Cross-disease spillover from research funding: Evidence from four diseases.

There is widespread appreciation for the role of research in addressing health problems. However, there is limited evidence on the extent to which research can be targeted to specific diseases. Analyses highlighting a concentration of research funding towards certain diseases have prompted growing scrutiny over the allocation of research funding. In this paper, we show that research funding targeted to a disease often results in publications relating to other diseases. Using data from the world's largest biomedical research funders, we estimated the frequency and direction of this cross-disease spillover by examining 337,573 grant-publication pairs for four diseases. We found the majority of our grant-publication pairs were cross-disease spillovers. We also found some variation between "rich" and "poor" diseases, in terms of the frequency and direction of cross-disease spillover. These differences are likely to be related to characteristics of the diseases themselves, as well as features of the research environment. One implication of frequent cross-disease spillover is that although more investment in areas of research such as neglected diseases is necessary, it may not be sufficient to improve the alignment between research funding and health needs.

The Intersection of Cardiovascular Health and Maternal Health: Portfolio Analysis of Federal Grant Funding 2016-2021.

Background: The United States has high and increasing rates of maternal morbidity and mortality, large proportions of which are related to cardiovascular health (CVH). Methods: We searched for National Institutes of Health (NIH) supported research as well as that of two other Agencies in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for fiscal years (FY) 2016-2021. Grants included maternal health conditions or exposures across all pregnancy stages, but excluded grants that focused entirely on birth, neonatal, infant/childhood outcomes. Results were manually curated by reviewing the abstract and specific aims. Grants deemed to be relevant were grouped by category. Results: Between FY 2016-2021, overall Maternal Health grants remained unchanged at an average of 1.4% of total DHHS grant funding. Maternal CVH-specific (MCVH) funding amounted to $278,926,105 for 755 grants, $191,344,649 was for 534 Type-1 grants, representing a twofold increase. Non-NIH DHHS agencies most commonly funded general Maternal Health related to CVH; NIH focused funding classified as hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, maternal morbidity and mortality, obesity, and diabetes. Non-NIH DHSS Agencies most commonly funded clinical applied research. In addition to clinical applied grants, NIH funded substantial proportions of grants classified as basic research, clinical trials, and/or translational. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) MCVH grants studied participants in the pre-partum period (78.5%), followed by the post-partum period (50.5%), with relatively few in pre-pregnancy and peri-partum periods (10.8% and 9.7%, respectively); at the NIH level, the peri-partum period had better representation at 20.3%, whereas the pre-pregnancy period remained low at 9.9%. Conclusions: Federal grant funding for maternal health including MCVH increased at the same rate as its funding for overall research, and represented only 1.4% of overall total funding. The pre-pregnancy period was understudied in overall NIH funding and represents a gap area whereby funding agencies could further foster research advances.

Factors Associated with Research Productivity and National Institutes of Health Funding in Academic Otology.

OBJECTIVES: Bibliometrics, such as the Hirsch index (h-index) and the more recently developed relative citation ratio (RCR), are utilized to evaluate research productivity. Our study evaluates demographics, research productivity, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding in academic otology. METHODS: Academic otologists were identified, and their demographics were collected using institutional faculty profiles (N = 265). Funding data were obtained using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Reports Database. The h-index was calculated using Scopus and mean (m-RCR) and weighted RCR (w-RCR) were calculated using the NIH iCite tool. RESULTS: H-index (aOR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10-1.27, p < 0.001), but not m-RCR (aOR 1.50, 95% CI 0.97-2.31, p = 0.069) or w-RCR (aOR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99-1.00, p = 0.231), was associated with receiving NIH funding. Men had greater h-index (16 vs. 9, p < 0.001) and w-RCR (51.8 vs. 23.0, p < 0.001), but not m-RCR (1.3 vs. 1.3, p = 0.269) than women. Higher academic rank was associated with greater h-index and w-RCR (p < 0.001). Among assistant professors, men had greater h-index than women (9.0 vs. 8.0, p = 0.025). At career duration 11-20 years, men had greater h-index (14.0 vs. 8.0, p = 0.009) and w-RCR (52.7 vs. 25.8, p = 0.022) than women. CONCLUSION: The h-index has a strong relationship with NIH funding in academic otology. Similar h-index, m-RCR, and w-RCR between men and women across most academic ranks and career durations suggests production of similarly impactful research. The m-RCR may correct some deficiencies of time-dependent bibliometrics and its consideration in academic promotion and research funding allocation may promote representation of women in otology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A Laryngoscope, 134:3786-3794, 2024.

