P = 0.016). Among surgical subspecialties, SSO-accredited surgeons accounted for the largest share of the NIH grants. The SO grantees were younger in their career and had higher-impact scholarly productivity. A smaller proportion of female SOs received NIH grants than males, but this gender disparity was less significant among SOs than among other surgical specialties. Fellowship programs should continue to stimulate groundbreaking research by integrating grant-writing training and mentorship.

Academic Productivity in Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgeons: Identifying Benchmarks Associated With Rank in North America.

Academic achievement is an integral part of the promotion process; however, there are no standardized metrics for faculty or leadership to reference in assessing this potential for promotion. The aim of this study was to identify metrics that correlate with academic rank in hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgeons. Faculty was identified from 17 fellowship council accredited HPB surgery fellowships in the United States and Canada. The number of publications, citations, h-index values, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for each faculty member was captured. Of 111 surgeons identified, there were 31 (27%) assistant, 39 (35%) associate, and 41 (36%) full professors. On univariate analysis, years in practice, h-index, and a history of NIH funding were significantly associated with a surgeon's academic rank (P < .05). Years in practice and h-index remained significant on multivariate analysis (P < .001). Academic productivity metrics including h-index and NIH funding are associated with promotion to the next academic rank.

National Institutes of Health R01 Grant Funding Is Associated With Enhanced Research Productivity and Career Advancement Among Academic Cardiothoracic Surgeons

National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding has declined among cardiothoracic surgeons. R01 grants are a well-known mechanism to support high-impact research, and we sought to clarify the association between NIH funding and academic achievement. We hypothesized that cardiothoracic surgeons who acquired R01 funding exhibit greater research output and faster career advancement. All cardiothoracic surgeons (n = 992) working at accredited United States cardiothoracic surgery training hospitals in 2018 were included. Institutional webpages, Scopus, and Grantome were utilized to collect publicly-available data regarding each surgeon's training and career history, research publications, and NIH funding. Seventy-eight (7.9%) surgeons obtained R01 funding as a principal investigator while 914 (92.1%) did not. R01-funded surgeons started their attending careers earlier (1998 vs 2005, P < 0.0001) and were more likely to have pursued dedicated research training (P < 0.0001). R01-funded surgeons authored 5.3 publications/year before their first R01 grant, 9.3 during the grant period, and 8.6 after the grant expired, all of which were greater than the publication rate of non-R01-funded surgeons at comparable career timepoints (2.0-3.0 publications/year, P < 0.0001). Among time-matched surgeons who completed medical school in 1998 or earlier (n = 73 R01-funded vs n = 602 non-funded), R01-funded surgeons have published more total publications (178.0 vs 56.5 papers, P < 0.0001) and exhibit a greater H-index (41.0 vs 19.0, P < 0.0001). These R01-funded surgeons have also advanced to higher academic ranks (P < 0.0001) and are more likely to be chiefs of their departments or divisions (42.5% vs 25.7%, P = 0.0035). Cardiothoracic surgeons who obtain R01 funding exhibit greater research productivity and faster career advancement.

Association of Sex and Race/Ethnicity With National Institutes of Health Funding of Surgeon-Scientists

Association of Sex and Race/Ethnicity With National Institutes of Health Funding of Surgeon-Scientists

Creation of a Comprehensive Training and Career Development Approach to Increase the Number of Neurosurgeons Supported by National Institutes of Health Funding

Smith, Luke MD; Rezaizadeh, K. Paul; Tennekoon, Michael; Ojemann, Jeffrey A MD; Lonser, Russell R MD; Korn, Stephen J PhD Author Information

Dedicated Residency Research Time and Its Relationship to Urologic Career Academic Success

OBJECTIVETo explore the relationship between research time during urologic training and career academic success. METHODSWe included urologists graduating residency between 2002 and 2008 from 36 programs affiliated with a top 50 hospital for urology as ranked by the United States News and World Report, and collected research time during residency, fellowship training, current appointment (private practice, assistant professor, associate professor, professor, chair), national institutes of health (NIH) grant accrual, NIH R01 grant accrual, and current H-index in Scopus database. Publication output during and after residency was identified through the PubMed database. RESULTSIn our cohort of 543 urologists, 66.3% of graduating trainees pursued private practice. Increasing residency research time was associated with increased publication count (P <.001), pursuit of professor positions (P <.001), and NIH funding (P <.001). One year of dedicated research increased the odds of being in the top 10th percentile of publication output during residency (odds ratio [OR]: 5.7, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.7-12.1), pursuing a fellowship (OR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.3-3.1), promotion to professor (OR: 4.9, 95% CI: 2.0-12.2), obtaining a NIH grant (OR: 6.2, 95% CI: 2.3-16.5), and decreased the odds of pursuing private practice (OR: 0.4, 95% CI: 0.3-0.6). As amount of time dedicated to research in urologic residency increased from 3-4 to 6-12 months, OR increased for career academic success metrics. CONCLUSIONAlthough a minority of trainees enter academics, dedicated time for research in urologic residency is associated with career academic success, with more research time associated with increased publication output, academic appointments, and grant funding.

