National Institutes Of Health Funding Research Articles

The Medical Student Race to Research: Who Presents More at National Plastic Surgery Conferences?

presentations increase research output and facilitate networking for medical students applying to plastic surgery. We aim to determine predictors of increased medical student presentation at national plastic surgery conferences, identifying disparities in access to research opportunities. Abstracts presented at the 2 most recent meetings of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, American Association of Plastic Surgeons, and Plastic Surgery Research Council were extracted from online archives. Presenters without MDs or other professional credentials were classified as medical students. Presenter gender, medical school ranking, plastic surgery division/department, National Institutes of Health funding, number of total and first-author publications, H-index, and research fellowship completion status were recorded. Students with 3 or more (>75th percentile) presentations were compared with those with less by χ2 tests. Univariate and multivariable regressions identified factors associated with 3 or more presentations. Of 1576 abstracts, 549 (34.8%) were presented by 314 students. The gender distribution was 46.5% male and 53.5% female. Most were from the Northeast (36.9%), 35% came from top 20 medical schools, and 85% attended schools with home plastic surgery programs. While 61.8% presented once, 14.6% presented 3 or more times. Those who previously presented, completed research fellowships or had more publications or higher H-indices were likely to present more ( P ≤ 0.007). On multivariable-adjusted analysis, completing research fellowships (odds ratio [OR], 2.34-2.52; P = 0.028-0.045), affiliation with institutions having higher National Institutes of Health funding (OR, 3.47-3.73; P = 0.004-0.006), or having more total number of publications (OR, 3.81; P = 0.018) or first-author publications (OR, 3.84; P = 0.008) was associated with 3 or more presentations. Presenter gender, geographic region, medical school ranking, home program status, and H-indices were not significant predictors on multivariable analysis. There are several potential inequities in access to research opportunities for medical students, disadvantaging those with less well-funded plastic surgery programs and existing research experience. Improving the equitability of these opportunities is crucial for limiting bias in trainee recruitment and diversifying representation in the field.

Gender disparities in the National Institutes of Health funding for genitourinary oncology.

264 Background: Traditionally, women are under-represented in academic fields and thus less likely to receive grants and funds. Here we assessed the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding trend in allocation of R401 grants in Genito-urinary oncology (GU) stratified by gender. Methods: The data were retrieved from the NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditure) using GU-related search terms from 2018-2021. The gender was categorized using Genderize. The number of citations, publications, H-index, and seniority were obtained from Scopus and Web of Science in September 2022. Consumer Price Index was used to adjust funding amount to 2021 equivalent U.S. dollars. Linear regression was used for analysis. Results: A total of 873 NIH-funded R01 grants amounting to $388.5 million were awarded for GU research. Women (n= 206; 23.6% [95% CI: 20.8%-26.4%]) received fewer grants than men (n= 667; 76.4% [95% CI: 73.6%-79.2%]). Trending from 2018 to 2021, there was no significant difference in the number of grants awarded among both men (173 to 181, p=0.78) and women (50 to 53, p=0.92) within their groups. Similarly, there was no significant change in the grant amount (in millions) awarded among men (74.2 to 78.7, p=0.47) and women (23.6 to 22.4, p=0.30). Prostate cancer accounted for the greatest proportion of grants (n=689; 78.9% [95% CI: 76.2%-81.6%]), amounting to 304.4 million in 4 years. Of the 269 co-Principal Investigator (PIs), 240 (89.2% [95% CI: 85.5%-92.9%]) were men and 29 (10.8% [95% CI: 7.1%-14.5%]) were women. Male PIs compared to female PIs had a higher no. of publications (135 vs 106, p<0.01). Funding amount was significantly associated with the number of publications (β=0.05; p<0.01), seniority (β=0.10; p=0.015), institution (p<0.01) and degrees (p=0.03). However, there was no significant association with gender (β=0.05; p=0.17). Conclusions: Our analysis shows continued gender disparity in R01 awards as only 1 in 5 grants were awarded to women during the fiscal years of 2018-2021. Thus, concerted efforts are required to bridge this gap and promote gender equity. [Table: see text]

Impact of National Institutes of Health and Food and Drug Administration Tobacco Research Funding: A Bibliometrics Analyses.

