Success of Resident Research Grants in Orthopaedic Trauma From 2000 to 2022: A Retrospective Review.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine the publication rate for orthopaedic trauma resident research projects that receive grant funding and the long-term academic involvement of the grant recipients. DESIGN: Retrospective. SETTING: Publically available records for resident research grant recipients. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: Resident research grants on orthopaedic trauma topics from Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA), AO North America (AONA), and Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation from 2000 to 2022. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: Subsequent related publications, grant size, time to publication, sustained academic involvement of the residents as measured by academic position, total number of publications, and h-index. RESULTS: Three hundred ninety-seven orthopaedic trauma grants (OTA 117, AONA 225, and OREF 55) were identified. A total of 38% (151) of grants resulted in a publication with no significant difference between agencies (P = 0.94). The average amount awarded was $9,843, with no correlation to publication (P = 0.63). The mean time to publication was 3.57 ± 2.33 years. The time to publication for AONA was significantly longer than for OTA (4.14 vs. 2.83 years, P = 0.004). There was no difference in total publications, h-index, or NIH grants between grant recipients from different agencies. More OTA grant recipients held an academic position compared with AONA grant recipients (63% vs. 43%, P = 0.003). Grant awardees with initial publication success were 1.7 times as likely to have a future academic appointment (P = 0.014) and had 1.9 times the number of publications than those without (P = 0.001). Awardees with an h-index in the top quartile were significantly more likely to have published than those with an h-index in the bottom quartile (P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Fewer than half of orthopaedic trauma-related resident research grants resulted in a publication with comparable rates across agencies. Grant size did not predict publication success. Publication success was a positive predictor of continued academic involvement. Most publications occurred within 5 years, suggesting that these grants may be most helpful in career development if awarded during the first 1-2 years of a 5-year orthopaedic residency program.

The Swiss National MD-PhD Grants Programme: an analysis of the career trajectories of grant recipients between 1992 and 2021.

AIM OF THE STUDY: The aim of this study is to provide an analysis of the career trajectory of the recipients of a Swiss National MD-PhD grant thirty years after the creation of the Swiss interuniversity MD-PhD programme. METHODS: The study surveyed 277 recipients of a Swiss National MD-PhD grant using an online questionnaire in April 2022. There were twenty questions about participants' demographics, the duration of their MD-PhD training, their career trajectory, current position, research and clinical activity, the impact of the support on the recipients' careers, and their satisfaction with various aspects of the grant. RESULTS: The study showed that 141 out of the 277 grant recipients contacted returned the survey (51% response rate). The gender distribution of the participants was 33% women, 63% men, 4% unknown, which is almost the same as that of all grantees (35% women, 65% men). One hundred and fourteen (81%) respondents had completed their MD-PhD thesis and were graduates, while 27 (19%) were still MD-PhD students. The mean duration of the MD-PhD training was 4.27 years, with a slight upward trend over time. A large proportion of graduates, 81%, remained scientifically active after the grant, most of them in academic settings. Of the grantees who had completed their MD-PhD at least eight years before the survey, 55% had a paid research position with 40% combining research and clinical roles, and 15% doing research only. Seventy-six per cent remained clinically active, 54% occupied leadership positions, and 25% were professors. Most grantees believed that the grant had had a positive impact on their career trajectory. The main challenges included a delay in clinical training, a limited number of clinical positions with dedicated research time after the MD-PhD period, and sub-optimal recognition by hospital hierarchies. CONCLUSION: The data collected for this study confirm that the competitive Swiss National MD-PhD Grants Programme excels in supporting promising physician scientists who remain active in both research and clinical contexts in the long term. The individual grants are perceived as a distinction that acts as the basis for a successful career in academic medicine. Continued support and alternative funding sources, however, will be essential to ensure the programme's sustainability.

National Cancer Institute-funded grants focused on synchronous telehealth cancer care delivery: a portfolio analysis.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth use increased during the COVID-19 pandemic and remains a complementary source of cancer care delivery. Understanding research funding trends in cancer-related telehealth can highlight developments in this area of science and identify future opportunities. METHODS: Applications funded by the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) between fiscal years 2016 and 2022 and focused on synchronous patient-provider telehealth were analyzed for grant characteristics (eg, funding mechanism), cancer focus (eg, cancer type), and study features (eg, type of telehealth service). Of 106 grants identified initially, 60 were retained for coding after applying exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Almost three-quarters (73%) of telehealth grants were funded during fiscal years 2020-2022. Approximately 67% were funded through R01 or R37 mechanism and implemented as randomized controlled trials (63%). Overall, telehealth grants commonly focused on treatment (30%) and survivorship (43%); breast cancer (12%), hematologic malignancies (10%), and multiple cancer sites (27%); and health disparity populations (ie, minorities, rural residents) (73%). Both audio and video telehealth were common (65%), as well as accompanying mHealth apps (20%). Telehealth services centered on psychosocial care, self-management, and supportive care (88%); interventions were commonly delivered by mental health professionals (30%). CONCLUSION: NCI has observed an increase in funded synchronous patient-provider telehealth grants. Trends indicate an evolution of awards that have expanded across the cancer control continuum, applied rigorous study designs, incorporated additional digital technologies, and focused on populations recognized for disparate cancer outcomes. As telehealth is integrated into routine cancer care delivery, additional research evidence will be needed to inform clinical practice.