Formal Research Training – An Essential Aspect for Surgical Residency?

Formal Research Training – An Essential Aspect for Surgical Residency?

Current State of Bibliometric Research on the Scholarly Activity of Academic Radiologists

In this review article, we discuss the literature pertaining to the bibliometric analysis of academic radiologists' scholarly activity in order to identify current trends, knowledge gaps, and potential future directions. Current research provides cross-sectional analyses of bibliometrics on three main themes: academic ranking, gender disparity, and research funding. The most commonly used parameters are the publication and the citation counts, the h-index and the number of years in academia. The h-index correlates positively with academic ranking and, in the case of editorial board members, with the journal's impact factor. Scholars who have secured National Institutes of Health funding tend to have higher h-indexes than those who have not. Whereas gender balance has been achieved in medical school and in several medical specialties, women remain significantly fewer than men in most areas of radiology. The underrepresentation of women is particularly noticeable at higher academic ranks and in leadership positions, suggesting that significant barriers to female radiologists' career advancement exist. Scholarly productivity of radiology residents and the impact of research on academic productivity are subjects that have received less attention in the published literature. Future studies should focus on whether bibliometric parameters can be used as reliable measurements of scholarly activity to help determine appointments, promotions and grant allocations, and to assess interventions that promote gender parity.

Assessing perspectives on artificial intelligence applications to gastroenterology

Assessing perspectives on artificial intelligence applications to gastroenterology

The Relationship between Industry Payments on Research Productivity and Career Success of Academic Radiation Oncologists

Radiation oncology is a specialty that treats 60% of all cancer patients but receives only 1.6% of total National Institutes of Health funding for cancer research. Industry support to academic radiation oncologists may represent an opportunity to undertake research and enable them to progress their careers, though it also represents potential financial conflict of interest. The Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010 required industry funding of physicians to be reported, now enabling assessment of the effects of industry funding on physician productivity in radiation oncology. The goal of this paper is to investigate whether there is a correlation between industry payments and physician productivity and success, as defined by total publications, h-index, or academic rank, for academic radiation oncologists. This study examined the relationship between industry payments, research productivity, and academic title in academic radiation oncologists. Academic radiation oncologists were identified from institutions with residency programs. Industry payments data was obtained from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payment database, and bibliometric data was obtained from Scopus. Sixty-Six percent of academic radiation oncologists received industry payments. The annual mean general payments to Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors, and Instructors were $3,626, $1,293, $622, and $217 respectively. The annual mean research payments were $15,813, $7,022, $1,616, and $293 respectively. Our analysis revealed a significant direct correlation between industry funding and H-index for associate professors, assistant professors, and clinicians/other, but this relationship was not significant for professors and instructors. While univariate analysis revealed both general and research payments were significantly associated with H-index, this association was insignificant for general payments when controlling for academic rank, region, degrees, research payments, and gender. The multivariate model showed that an increase in $10,000 annually in research payments was associated with a 1.19-times increase in odds to be in the top quartile of publications and a 1.10-times increase in odds to be in the top quartile of h-index. Most academic radiation oncologists receive industry funding. Increased research productivity is significantly associated with increased academic rank and research-specific industry payments, but not general industry payments. No conclusions can be made regarding the causal relationship between industry payments and research productivity.

Gender disparities among United States academic pediatric ophthalmologists: an analysis of publication productivity, academic rank, and NIH funding

To investigate gender disparitie among pediatric ophthalmologists in academic rank, publication productivity, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. In this cross-sectional analysis of pediatric ophthalmologists at 113 US academic programs, data on gender, residency graduation year, and academic rank were obtained from institutional websites between January 2019 and March 2019. The Scopus database was used to calculate h-indices and m-quotients. The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool was used to determine NIH funding. We identified 389 pediatric ophthalmologists: 194 women (49.9%) and 195 men (50.1%). A binomial logistic regression model, which included career length as an independent variable, showed proportions of women to men were similar across all academic ranks (assistant professor, 64.4% vs 46.2% [P=0.738]; associate professor, 21.7% vs 19.0% [P=0.357]; full professor, 13.9 vs 34.9% [P=0.119]). Women had a lower median h-index (5.0 vs 8.0 [P=0.008]) and a shorter median career duration (12.5 vs 25.0years [P<0.001]), but a similar median m-quotient (0.5 vs. 0.5; P=0.525). Among pediatric ophthalmologists who received NIH funding (20 women vs. 27 men; P=0.826), the overall median grant-funding total for women was $804K (interquartile range (IQR) 5.0M, mean $3.8M) compared to men, $2.2M (IQR, 4.0M; mean, $3.7M; P=0.328). The shorter career duration for women likely contributes to the difference in overall h-indices between genders, as m-quotients were similar. The m-quotient should be used over the h-index when comparing academic productivity across genders when disparities in career length exist.

