The Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation (ASERF): A 30-Year Retrospective Analysis.

Federal government research grants provide limited funding to plastic surgeon-scientists, with reconstructive research taking precedence over aesthetic research. The Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation (ASERF) is a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) organization that seeks to support innovative, diverse research endeavors within aesthetic surgery. A total of 130 ASERF-funded studies and 32 non-funded applications from 1992 to 2022 were reviewed. Kruskal Wallis, Fisher's exact, and chi-squared tests were utilized to assess the potential relationship between self-identified gender, practice setting, geographical location, and study type with individual grant amounts and grant funding decision. Although significant differences were observed between male and female grant recipient h-indices (P < .05), there were no differences in the amount of funding they received (P > .05). Grant amounts were also consistent between study types as well as principal investigator practice settings and geographical locations (P > .05). The subanalysis revealed that the practice setting of the primary investigator (PI) was the only variable to exhibit a significant association with the decision to award funding (P < .05). Further, of the 61 applicants between 2017 and 2022, only 2 PIs self-identified as female. ASERF serves as an excellent funding source for global aesthetic surgery. To promote further research diversification, increased emphasis should be placed on recruiting applicants from outside academia and those who identify as female or gender nonbinary.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Research Funded by the American Head and Neck Society Foundation.

Importance: For decades, the American Head and Neck Society (AHNS) has been providing funding for meritorious research to investigators for studies on head and neck cancer. Recently, the AHNS Foundation sought to evaluate the impact of its funds for investigators and research. Objective: To examine the mechanisms and outcomes of research funding by the AHNS. Design, Setting, and Participants: An online survey was sent to all AHNS grant-funded principal investigators who had received funds from 1998 to 2018. Over this time, approximately $1.5 million in grant funding was awarded for research. Grants were separated into 2 groups: pilot and resident grants (PRs), approximately $10 000 each type of grant for 1 year, and career development grants (CDAs), approximately $20 000 to $80 000 over 1 to 2 years. Results: Of 82 awardees, 49 individuals (60%) responded to the survey (36 men [73%]), including 28 recipients (57%) of PR grants and 21 recipients (43%) of CDA grants. Twenty-six studies (53%) were reported as translational, 20 studies (41%) were basic science, 2 studies (4%) were clinical, and 1 study (2%) was outcomes research. At the time of the award, 19 recipients (39%) were faculty/attending physicians, 11 recipients (22%) were fellows, and 19 recipients (39%) were residents/students. Twenty of 21 CDA grants (95%) were given to fellows or faculty. Thirty-seven grants (75%) resulted in publications, with a total of 84 publications reported. Nineteen CDA grants (90%) and 18 PR grants (64%) resulted in publication. Thirty-one (63%) investigators were awarded another grant after their AHNS grant: 19 CDA (90%), 8 pilot (44%), and 4 (40%) resident awardees reported having a future grant. Fourteen respondents (29%) reported a future K, R, or other major foundation grant. Of all awardees, 46 recipients (93%) were still conducting research and 40 recipients (82%) reported serving as academic faculty. Respondents also noted associations between grants and mentorship, investigator development, institutional support, and academic promotion. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that, over the past 20 years, the AHNS funding mechanism has resulted in 80% of awards generating publications and 63% resulting in future funding. The additional benefits of AHNS grant awards on the culture of research is also substantial. Continued analysis of these data may help guide future AHNS funding and award decisions.

Leducq Transatlantic Network of Excellence to Cure Phospholamban-Induced Cardiomyopathy (CURE-PLaN).