Conduct bibliometric analyses documenting the output of National Institutes of Health (NIH) tobacco-related and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tobacco regulatory science (FDA-TRS) research portfolios. PubMed identifiers for publications between 2015 and 2020 citing tobacco funding by NIH and/or FDA were imported into NIH iCite generating measures of productivity and influence, including number of citations, journal, relative citation ratios (RCR), and comparison of research influence across Web of Science (WoS) disciplines. Coauthorship and measures of centrality among and between NIH and FDA-supported investigators gauged collaboration. Between FY 2015 and 2020, 8160 publications cited funding from NIH tobacco-related grants, 1776 cited FDA-TRS grants and 496 cited Common funding (ie, both NIH and FDA-TRS funding). The proportion of publications citing NIH grants declined while those citing FDA-TRS or Common funding rose significantly. Publications citing Common funding showed the highest influence (mean RCR = 2.52). Publications citing FDA-TRS funding displayed higher median RCRs than publications citing NIH funding in most WoS categories. Higher translational progress was estimated over time for FDA-TRS and Common publications compared to NIH publications. Authors citing Common funding scored highest across all collaboration measures. This study demonstrates the high bibliometric output of tobacco research overall. The rise in publications citing FDA-TRS and Common likely reflects increased funding for TRS research. Higher RCRs across WoS subject categories and trends towards human translation among FDA-TRS and Common publications indicate focus on research to inform regulation. This analysis suggests that FDA support for TRS has expanded the field of tobacco control resulting in sustained productivity, influence, and collaboration. This paper is the first effort to better describe the impact of tobacco research resulting from the addition of FDA funding for TRS in the past decade. The analysis provides impetus for further investigation into the publication topics and their focus which would offer insight into the specific evidence generated on tobacco control and regulation.

Show me the data! Data sharing practices demonstrated in published research at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School

Objective: In the interest of making data findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will institute a new Data Management and Sharing Policy in January 2023. This policy will require researchers applying for NIH funding to submit a Data Management and Sharing Plan. As 63% of grant dollars received by University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (UMass Chan) researchers comes from the NIH, we explored whether UMass Chan researchers are currently sharing data associated with their published research and how they shared their data. Methods: PubMed was searched for articles published in 2019 with a UMass Chan researcher as either the first or last author. These articles were examined for evidence of original or reused data, the type of data, whether the article stated that data was available, and where and how to find that data. Results: Of the 361 articles with original data, 26% had a data availability statement. However, most articles (71%) did not mention where data could be accessed. The data storage location of the estimated 1551 original datasets was similarly not mentioned for 74% the datasets with the next largest category being available upon request (8.6%). Genomic data repositories such as the Gene Expression Omnibus were among the top repositories used by authors. Similar areas for improvement were noted for permanent identifier use (46% had a permanent identifier), using non-proprietary file formats (most popular format was Excel), and citing reused data. Authors who published open access were more likely to share their data. Conclusions: While some researchers at UMass Chan have embraced data sharing, particularly genomic data sharing, we expect there will be more data shared in the coming years with the implementation of the new NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy.

The Matthew effect, research productivity, and the dynamic allocation of NIH grants

AbstractFunding is important for research. However, research funding may suffer from the Matthew effect: the more researchers already have, the more they will be given. I develop an empirical framework to study how the National Institutes of Health (NIH) could allocate funding in a dynamically optimal manner by balancing funds between young and veteran principal investigators (PIs). I find that the discount factor that rationalizes NIH's funding behavior is about 0.75, implying it may underfund young PIs. Moreover, a temporary funding cut would have long‐lasting effects on overall research output through its adverse impact on investment in young PIs.

Advice for Early Career Clinical Stroke Researchers Applying for National Institutes of Health Funding.

Advice for Early Career Clinical Stroke Researchers Applying for National Institutes of Health Funding.