Influence of Residency Training on Research Productivity and Plastic Surgery Career.

The impact of residency training on academic productivity and a career in academic plastic surgery remains uncertain. Previous literature has explored the influence of training institutions on academic careers in surgery. The aims of the study were to assess research productivity during plastic surgery residency training and to illustrate how differences in training programs impact resident research productivity. Academic plastic surgery faculty that graduated in the past 10 years were identified through an Internet search of all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited residency and fellowship training programs. Research productivity was compared based on h-index, number, and quality of peer-reviewed articles published during residency. Three hundred seventy-five academic plastic surgeons were identified and produced 2487 publications during residency. The 10 most productive training institutions were Johns Hopkins, Georgetown, University of Michigan, Stanford, University of California Los Angeles, Northwestern, Harvard, New York University, University of Pennsylvania, and Baylor. Academic productivity was higher among integrated residents (integrated = 8.68 publications, independent = 5.49 publications, P < 0.0001). The number of publications positively correlated to faculty size (r = 0.167, P = 0.0013), National Institute of Health (NIH) funding (r = 0.249, P < 0.0001), residency graduation year (r = 0.211, P < 0.0001), and negatively correlated with Doximity ranking (r = -0.294, P < 0.0001). H-index was positively correlated with number of publications (r = 0.622, P < 0.0001), faculty size (r = 0.295, P < 0.0001), and NIH funding (r = 0.256, P < 0.0001) and negatively correlated with Doximity ranking (r = -0.405, P < 0.0001) and residency graduation year (r = -0.163, P < 0.0001). Our study has found that there is an elite cohort of programs that are the most productive research institutions. Resident research productivity is higher among integrated residents, recent graduates, and programs that are larger in size, with a higher Doximity ranking and NIH funding. This study can guide medical students and future applicants who are interested in a career in academic plastic surgery in the selection of programs that match their career aspirations.

Building community resilience to prevent and mitigate community impact of gun violence: conceptual framework and intervention design

IntroductionThe USA has the highest rate of community gun violence of any developed democracy. There is an urgent need to develop feasible, scalable and community-led interventions that mitigate incident gun...

Sex Differences in Academic Rank, Scholarly Productivity, National Institutes of Health Funding, and Industry Ties Among Academic Cornea Specialists in the United States

This study analyzed sex differences among cornea specialists with regards to academic rank, scholarly productivity, National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, and industry partnerships. Cross-sectional study. This was a study of faculty at 113US academic programs. Sex, residency graduation year, and academic rank were collected from institutional websites between January and March 2019. H-indices and m-quotients were collected from the Scopus database. The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services databases were queried for data on NIH funding and industry partnerships. Of the 440 cornea specialists identified, 131 (29.8%) were female. The proportions of females and males at each academic rank (assistant 69.5% vs 41.8%; associate 17.6% vs 21.0%; full professor 13.0% vs 37.2%) were not significant after adjusting for career duration (P= .083, .459, and .113, respectively). Females had significantly lower median h-indices (4.0 [interquartile range {IQR} 7.0] vs 11.0 [IQR 17.0], P < .001) and shorter median career duration (12.0 [IQR 11.0] vs. 25.0 [IQR 20.0] years, P < .001) than males but similar median m-quotients (0.5 [IQR 0.8] vs 0.5 [IQR 0.8], P= 1.00). Sex differences in h-indices were not seen at each academic rank or career duration interval. Among NIH-funded investigators, the median grant funding was $1.6M (IQR $2.2M) for females and $1.2M (IQR $4.6M, P= .853) for males. Overall, 25.5% of females and 58.6% of males (P= .600) had industry partnerships. Sex differences within academic ranks and h-indices are likely due to a smaller proportion of females with advanced career duration.

National Institutes of Health: Gender Differences in Radiology Funding

Radiology has traditionally remained one of the most male-dominated specialties, although a higher proportion of women are now beginning to occupy roles as academic radiologists than their male counterparts. The present study investigated trends in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding within Diagnostic Radiology stratified by gender, and correlated with measures of academic output, including h-index. Data on funding was obtained from the onlineNIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditure and Results for fiscal years 2016-2019, and information regarding each Principal Investigator (PI) was obtained from the Scopus database and departmental websites. Mann-Whitney U tests were performed on collected data for statistical comparison of continuous variables. Of the 2929 grants included in this analysis, 1789 (61.07%) were awarded to male PIs and 1140 (38.9%) to female PIs. Among PIs holding a PhD degree, male PIs had a higher mean grant amount ($619,807.00) compared to female PIs ($158,486.00). Although female representation within academic radiology has been increasing, the mean NIH grants awarded to women is less than that awarded to men. Reasons for this are numerous and may include differential prioritization of career objectives among men and women, although such rationalization is inevitably speculative in nature. Significant gender differences in NIH funding were seen at the PhD level, and the strongest correlation between NIH funding and academic output was observed for the h-index of female PIs. These results underscore the fact that women are ostensibly being held to a higher academic standard than men in terms of funding decisions.