The deletion of Arginine 14 of the phosholamban gene (PLN p.R14del) is associated with the pathogenesis of an inherited form of cardiomyopathy with prominent arrhythmias. Patients carrying the PLN R14del mutation are at risk of developing dilated cardiomyopathy or arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. Although the genetic etiology is well defined, the molecular mechanism underlying the pathogenesis of PLN R14del-cardiomyopathy is unknown. Our CURE PLaN network, funded by the Foundation Leducq, will bring together leading scientists, clinicians, and patients to elucidate the genotype-phenotype relationships in R14del cardiomyopathy with the ultimate goal of developing innovative disease-specific therapeutic modalities. With the generous support of the Leducq Foundation, our Transatlantic Network of Excellence consortium to cure Phospholamban (PLN)-induced cardiomyopathy (CURE-PLaN) unites 6 leading centers to address the current challenges associated with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy/dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) with an initial focus on PLN and development of effective treatments. The Network is led by Evangelia (Litsa) Kranias (University of Cincinnati) in the United States and Pieter A. Doevendans (Netherlands Heart Institute/UMC Utrecht NL) in Europe. The other US project leaders are Kevin Costa (Cardiovascular Research Center, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York) and Mark Mercola and Ioannis Karakikes (Stanford University), who are focusing on induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-based disease models, tissue engineering, gene therapy, and drug discovery. On the European side, the project leaders are Despina Sanoudou (Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens) analyzing the PLN interactome and Stephan Lehnart (University of Gottingen) addressing the subcellular and disrupted protein interactions affected in PLN-mutant cardiomyocytes. Other key members within the Netherlands Heart Institute are Peter van Tintelen on PLN genetics, Folkert Asselbergs on epigenetics and Rudolf de Boer on clinical trials. We are also privileged to get support from Arthur Wilde (University of Amsterdam), Sakthivel Sadayappan (University of Cincinnati), and Roger Hajjar (Phospholamban Foundation), who have had a long-standing interest in cardiac physiology and pathophysiology with emphasis on underlying pathways and potential therapeutic targets. The consortium is also fortunate to embrace a patient advocate, Pieter Glijnis, incorporating the voice of the patients to research in every step. Our goal is to build and share a platform of patient data coupled with in vitro and in vivo models to promote scientific discovery and advance novel treatments. Phospholamban is a small phosphoprotein in the cardiac sarcoplasmic reticulum, and it is the major regulator of SERCA2a activity and calcium (Ca)-cycling. Chronic inhibition of SERCA2a by PLN has been implicated in the aberrant Ca-cycling of failing hearts. Studies in HF models have shown that decreasing PLN activity may rescue cardiac remodeling and dysfunction. Several human PLN mutations, leading to inhibition of Ca-uptake into the sarcoplasmic reticulum, are linked to inherited DCM.

Lots of little ones: Analysis of charitable donations to a hospice and palliative care unit in Taiwan.

BACKGROUND: Charitable donations play a major role in the provision of hospice and palliative care (HPC) services, most of which are not reimbursed by health insurance programs. A good understanding of the constitution and use of donations is thus conducive to maintaining a high-quality HPC unit. METHODS: The data sources were the publicly available balance sheet, work report, and donor lists of a foundation exclusively supporting one of the best HPC units in Taiwan in the fiscal year of 2017. The analysis included the donation amounts and frequencies by donor type (individual, corporate, and group) and the categories of expenses. RESULTS: The foundation received 3033 donations worth a total of 7.8 million New Taiwan dollars (NTD) (approximately 258 thousand US dollars) in 2017. Two-thirds of the donations were allocated to the provision of direct care services. Of the 3033 donations, only 11 (0.4%) were worth 100 000 NTD or more, while 108 (3.6%) were valued between 10 000 and 99 999 NTD, 1268 (41.8%) were valued between 1000 and 9999 NTD, and 1646 (54.2%) were worth less than 1000 NTD. Of 1051 donors, 974 (92.7%) were individuals, 378 (36.0%) donated more than once, and 106 (10.1%) donated 12 or more times in one year. CONCLUSION: HPC services in Taiwan are sponsored by lots of individuals and small donations. For sustainability of standards-based and quality HPC services, the benevolence of the public should be thus cherished and adequately responded to.