Fewer Than One in 20 Current Academic Orthopaedic Surgeons Have Obtained National Institutes of Health Funding.

National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding is a key driver of orthopaedic research, but it has become increasingly difficult to obtain in recent years. An understanding of the types of grants that are commonly funded, how productive they are, and the factors associated with obtaining funding may help orthopaedic surgeons better understand how to earn grants. In this study, we sought to determine (1) the proportion of current academic orthopaedic surgeons who have obtained NIH grant funding, (2) the productivity of these grants by calculating grant productivity metrics, and (3) the factors (such as gender, subspecialty, and additional degrees) that are associated with obtaining grant funding. Current academic orthopaedic surgeons at the top 140 NIH-funded institutions were identified via faculty webpages; 3829 surgeons were identified. Demographic information including gender (men constituted 88% of the group [3364 of 3829]), academic rank (full professors constituted 22% [856 of 3829]), additional degrees (those with MD-PhD degrees constituted 3% [121 of 3829]), leadership positions, and orthopaedic subspecialty was collected. Funding histories from 1985 through 2021 were collected using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results. Grant type, funding, publications, and citations of each article were collected. A previously used grant impact metric (total citations per USD 0.1 million) was calculated to assess grant productivity. Multivariable binomial logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with obtaining funding. Four percent (150 of 3829) of academic orthopaedic surgeons obtained USD 338.3 million in funding across 301 grants, resulting in 2887 publications over the entire study period. The R01 was the most commonly awarded grant in terms of the total number awarded, at 36% (108 of 301), as well as by funding, publications, and citations, although other grant types including T32, F32, R03, R13, and R21 had higher mean grant impact metrics. There was no difference between men and women in the by-gender percentage of academic orthopaedic surgeons who obtained funding (4% [135 of 3229] versus 3% [15 of 450]; odds ratio 0.9 [95% confidence interval 0.5 to 1.7]; p = 0.80). A department having a single funded PhD researcher may be associated with surgeon-scientists obtaining grant funding, but with the numbers available, we could not demonstrate this was the case (OR 1.4 [95% CI 0.9 to 2.2]; p = 0.12). Fewer than one in 20 academic orthopaedic surgeons have received NIH funding. R01s are the most commonly awarded grant, although others demonstrate increased productivity metrics. Future studies should investigate the role of co-principal investigators on productivity and the role of different funding sources. Individuals should pursue both R01 and non-R01 grants, and departments should consider cultivating relationships with funded PhDs. The specific research infrastructure and departmental policies of the most productive institutions and grants should be surveyed and emulated.

NIH Funding Among Vascular Surgeons Is Rare and Aligns Poorly With Society for Vascular Surgery Priorities

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is an essential source of funding for vascular surgeon-scientists. NIH funding is frequently used to benchmark institutional and individual research productivity, help determine eligibility for academic promotion, and as a measure of scientific quality. We sought to determine NIH-funded vascular surgeon characteristics along with amounts, types, and content areas of NIH funding. In addition, we also sought to determine whether funded grants addressed recent Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) research priorities.

Removing or Only Moving a Barrier? Screening Applications with US Medical Licensing Examination Step 2CK Instead of Step 1 May Benefit Women but Not Underrepresented Minorities in Orthopaedics.

We reviewed all 855 Electronic Residency Application Service applications submitted to the University of Pennsylvania's orthopaedic surgery residency program in the 2020-2021 cycle. Applicant age, sex, medical school of graduation, self-identified race, and permanent zip code were evaluated for association with Step 1 and Step 2CK scores using a 2-sample t test. A multivariable linear regression analysis was conducted to understand the predictive value of demographic features and medical school features on Step 1 and 2CK scores. Multivariable linear regression revealed both Step 1 and 2CK scores were lower for applicants of URM status (Step 1: p < 0.001; Step 2CK: p < 0.001) and from international medical schools (p = 0.043; p = 0.006). Step 1 scores but not Step 2CK scores were lower for applicants who were women (p < 0.001; p = 0.730), ≥30 years of age (p < 0.001; p = 0.079), and from medical schools outside the top 25 in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding or US News and World Report (USNWR) ranking (p = 0.001; p = 0.193). Conversion of Step 1 grading to Pass/Fail may reduce barriers for groups with lower average Step 1 scores (URM, female, ≥30 years of age, and from institutions with lower NIH funding or USNWR rankings). However, if Step 2CK scores replace Step 1 as a screening tool, groups with lower Step 2CK scores, notably URM applicants, may not experience this benefit. Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Trends in NIH Funding to Medical Schools in 2011 and 2020.