Promotional language and the adoption of innovative ideas in science.

How are the merits of innovative ideas communicated in science? Here, we conduct semantic analyses of grant application success with a focus on scientific promotional language, which may help to convey an innovative idea's originality and significance. Our analysis attempts to surmount the limitations of prior grant studies by examining the full text of tens of thousands of both funded and unfunded grants from three leading public and private funding agencies: the NIH, the NSF, and the Novo Nordisk Foundation, one of the world's largest private science funding foundations. We find a robust association between promotional language and the support and adoption of innovative ideas by funders and other scientists. First, a grant proposal's percentage of promotional language is associated with up to a doubling of the grant's probability of being funded. Second, a grant's promotional language reflects its intrinsic innovativeness. Third, the percentage of promotional language is predictive of the expected citation and productivity impact of publications that are supported by funded grants. Finally, a computer-assisted experiment that manipulates the promotional language in our data demonstrates how promotional language can communicate the merit of ideas through cognitive activation. With the incidence of promotional language in science steeply rising, and the pivotal role of grants in converting promising and aspirational ideas into solutions, our analysis provides empirical evidence that promotional language is associated with effectively communicating the merits of innovative scientific ideas.

Did private election administration funding advantage Democrats in 2020?

Private donors contributed more than $350 million to local election officials to support the administration of the 2020 election. Supporters argue these grants were neutral and necessary to maintain normal election operations during the pandemic, while critics worry these grants mostly went to Democratic strongholds and tilted election outcomes. How much did these grants shape the 2020 presidential election? To answer this question, we collect administrative data on private election administration grants and election outcomes. We then use advances in synthetic control methods to compare presidential election results and turnout in counties that received grants to counties with similar election results and turnout before 2020. While Democratic counties were more likely to apply for a grant, we find that the grants did not have a noticeable effect on the presidential election. Our estimates of the average effect on Democratic vote share range from 0.03 to 0.36 percentage points. Our estimates of the average effect of receiving a grant on turnout range from 0.03 to 0.14 percentage points. Across specifications, our 95% CIs typically include negative effects and all fail to include effects on Democratic vote share larger than 0.58 percentage points and effects on turnout larger than 0.40 percentage points. We characterize the magnitude of our effects by asking how large they are compared to the margin by which Biden won the 2020 election. In simple bench-marking exercises, we find that the effects of the grants were likely too small to have changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

Historical technology transfer activities and productivity of NIDLRR grantees.

This paper analyzes the technology-related outputs from The National Institute of Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR). We seek to answer the questions: What are the types and frequency of assistive technology (AT) technology transfer (ATTT) outputs from NIDILRR grants? How does NIDILRR's ATTT generation compare to other granting organizations? What types of ATTT outputs occur, how, and what is the relative productivity of the most frequently funded universities and small businesses performing with funding by NIDILRR grants? An online search was conducted for indications of ATTT from grants funded from 1983-2021 through publicly available databases, the National Rehabilitation Information Center (NARIC), and the internet. This data was then categorized across relevant output types and analyzed. NIDILRR funded 662 organizations and 951 different investigators from 1983 to 2021. The NIDILRR-funded portfolio includes 6,996 papers, 438 informational websites, 163 patents, 120 software products, and 29 hardware products. Compared to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), NIDILRR produced slightly more products per dollar. Our results highlight the substantial portfolio of technology-related outputs generated with NIDILRR funding and demonstrate how productivity measures can be calculated to guide future funding strategies.