Increasing access to fertility care through private foundations.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the available support for infertility treatment and populations served by private foundations across the United States. DESIGN: Web-based cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Not applicable. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Geographies and populations served, dollar-amount and scope of financial assistance provided by private foundations for individuals seeking financial assistance for infertility treatment. RESULT(S): Thirty-seven private foundations were identified, 25 responded (68% response rate). More than one-half of the foundations had awarded grants to lesbian, gay, and transgender individuals, as well as single men and women. Forty percent of the foundations serve only a single state or geographic region. Foundations have provided 9,996 grants for infertility treatment, 1,740 in 2016 alone, with an average value of $8,191 per grant. The Livestrong foundation has provide more than 90% of these grants, and only to patients with a history of cancer. Twelve percent of foundations provide assistance for fertility preservation in patients with cancer, and 20% provide assistance for elective oocyte cryopreservation. CONCLUSION(S): Private foundations significantly increase access to infertility care for individuals and couples affected by cancer who could otherwise not afford treatment. Significant heterogeneity exists regarding the populations served and the services available for grant support by these foundations, and the landscape of options for patients unaffected by cancer is severely limited.

A descriptive study of patients receiving foundational financial assistance through local specialty pharmacies.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the population of patients who received financial assistance from the Good Days Foundation (GDF) as facilitated by Walgreens local specialty pharmacies (LSPs). STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective descriptive study. METHODS: This study used a joint foundational and pharmacy claim database between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2016. RESULTS: Among 1572 eligible patients who received GDF financial assistance as facilitated by Walgreens LSPs, 1524 had disease state information and 14 of these patients receveived financial assistance for 2 disease states (patient count denominator, 1538). The top 3 disease states by patient count were oncology (1403; 91.2%), multiple sclerosis (49; 3.2%), and hepatitis C (39; 2.5%). Of the 777 patients who had complete data and disease state information, 2 received finanical assistance for 2 disease states (denominator, 779); oncology remained the disease with the highest patient count (724; 92.9%). The mean annual financial assistance per patient was highest for hepatitis C ($4156), followed by oncology ($3603) and miscellaneous/rare disease ($1829), which covered 98.8%, 99.3%, and 99.6% of these patients' total co-pay requirements, respectively. In addition to prescription co-pay assistance, 21 patients received travel assistance of $554 per year per patient from GDF. The mean persistence of oncology patients was 170.7 days without a 30-day gap over 1 year of observation time. CONCLUSIONS: The facilitation of treatment by GDF and Walgreens LSPs may be the key to many patients receiving their treatment and maintaining medication persistence. GDF co-pay assistance helped cover most out-of-pocket costs associated with medications and aided with travel expenses for patients, especially in the area of oncology. For many patients, this meant reducing the significant financial barriers to accessing care and facilitating the necessary treatment for their chronic or life-altering disease. Without this assistance, many patients would simply not have been able to meet the expected medication persistence and thus would have received suboptimal treatment.

The Relationship Between OREF Grants and Future NIH Funding Success.

BACKGROUND: The Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation (OREF) is the leading specialty-specific nongovernmental organization providing orthopaedic funding in the United States. As extramural research funding has become increasingly difficult to acquire, one mission of the OREF is to support investigators to generate data needed to secure larger extramural funding from agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The objectives of this study were to evaluate the rate of translating OREF faculty-level grants into subsequent NIH funding and to determine if there are identifiable factors that increase the rate of converting an OREF grant into NIH funding. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of OREF grants awarded to full-time faculty orthopaedic surgeons between 1994 and 2014. Grants were analyzed on the basis of award type and were categorized as basic science, clinical, or epidemiological. Sex, individual scholarly productivity, and publication experience were evaluated. All awardees were assessed for subsequent NIH funding using the NIH RePORTER web site. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-six faculty-level OREF grants were awarded to 121 individuals. Twenty-seven OREF grant awardees (22%) received NIH funding at a mean of 6.3 years after OREF funding. Nineteen (46%) of 41 Career Development Grant winners later received NIH funding compared with 10 (12%) of 85 other award winners. OREF grants for basic science projects were awarded more often (58%) and were more than 4 times as likely to result in NIH funding than non-basic science projects (odds ratio, 4.70 [95% confidence interval, 1.66 to 13.33]; p = 0.0036). Faculty who later received NIH funding had higher scholarly productivity and publication experience (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The OREF grant awardee conversion rate of 22% and, particularly, the 46% for Career Development Grant winners compares favorably with the overall NIH funding success rate (18% in 2014). Faculty-level OREF grants appear to achieve their purpose of identifying and supporting researchers who aim to secure subsequent federal funding. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The goal of this study is to examine how successful faculty who have obtained OREF grants have been in securing NIH funding later in their careers. Although subsequent accrual of NIH funding is not the only goal of OREF funding, it can be used as an important benchmark to assess the development of orthopaedic clinician-scientists.