To examine trends in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding to U.S. medical schools and their academic departments and the amount of awards provided by each of the NIH institutes. All data on NIH awards to U.S. medical schools from 2000 to 2020 are publicly available and were obtained from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools and Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research. These data include the value and number of awards to each medical school, medical school department, medical school location, principal investigator, and the NIH awarding institute. Trends in the inflation-adjusted awards from 2011 to 2020 were calculated and a comparison of the awards made in 2011 and 2020 was performed. The total NIH budget increased by 16.1% from 2011 to 2020. The allocation of NIH funds to medical schools increased 26.3% ($13.7 billion to $17.3 billion) during this interval. In 2020, 29.3% of all medical school NIH funds were allocated to departments of internal medicine/medicine. Psychiatry was the second ranking department, which was followed, in order, by pediatrics, neurology, and microbiology/immunology/virology. The National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute were the top medical school funding institutes in 2011 and 2020. Medical schools as a group continue to receive the greatest percentage of NIH funding. Funding to clinical science departments increased by a larger percentage than that to basic science departments (35.3% vs 10.9%, respectively) over the 2011-2020 interval. Funding for clinical science departments is increasing at a faster rate than that of basic science departments. However, that so much investigation in basic science and clinical science departments is performed by personnel with a PhD degree indicates the goals and methods of the basic and clinical sciences may not be so different.

Does NIH funding differ between medical specialties? A longitudinal analysis of NIH grant data by specialty and type of grant, 2011–2020

ObjectivesDifferences in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding between specialties may affect research and patient outcomes in specialties that are less well funded.The aim of this study is to evaluate...

Rotator Cuff Tear Progression at 2-year Follow-up in Manual Wheelchair Users with Spinal Cord Injury

<h3>Research Objectives</h3> To investigate rotator cuff tear progression in manual wheelchair (MWC) users with spinal cord injury (SCI) and matched able-bodied individuals. <h3>Design</h3> Longitudinal cohort study, 2-year follow-up. <h3>Setting</h3> Outpatient clinic at a tertiary medical center. <h3>Participants</h3> Thirty-three adult MWC users with SCI (26 men) with an average age (SD) of 42 (12) years and 33 age/sex-matched able-bodied individuals participated in this study. Median time since injury (interquartile ratio) for the SCI participants was 7 (19) years. <h3>Interventions</h3> Not applicable. <h3>Main Outcome Measures</h3> Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) abnormalities of rotator cuff tendons (dominant side) including partial tears (low, intermediate, and high grade) and full tears at baseline and 2-year follow-up visits were graded by a board-certified musculoskeletal radiologist. Presence of shoulder pain was collected. <h3>Results</h3> Fifty-two percent of the MWC users reported shoulder pain at baseline which was significantly higher than able-bodied cohort (10%, P=0.004). The prevalence of any tendon tears across the rotator cuff in MWC users was 61% and 67% at baseline and year 2 visits, respectively, and for able-bodied participants was 45%, and 52%. The MWC users experienced a significant (P=0.001) rotator cuff tear progression from baseline to year 2 (15 participants with worsening score and 2 with improving score). MRI findings did not change significantly for the able-bodied cohort. The MWC user cohort had 3 times (relative risk; 95% CI: 1.23 to 7.30, P = 0.007) higher risk of experiencing rotator cuff tear progression over 2 years in comparison to the able-bodied cohort. <h3>Conclusions</h3> The findings of this study indicate the significantly accelerated rate of rotator cuff degeneration in MWC users with SCI in comparison to able-bodied individuals. <h3>Author(s) Disclosures</h3> National Institutes of Health Funding (grant no. R01 HD84423).