Underfunding for Research Training and Career Development: The Impact on Family Medicine Research.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The National Institutes of Health and related federal awards for research training (RT) and research career development (RCD) are designed to prepare applicants for research careers. We compared funding rates for RT and RCD for anesthesiology, dermatology, emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, neurology, obstetrics-gynecology, pathology, pediatrics, and psychiatry. METHODS: We estimated the denominator using the number of residency graduates from different specialties from 2001 to 2010 from the Association of American Medical Colleges data. For the numerator, we used published data on federally funded awards by specialty from 2011 to 2020. We also examined the correlation between RCD funding and overall research funding. RESULTS: Family medicine had the lowest rate per graduating resident for RT (0.01%) and RCD (0.77%) awards among 10 specialties and was lower than the mean/median for the other nine specialties, ranging from 2.15%/1.19% and 9.83%/8.74%. We found a strong correlation between rates of RCD awards and mean federal funding per active physician, which was statistically significant (ρ=0.77, P=.0098). CONCLUSIONS: Comparatively low rates for family medicine awards for RT and RCD plausibly contribute to poor federal funding for family medicine research, underscoring the need to bolster the research career pathway in family medicine.

Large Pediatric Randomized Clinical Trials in ClinicalTrials.gov.

BACKGROUND: Large, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are essential in answering pivotal questions in child health. METHODS: We created a bird's eye view of all large, noncluster, nonvaccine pediatric RCTs with ≥1000 participants registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (last search January 9, 2020). We analyzed the funding sources, countries, outcomes, publication status, and correlation with the pediatric global burden of disease (GBD) for eligible trials. RESULTS: We identified 247 large, nonvaccine, noncluster pediatric RCTs. Only 17 mega-trials with ≥5000 participants existed. Industry funding was involved in only 52 (21%) and exclusively funded 47 (19%) trials. Participants were from high-income countries (HICs) in 100 (40%) trials, from lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) in 122 (49%) trials, and from both HICs and LMICs in 19 (8%) trials; 6 trials did not report participants' country location. Of trials conducted in LMIC, 43% of investigators were from HICs. Of non-LMIC participants trials (HIC or HIC and LMIC), 39% were multicountry trials versus 11% of exclusively LMIC participants trials. Few trials (18%; 44 of 247) targeted mortality as an outcome. 35% (58 of 164) of the trials completed ≥12 months were unpublished at the time of our assessment. The number of trials per disease category correlated well with pediatric GBD overall (ρ = 0.76) and in LMICs (ρ = 0.69), but not in HICs (ρ = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Incentivization of investigator collaborations across diverse country settings, timely publication of results of large pediatric RCTs, and alignment with the pediatric GBD are of pivotal importance to ultimately improve child health globally.

Association between author conflicts of interest and industry-sponsorship with the favorability of outcomes of systematic reviews focusing on treatments of erectile dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Authors' conflicts of interest and industry sponsorship have been shown to influence study outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine whether author conflicts of interest and industry sponsorship influenced the nature of results and conclusions of systematic reviews focusing on treatment interventions for erectile dysfunction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focusing on erectile dysfunction treatments published between September 1, 2016, and June 2, 2020. Authors' conflicts of interest were collected from the systematic reviews' disclosure statements. These disclosures were verified using the information provided by the Open Payments, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, and US Patent and Trademark Office databases and from previously published disclosure statements. RESULTS: Our study included 24 systematic reviews authored by 138 authors. Nineteen authors (13.8%) were found to have conflicts of interest (disclosed, undisclosed, or both). No authors completely disclosed all conflicts. Nine reviews (37.5%) contained at least one author with conflicts of interest; of which eight reported narrative results favoring the treatment group, and seven reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Of the 15 (62.5%) reviews without a conflicted author, 11 reported results favoring the treatment group, and 12 reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. DISCUSSION: The results and conclusions of systematic reviews for erectile dysfunction treatments did not appear to be influenced by authors who reported conflicts of interest. However, our search algorithm relied on the US-based Open Payments database and a large percentage of reviews in our study were produced by authors with international affiliations. Our study results underscore the difficulties in conducting such analyses. CONCLUSION: Although we found that undisclosed conflicts of interest (COI) were problematic among systematic reviews of erectile dysfunction treatment, only 14% of authors in our sample possessed them and these COI did not appear to influence the favorability of systematic review outcomes.

Research Funding, Income, and Career Satisfaction Among Clinician-Scientists in Ophthalmology in the United States.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to characterize clinician-scientists in ophthalmology and identify factors associated with successful research funding, income, and career satisfaction. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: A survey was conducted of clinician-scientists in ophthalmology at US academic institutions between April 17, 2019, and May 19, 2019. Collected information including 1) demographic data; 2) amount, type, and source of startup funding; first extramural grant; and first R01-equivalent independent grant; 3) starting and current salaries; and 4) Likert-scale measurements of career satisfaction were analyzed using multivariate regression. RESULTS: Ninety-eight clinician-scientists in ophthalmology were surveyed across different ages (mean: 48 ± 11 years), research categories, institutional types, geographic regions, and academic ranks. Median startup funding ranged from $50-99k, and median starting salaries ranged from $150-199k. A majority of investigators (67%) received their first extramural award from the National Eye Institute, mainly through K-award mechanisms (82%). The median time to receiving their first independent grant was 8 years, mainly through an R01 award (70%). Greater institutional startup support (P = .027) and earlier extramural grant success (P = .022) were associated with earlier independent funding. Male investigators (P = .001) and MD degreed participants (P = .008) were associated with higher current salaries but not starting salaries. Overall career satisfaction increased with career duration (P = .011) but not with earlier independent funding (P = .746) or higher income (P = .300). CONCLUSIONS: Success in research funding by clinician-scientists in ophthalmology may be linked to institutional support and earlier acquisition of extramural grants but does not impact academic salaries. Nevertheless, career satisfaction among clinician-scientists improves with time, which is not necessarily influenced by research or financial success.