[Analysis of funding of projects on obstetrics and gynecology supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China from 2007 to 2016].

Objective: To summarize the funding of scientific research projects on obstetrics and gynecology by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) from 2007 to 2016 and to display the hotspots of scientific research on obstetrics and gynecology. Methods: A systemic search was performed for the information of projects supported by NSFC from 2007 to 2016. The indicators for analysis included the number of projects, total investment, project categories, research units and research field. The research direction of each project was decided based on title, summary and key words provided by the profile of each project. Results: The total investment on obstetrics and gynecology by NSFC was 23.214 million with a total of 82 projects in 2007. It increased year by year and reached the peak in 2014 (359 projects 208.990 million). The investment and number of projects remained stable after 2014. General projects (1 109 projects 608.000 million) formed the majority of projects. Youth science fund projects (1 035 projects 214.976 million) increased steadily and the number was nearly equal to general projects. There were only a small amount of key projects (20 projects 54.720 million) and major projects (7 projects 38.400 million). The investment varied in different research units. The greatest 10 units (less than 6% of total), including 7 comprehensive universities, 2 medical universities and 1 institute of medicine, got 1 113 projects invested (43.84% of total, 1 113/2 539). The hot areas like gynecological tumor (920 projects 350.615 million), hypertensive disorders complicating pregnancy (91 projects 37.470 million) and polycystic ovarian syndrome (77 projects 29.540 million) were more likely to receive investment, while some interdisciplinary science like maternal and child health (28 projects 12.050 million), imaging and biomedicine (37 projects 14.770 million) began to achieve attention in recent years. Conclusions: The number of researches invested will be increased for the scientific research in obstetrics and gynecology especially the areas of research focus, although the amount allocated for each will be decreased relatively. Besides, multidisciplinary work will be performed so as to develop obstetrics and gynecology of China to a high level.

The atlas network: a "strategic ally" of the tobacco industry.

Amid growing academic and policy interest in the influence of think tanks in public policy processes, this article demonstrates the extent of tobacco industry partnerships with think tanks in the USA, and analyzes how collaborating with a network of think tanks facilitated tobacco industry influence in public health policy. Through analysis of documents from tobacco companies and think tanks, we demonstrate that the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, a network of 449 free market think tanks, acted as a strategic ally to the tobacco industry throughout the 1990s. Atlas headquarters, while receiving donations from the industry, also channeled funding from tobacco corporations to think tank actors to produce publications supportive of industry positions. Thirty-seven per cent of Atlas partner think tanks in the USA received funding from the tobacco industry; the majority of which were also listed as collaborators on public relations strategies or as allies in countering tobacco control efforts. By funding multiple think tanks, within a shared network, the industry was able to generate a conversation among independent policy experts, which reflected its position in tobacco control debates. This demonstrates a coherent strategy by the tobacco industry to work with Atlas to influence public health policies from multiple directions. There is a need for critical analysis of the influence of think tanks in tobacco control and other health policy sectors, as well as greater transparency of their funding and other links to vested interests. © 2016 The Authors The International Journal of Health Planning and Management Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.