A Qualitative Investigation of Arm Use Ergonomic Factors During Daily Activities of Manual Wheelchair Users

<h3>Research Objectives</h3> To identify daily activities of manual wheelchair users (MWC) with spinal cord injury (SCI) that involve ergonomic factors which put the shoulder at risk of musculoskeletal pathology. <h3>Design</h3> Semi-structured interviews, qualitative data analysis. <h3>Setting</h3> Tertiary medical center researchers performed video-based interviews. <h3>Participants</h3> Five adult MWC users with spinal cord injury (SCI) (4 men, 1 woman) aged 29-42 years with 3-19 years of MWC use. Participants were a volunteer sample from a larger longitudinal study who receive annual shoulder imaging and provide wearable sensor data during free-living. Participants for larger study were recruited from regional clinic patient lists. <h3>Interventions</h3> Not Applicable. <h3>Main Outcome Measures</h3> Participants were asked to describe in detail their daily activities with probing questions to identify activities requiring awkward postures, working with arms away from their bodies, loading, and repetition. Participants rated activity level of difficulty on an analog scale (1-10). Interviews were recorded and reviewed to identify themes. <h3>Results</h3> Arm use with awkward postures and loading were reported as frequent, routine activities. Repetitive loading occurred seasonally (shoveling/gardening). Repetitive household chores (vacuuming/yard) often required completion across multiple sessions due to high level of difficulty. High level of difficulty tasks also included transferring off low soft furniture, transferring to vehicles with a large seat-to-seat gap (plows/lawn mowers), cooking, dressing/undressing while in MWC, and propulsion on loose rock/uneven grass. Broken or inefficient assistive technology devices went unused, resulting in missed opportunities to reduce arm loading. Participants reported performing tasks with different techniques than they learned in acute care rehabilitation. <h3>Conclusions</h3> Data acquired was used to create an in-home biomechanical data collection protocol with high content validity. Findings highlight the importance of collecting data in the real-world to better understand daily demands and investigate ways to manage load and reduce awkward postures with training, technology, and health care policy. <h3>Author(s) Disclosures</h3> National Institutes of Health Funding (grant no. R01 HD84423)

Accessibility and disability inclusion among top-funded U.S. Undergraduate Institutions.

There is limited data to assess, track, or quantify accessibility and disability inclusion across universities. This cross-sectional study assessed disability inclusion and accessibility at the top 50 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded undergraduate programs in the United States. We hypothesized that there is no association between NIH funding and the University Disability Inclusion Score. A novel tool, the University Disability Inclusion Score assessed disability inclusion and accessibility using 10 indicators spanning 4 categories: (1) accessibility of built and virtual environment, (2) public image of disability inclusion, (3) accommodations processes and procedures, and (4) grievance policy. Based upon the total points (out of a total score of 100), each university was assigned a letter grade (A-F). Of the top 50 NIH-funded institutions, 6% received an A grade on the Score, while 60% received D or F. The mean scores were 15.2 (SD = 5) for accessibility of built and virtual environment (20 points), 10 (SD = 3) for public image of disability inclusion (20 points), 30.6 (SD = 10) for accommodations processes and procedures (50 points), and 8.1 (SD = 3) for grievance policy (10 points). Our findings suggest room for improvement in disability inclusion and accessibility among top university recipients of NIH funding. To provide an equitable academic experience, universities must prioritize disability inclusion.

A Call to Action for Musculoskeletal Research Funding: The Growing Economic and Disease Burden of Musculoskeletal Conditions in the United States Is Not Reflected in Musculoskeletal Research Funding.