Mobilizing community-driven health promotion through community granting programs: a rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Effective health promotion responds to the unique needs of communities. Community granting programs that fund community-driven health promotion initiatives are a potential mechanism to meet those unique needs. While numerous community health-focused programs are available, the various strategies used by granting programs to foster engagement, administer grants and support awardees have not been systematically evaluated. This rapid systematic review explores the administration of community granting programs and how various program components impact process and population health outcomes. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across three databases: Medline, SocINDEX, and Political Science Database. Single reviewers completed screening, consistent with a rapid review protocol. Studies describing or evaluating community granting programs for health or public health initiatives were included. Data regarding program characteristics were extracted and studies were evaluated for quality. A convergent integrated approach was used to analyze quantitative and qualitative findings. RESULTS: Thirty-five community granting programs, described in 36 studies, were included. Most were descriptive reports or qualitative studies conducted in the USA. Program support for grant awardees included technical assistance, workshops and training, program websites, and networking facilitation. While most programs reported on process outcomes, few reported on community or health outcomes; such outcomes were positive when reported. Programs reported that many funded projects were likely sustainable beyond program funding, due to the development of awardee skills, new partnerships, and securing additional funding. From the perspectives of program staff and awardees, facilitators included the technical assistance and workshops provided by the programs, networking amongst awardees, and the involvement of community members. Barriers included short timelines to develop proposals and allocate funds. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a comprehensive overview of health-related community granting programs. Grant awardees benefit from technical assistance, workshops, and networking with other awardees. Project sustainability is enhanced by the development of new community partnerships and grant-writing training for awardees. Community granting programs can be a valuable strategy to drive community health, with several key elements that enhance community mobilization. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO #CRD42023399364.

Community engagement and power dynamics in conservation philanthropy grant making.

Funding decisions influence where, how, and by whom conservation is pursued globally. In the context of growing calls for more participatory, Indigenous-led, and socially just conservation, we undertook the first empirical investigation of how philanthropic foundations working in marine conservation globally engage communities in grant-making decisions. We paid particular attention to whether and how community engagement practices reinforce or disrupt existing power dynamics. We conducted semistructured remote interviews with 46 individuals from 32 marine conservation foundations to identify how conservation foundations engage communities in setting their priorities and deciding which organizations and projects to fund. We found that community engagement in foundation decision-making was limited in practice. Eleven of the 32 foundations reported some form of community engagement in funding decisions. Two of these foundations empowered communities to shape funding priorities and projects through strong forms of engagement. Many engagement practices were one way, one time, or indirect and confined to certain points in decision-making processes. These weaker practices limited community input and reinforced unequal power relations, which may undermine the legitimacy, equity, and effectiveness of conservation efforts. We suggest that foundations aim for stronger forms of community engagement and reflect on how their grant-making practices affect power relations between foundations and communities.

Participación comunitaria y dinámicas de poder en la concesión de subsidios para la filantropía de la conservación Resumen Realizamos la primera investigación empírica sobre la forma en que las fundaciones filantrópicas que trabajan con la conservación marina a nivel mundial involucran a las comunidades en las decisiones para la concesión de subsidios. Prestamos especial atención a cómo y si las prácticas de participación ciudadana refuerzan o interrumpen las dinámicas de poder existentes. Entrevistamos de forma remota a 46 individuos de 32 fundaciones de conservación marina para identificar cómo las fundaciones de conservación involucran a las comunidades para establecer sus prioridades y decidir cuáles organizaciones y proyectos financiar. Encontramos que la participación comunitaria en las decisiones de financiamiento estaba limitada en la práctica. Once de las 32 fundaciones reportaron algún tipo de participación ciudadana en sus decisiones de financiamiento. Dos de estas fundaciones empoderaron a las comunidades para que formaran las prioridades de financiamiento y a los proyectos por medio de una participación sólida. Muchas de las prácticas de participación eran de una manera, de una vez o indirectas y confinadas a ciertos puntos en el proceso de decisión. Estas prácticas más débiles limitaron la aportación comunitaria y reforzaron las relaciones desiguales de poder, lo que puede debilitar la legitimidad, equidad y eficiencia de los esfuerzos de conservación. Sugerimos que las fundaciones busquen maneras más sólidas de involucrar a la comunidad y reflexionen sobre el efecto de sus prácticas de concesión de subsidios sobre las relaciones de poder entre las fundaciones y las comunidades.

Mapping philanthropic support of science.

While philanthropic support for science has increased in the past decade, there is limited quantitative knowledge about the patterns that characterize it and the mechanisms that drive its distribution. Here, we map philanthropic funding to universities and research institutions based on IRS tax forms from 685,397 non-profit organizations. We identify nearly one million grants supporting institutions involved in science and higher education, finding that in volume and scope, philanthropy is a significant source of funds, reaching an amount that rivals some of the key federal agencies like the NSF and NIH. Our analysis also reveals that philanthropic funders tend to focus locally, indicating that criteria beyond research excellence play an important role in funding decisions, and that funding relationships are stable, i.e. once a grant-giving relationship begins, it tends to continue in time. Finally, we show that the bipartite funder-recipient network displays a highly overrepresented motif indicating that funders who share one recipient also share other recipients and we show that this motif contains predictive power for future funding relationships. We discuss the policy implications of our findings on inequality in science, scientific progress, and the role of quantitative approaches to philanthropy.