Contemporary Trends and End-Results of National Institutes of Health Grant Funding to Departments of Urology in the United States: A 10-year Analysis.

PURPOSE: We explored the patterns and distribution of National Institutes of Health grant funding for urological research in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Institutes of Health RePORTER database was queried for all grants awarded to urology departments between 2010 and 2019. Information regarding the value of the grant, funded institution, successful publication of the research, and the category of urological subspecialty were collected. Data on principal investigators were extracted from publicly available information. RESULTS: There were 509 grants awarded to Urology between 2010 and 2019 for a total value of $640,873,867, and a median per-project value of $675,484 (IQR 344,170-1,369,385). Over the study period, total funding decreased by 15.6% and was lower compared to other surgical subspecialties. Most grants were awarded by the National Cancer Institute and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (85%) to Western or North Central institutions (52.5%), and had principal investigators specialized in urologic oncology (56.4%), followed by general urologists (21.5%). Female principal investigators led 21.6% of Urology grants and were more likely PhD basic scientists than males (64.4% vs 38.2%, p=0.001). In total, 10,404 publications linked to the 509 grants were produced, of which 28.5% were published in journals with an impact factor ≥10. CONCLUSIONS: Urology is underrepresented in National Institutes of Health grant funding compared to other surgical fields. During the past decade there was a further decrease in the total budget of National Institutes of Health grants to Urology.

The impact of gender on scientific writing: An observational study of grant proposals.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine whether there are differences in the language used in grant applications submitted to a Southern Brazil Research Support Foundation (FAPERGS) according to the gender, career stage, and the number of publications of applicants. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This observational study also evaluated the relationship between gender, career stage, curriculum, and writing characteristics. Summaries of all research proposals in the biomedical field of FAPERGS during the years of 2013 and 2014 were evaluated according to six language patterns (Positive emotions, Negative emotions, Analytic thinking, Clout, Authenticity, and Emotional tone) defined by the LIWC software. Applicant's gender, career stage, and the number of publications were also collected. RESULTS: Three hundred and forty-four (344) grant proposals met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. No statistical differences were observed in the language pattern used by different gender applicants. In the language used by successful and unsuccessful applicants, we only found a small difference for clout (score 54.5 for not funded and 56.5 for funded grants). However, the principal investigators of successful applications had a significantly higher number of papers published (mean number of papers: 104 versus 58.5). CONCLUSIONS: Gender bias appears to be a more complex problem than just the type of language used; the way society is organized causes several gender biases that may be reflected throughout the women's career.

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

OBJECTIVE: 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. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: 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.

Racial inequity in grant funding from the US National Institutes of Health.

Biomedical science and federal funding for scientific research are not immune to the systemic racism that pervades American society. A groundbreaking analysis of NIH grant success revealed in 2011 that grant applications submitted to the National Institutes of Health in the US by African-American or Black Principal Investigators (PIs) are less likely to be funded than applications submitted by white PIs, and efforts to narrow this funding gap have not been successful. A follow-up study in 2019 showed that this has not changed. Here, we review those original reports, as well as the response of the NIH to these issues, which we argue has been inadequate. We also make recommendations on how the NIH can address racial disparities in grant funding and call on scientists to advocate for equity in federal grant funding.

How to Support a Surgeon Scientist: Lessons from National Institutes of Health K-Award Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Success in academic surgery is challenging and research cannot survive without funding. NIH K-awards are designed to mentor junior investigators to achieve independence. As a result we aimed to study K awardees in departments of surgery and learn from their experience. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Utilizing the NIH RePORTer database and filtering by department of surgery, clinically active surgeons receiving a K-award between 2008 and 2018 were asked to complete an online survey. Qualitative data from two open-ended questions were coded independently using standard qualitative methods by three researchers. Using grounded theory, major themes emerged from the codes. RESULTS: Of the 144 academic surgeons identified, 89 (62%) completed the survey. The average age was 39 ± 3 when the K-award was granted. Most identified as white (69%). Men (70%) were more likely to be married (P = 0.02) and have children (P = 0.05). To identify intention to pursue R01 funding, surgeons having a K-award for 5 y or more were analyzed (n = 45). Most either intended to (11%) or had already applied (80%) of which 36% were successful. Men were more likely to apply (P = 0.05). Major themes to succeed include protected time, mentorship, and support from leadership. Common barriers to overcome include balancing time, pressures to be clinically productive, and funding. CONCLUSIONS: The demographics and career trajectory of NIH K-awarded surgeons is described. The lack of underrepresented minorities receiving grants is concerning. Most recipients required more than one application attempt and plan to or have applied for R01 funding. The major themes were very similar; a supportive environment and time available for research are the most crucial factors to succeed as an academic surgeon.

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

BACKGROUND: 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. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). DISCUSSION: Academic productivity metrics including h-index and NIH funding are associated with promotion to the next academic rank.