As a result of an aging population, musculoskeletal disease is a growing source of health and economic burden in the United States. In 2019, musculoskeletal conditions affected approximately 127.4 million people (more than a third of the U.S. population); they were the top driver of health-care spending in 2016, with an estimated direct annual cost of $380.9 billion. While musculoskeletal conditions represent a substantial and growing burden in terms of prevalence, disability, and health-care costs, National Institutes of Health (NIH) research funding has remained disproportionately allocated to other disease conditions. Therefore, our purpose was to provide an assessment of the current burden of musculoskeletal disease in terms of prevalence, disability, and health-care costs, and compare the changing burden of disease to trends in NIH funding.

National Institutes of Health Diversity Supplement Awards by Medical School.

Increasing medical school faculty diversity is an urgent priority. National Institutes of Health (NIH) diversity supplements, which provide funding and career development opportunities to individuals underrepresented in research, are an important mechanism to increase faculty diversity. Analyze diversity supplement utilization by medical schools. Retrospective cohort study. All R01 grant-associated diversity supplements awarded to medical schools from 2005 to 2020. Diversity supplements were identified using the publicly available NIH RePORTER database. Main measures were the number of R01-associated diversity supplements awarded to medical schools each year by medical schoolNIH funding status and the number of R01-associated diversity supplements awarded to individual medical schools in the NIH top 40 by funding status. We also examined the percentage of R01 grants with an associated diversity supplement by NIH funding status and individual medical school in the NIH top 40. From 2005 to 2020, US medical school faculty received 1389 R01-associated diversity supplements. The number of diversity supplements awarded grew from 2012 to 2020, from ten to 187 for top 40 schools, and from seven to 83 for non-top 40 schools. The annual growth rate for diversity supplement awards at NIH top 40 schools (44.2%) was not significantly different than the annual growth rate among non-top 40 schools (36.2%; p = 0.68). From 2005 to 2020, the highest number of diversity supplements that an individual medical school received was 56 and the lowest number was four (mean = 24.6, SD = 11.7). The highest percentage of R01 grants with an associated diversity supplement received by a school was 4.5% and the lowest percentage was 0.79% (mean = 2.3%, SD = 0.98). Medical schools may be missing an opportunity to address the continuing shortage of individuals historically underrepresented in biomedical science and should consider additional mechanisms to enhance diversity supplement utilization.

The relationship between academic influence, NIH funding, and industry payments among academic shoulder and elbow surgeons.

The effect of academic influence, or the volume and quality of a surgeon's publications, on industry payments and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding has recently been studied in some academic orthopedic subspecialities. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relationship between academic influence, industry payments, and NIH funding among American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons accredited shoulder and elbow fellowship faculty. Shoulder and elbow fellowships and affiliated faculty members were identified from the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons website. Academic influence, measured by the Hirsch (h)-index, and the number of articles published were determined for faculty members using the Scopus Database Author Identifier tool. Industry payments were derived from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. NIH funding was determined using the NIH's Research Portfolio Online Reporting tool. Statistical analysis used Spearman correlations and the Mann-Whitney U-test with an alpha value of 0.05 (P<.05). A total of 146 faculty members were included. Twenty-two percent (42 of 146) received nonresearch payments, whereas 78% (114 of 146) received industry research funding averaging $6364 (standard deviation=$21,213). NIH funding averaged $272,589 (standard deviation=$224,635), and 5% received NIH funding (7 of 146). Faculty members who received NIH funding had a higher average h-index than those who did not (38±22 vs. 22.64±22.7, P=.02), whereas those receiving industry research payments had a greater number of publications than those who did not (127.97±127.2 vs. 100.3±122.3, P=.03). Industry nonresearch payments did not impact the number of publications or the h-index. This study demonstrated that academic influence among academic shoulder and elbow surgeons is not greater in those who receive nonresearch industry funding. However, surgeons with industry research funding did produce more publications, whereas NIH funding is associated with greater academic influence.

An Update: National Institutes of Health Research Funding for Palliative Medicine 2016-2020.

