RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The Jahnigen Career Development Awards program was launched in 2002 with private funding and transformed into the Grants for Early Medical/Surgical Specialists' Transition to Aging Research (GEMSSTAR) program in 2011 through support from the National Institute on Aging and medical specialty professional societies. The Jahnigen/GEMSSTAR program has provided grants to early career physician-scientists from 10 surgical and related medical specialties to initiate and sustain research careers in the geriatric aspect of their discipline. From 2002 to 2016, there were 20 Jahnigen/GEMSSTAR recipients in emergency medicine (EM). The goal of this investigation was to examine the impact of Jahnigen/GEMSSTAR awards on careers of EM recipients and on development of academic geriatric EM. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of the 20 EM recipients from 2002 to 2016 and analyzed their academic productivity, research impact, career trajectory, and contributions to geriatric EM since receiving the award. RESULTS: All 20 Jahnigen/GEMSSTAR scholars completed the survey. Scholars have published a median of 33 peer-reviewed articles (interquartile range [IQR] = 10-97) since the award, with median annual publication rates of 4.5 (IQR = 1.6-7.0). All scholars had h-indices of 6 or more, with a median of 18 (IQR = 9-28). Jahnigen/GEMSSTAR scholars have served as principal investigator (PI) or co-PI on 126 grants since their award, with 90% having served as PI on at least one additional grant and 30% having received National Institutes of Health Career Development Awards. All scholars reported believing that the Jahnigen/GEMSSTAR was very helpful or helpful for career progress. Most (85%) reported ongoing contributions to geriatric EM in research, education, or administration. CONCLUSIONS: After the Jahnigen/GEMSSTAR award, EM scholars have been highly academically productive and successful, and the award has been instrumental in their career development. Awardees have been critical to the development of geriatric EM.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) provides research training grants, but the future productivity of award recipients and nonrecipients is unclear. The study objective was to assess the association of the two SAEM research training mechanisms with scholarly productivity and rates of subsequent funding between nonrecipients and recipients. A secondary goal was to evaluate the productivity metrics for fellows trained at the Institutional Research Training Grant (IRTG) programs. METHODS: The authors surveyed all 2002 through 2011 Research Training Grant (RTG; n = 64) and Institutional Research Training Grant (IRTG; n = 38) applicants. RTG outcomes were federal funding as a principal investigator (PI) or co-PI using National Institutes of Health RePORTER and scholarly productivity using PubMed. IRTG outcomes were SAEM-approved research fellowships and National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute K12 training awards. Sites applying for or receiving the IRTG multiple times were only counted once. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: Over 10 years, nine of 64 (14%) RTG and 10 of 38 (26%) IRTG applications were funded (two sites received multiple awards). Federal funding was obtained by seven of nine (78%) RTG recipients and 22 of 55 (40%) RTG nonrecipients (RR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.21 to 3.13). All nine (100%, 95% CI = 72% to 100%) of RTG recipients had at least one manuscript, compared to 48 of the 55 (87%, 95% CI = 76% to 95%) nonrecipients. All nine (100%, 95% CI = 72% to 100%) RTG recipients remained in academics versus 44 of 55 (80%, 95% CI = 67% to 90%) nonrecipients. For the IRTG, four of seven awardees (57%, 95% CI = 18% to 90%) versus 0 of the 16 (0%, 95% CI = 0 to 17%) nonrecipients received National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute K12 awards (RR = 19.1, 95% CI = 1.16 to 314.0). Additionally, five of seven (71%, 95% CI = 29% to 96%) institutions became SAEM-approved fellowships compared to one of 16 (6%, 95% CI = 0 to 30%) nonrecipients (RR = 11.4, 95% CI = 1.61 to 80.7). CONCLUSIONS: SAEM RTG recipients were more likely to obtain federal funding postaward than nonrecipients. IRTG recipients were more likely to develop successful research training programs than nonrecipients.