Background: The evidence base to support palliative care clinical practice is inadequate and opportunities to improve the evidence base remain despite the field's rapid growth. Objective: The aim of this study was to examine current National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding of palliative medicine research and trends over time. Design: We sought to identify NIH funding of palliative medicine (2016-2020) in two stages: (1) we searched the NIH grant database, RePORTER, for grants with the keywords, "palliative care," "end-of-life care," "hospice," and "end of life," and (2) identified palliative care researchers likely to have secured NIH funding using three strategies. Methods: We abstracted (1) the first and last authors' names from original investigations published in major palliative medicine journals from 2016 to 2018; (2) names from a PubMed-generated list of original articles published in major medicine, nursing, and subspecialty journals using the above keywords; and (3) palliative medicine journal editorial board members and members of key palliative medicine initiatives. We cross-matched the pooled names against NIH grants funded from 2016 to 2021. Results: A crosswalk analysis of the author search and NIH RePORTER search identified 1658 grants. Of those, 541 were categorized as relevant to palliative medicine, which represented 419 unique principal investigators (mean of 1.34 grants per investigator). Compared with 2011-2015, the number of NIH-funded grants increased by 25%, NIH dollars increased by 35%, and the distribution of grant types remained stable. Conclusions: Despite the challenging NIH funding climate, the number of NIH grants and funding to palliative care have increased. Given the increased funding allocation toward Alzheimer's dementia and related dementia research at the congressional level, this increase in funding reflects this funding allocation and does not represent overall growth. Dedicated federal funding for palliative care research remains critical to grow the evidence base for persons living with serious illnesses and their families.

Current Status of National Institutes of Health Research Funding for Women Surgeon-Scientists

Women have made substantial advancements in academic surgery, but research funding disparities continue to hamper their progress, and current literature on the status of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding awarded to women surgeon-scientists appears to be conflicting. To examine gender-based differences in NIH funding awarded to surgeon-scientists by comparing total grant amounts awarded and the distribution of grants by gender and research type. This cross-sectional study was performed using a previously created database of NIH-funded surgeons from 2010 to 2020. Active physician data from the Association of American Medical Colleges were used to calculate total surgeon populations. This study was performed at the NIH using the NIH internal data platform, iSearch Grants. A total of 715 men and women surgeon-scientists funded by the NIH in 2010 and 1031 funded in 2020 were included in the analysis. The main outcome was the number of women among the total number of surgeons who received NIH grants and the total grant amounts awarded to them. Bivariate χ2 analyses were performed using population totals and substantiated by z tests of population proportions. This study included 715 physicians (n = 579 men [81.0%]) in 2010 and 1031 physicians (n = 769 men [74.6%]) in 2020. In 2020, women comprised 27.4% of the surgical workforce and 25.4% of surgeons with research funding in the US, but they received only 21.7% of total NIH research funding awarded to all surgeons. The number of funded women surgeon-scientists, however, significantly increased from 2010 to 2020 (262 [25.4%] in 2020 vs 136 [19.0%] in 2010; P < .001) as did their funding ($189.7 million [21.7%] in 2020 vs $75.9 million [12.3%] in 2010; P < .001). Furthermore, the proportion of US women surgeons overall with NIH funding significantly increased in 2020 vs 2010 (0.7% vs 0.5%; P < .001). Basic science, clinical outcomes, and clinical trial R01 grants also increased among women surgeon-scientists. Women and men K grant holders had a similar mean (SD) number of R01 application attempts before success (2.7 [3.01] vs 2.3 [3.15]; P = .60) and similar K-to-R award conversion rates (23.5% vs 26.7%; P = .55). This cross-sectional study found an increasing number of women surgeon-scientists receiving NIH funding in 2020 vs 2010 as well as increases in the median grant amounts awarded. Although these results are promising, a discrepancy remains in the proportion of women in the surgical workforce compared with those funded by the NIH and the total grant amounts awarded to them.

Women Surgeon-Scientists—Applying an Intersectional Lens to the Current Status of National Institutes of Health Funding

Women Surgeon-Scientists—Applying an Intersectional Lens to the Current Status of National Institutes of Health Funding