Transition to Independent Research Funding Among National Institutes of Health K Grant Awardees at Departments of Orthopaedic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) supports mentored research career development awards (K awards) to increase the pipeline of independently funded scientists. This study analyzed the portfolio of K grants that were awarded to orthopaedic surgery departments and characterized the factors that were associated with successful transition to independent NIH research funding, including R01 grants. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of K-award recipients in orthopaedic surgery departments in the United States from 1996 to 2018. A query was performed on the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT) database for NIH grants that were awarded to departments of orthopaedic surgery, general surgery, otolaryngology, obstetrics and gynecology, ophthalmology, and urology. Rates of transition to independent research funding were compared by specialty for K grants that were awarded from 1996 to 2011. The percentage of faculty with mentored research career development awards and the return on investment (ROI) were calculated. An internet and Scopus (Elsevier) database search determined the investigator characteristics. The factors that were associated with successful transition to independent funding were determined via chi-square and unpaired t tests. RESULTS: Sixty K-award recipients were identified in orthopaedic surgery departments. Most were men (77%) and research scientists (53%). Fifty percent of the K-award recipients transitioned to independent research funding. Research scientists had the highest rate of transition to independent research funding (71%, p = 0.016) relative to clinicians (0%) and orthopaedic surgeons (40%). Higher levels of publication productivity were associated with successful transition to independent research funding. Similar rates of transition to independent research funding existed among surgical specialties (p = 0.107). Orthopaedic surgery had the lowest percentage of faculty with a K award (1.4%) but had the highest ROI (198%) of these awards. CONCLUSIONS: Orthopaedic surgery had similar rates of transition to independent research funding when compared with other surgical specialties but had a lower prevalence of K awards among faculty. Orthopaedic surgeon-scientists have lower rates of transition to independent research funding when compared with their research-scientist colleagues. These findings highlight a need for greater support to foster the pipeline of future NIH-funded orthopaedic investigators. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: As the largest support of biomedical research in the U.S., the NIH is an important stakeholder in orthopaedic innovations and discoveries. This study highlights barriers in the procurement of NIH funding across surgical specialties and affirms the need for greater resources toward supporting NIH funding in orthopaedic surgery.

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.

Health Literacy Research Funded by the NIH for Disease Prevention.

BACKGROUND: Advancing health literacy is a fundamental step toward achieving population health. To that end, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded research to increase scientific understanding of how health literacy can reduce disparities and enhance the health of the United States. OBJECTIVE: This study identified and evaluated NIH-funded health literacy research focusing on disease prevention. METHODS: New R01, R03, and R21 research project grants awarded from fiscal year (FY) 2004 to FY 2017 studying health literacy and disease prevention were identified. Study characteristics, including the role of health literacy, how health literacy was measured, populations studied, and study design, were coded for each grant. Administrative grant data were obtained from the NIH's internal database. Research impact was assessed using the relative citation ratio (RCR). KEY RESULTS: There were 192 grants studying health literacy and disease prevention awarded by 18 NIH institutes and centers from FY 2004 to FY 2017, covering a wide variety of health conditions including cancer (26.0%), infectious diseases (13.5%), nutrition (8.3%), drug/alcohol use (7.8%), and cardiovascular disease (6.3%). Most grants studied the health literacy skills of patients (88%), with a few studies assessing the health literacy practices of health care providers (2.1%) or systems (1%). There was good representation of populations with traditionally low levels of health literacy, including Black/African American participants (30.2%), Hispanic/Latinx participants (28.6%), older adults (37%), and people with low income (20.8%). The scientific articles generated by these grants were more than twice (RCR = 2.18) as influential on the field as similar articles. CONCLUSIONS: The NIH provided support for a wide array of prevention-focused health literacy research. The value of this research is highlighted by the number of funding institutes and centers, the diversity of populations and health conditions studied, and the effect these grants had on the field. Future research should move beyond patient-level health literacy to health literacy practices of health care systems and providers. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2020, 4(4):e212-e223.] PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This study describes health literacy research funded by the National Institutes of Health that focused on disease prevention. These grants sought to prevent a variety of health conditions, but health literacy research over the past 14 years continued to concentrate on the capacity of patients despite increased attention on the health literacy practices of health care providers and systems.

The Changing Face of Academic Surgery: Overrepresentation of Women among Surgeon-Scientists with R01 Funding.

BACKGROUND: There has been a recent focus on sex-based disparities within the field of academic surgery. However, the proportion of female surgeons conducting NIH-funded research is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: The NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results) was queried for R01 grants from surgery departments for which the principal investigator (PI) had a primary medical degree, as of October 2018. Characteristics of the PI and their respective grants were collected. Institutional faculty profiles were reviewed for PI and departmental characteristics. PIs were stratified by sex and compared using standard univariate statistics. RESULTS: There were a total of 212 R01 grants in surgery departments held by 159 PIs. Of these, 26.4% (n = 42) of R01-funded surgeons were female compared with the reported 19% of academic surgery female faculty (as reported by the Association of American Medical Colleges; p = 0.02). Women with R01 grants were more likely to be first-time grant recipients with no concurrent or previous NIH funding (21.4% vs 8.6%; p = 0.03) and less likely to have a previous R01 or equivalent grant (54.8% vs 73.5%; p = 0.03). Women were more likely to be from departments with a female surgery chair (31.0% vs 13.7%; p = 0.01) or a department with > 30% female surgeons (35.0% vs 18.2%; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Although female surgeons remain a minority in academic surgery, they hold a greater than anticipated proportion of NIH funding, with a high number of first-time grants, forming a crucial component of the next generation of surgeon-scientists.

Sponsorship of oncology clinical trials in the United States according to age of eligibility.

BACKGROUND: The sponsorship mix of trials relevant to young people with cancer has not been reported. Understanding this sponsorship mix may have implications for policies and regulations related to pediatric cancer drug development. METHODS: We analyzed sponsorship of interventional trials first opened in the United States from 2007 to 2018 using the ClinicalTrials.gov registry. A total of 51 781 trials across non-oncology disciplines and 18 431 oncology trials were classified according to lower age of eligibility (≥18 years vs < 18 years). Studies were stratified according to sponsorship (industry vs non-industry). Trial characteristics were compared by sponsorship category. Trends in sponsorship were tracked over time. RESULTS: Within oncology trials for patients ≥ 18 years, sponsorship was 33% industry and 67% non-industry. Among oncology trials that included patients < 18 years, sponsorship was 16.6% industry and 83.4% non-industry (P < .001). 15.5% of industry-sponsored trials in non-oncology disciplines included patients < 18 years, whereas only 5.2% of industry-sponsored oncology trials were open to patients < 18 years (P < .001). Relative to trials with non-industry sponsors, there was a statistically significant increase in industry sponsorship of oncology trials that included patients < 18 years over time (P < .001). Trial characteristics differed significantly according to sponsor type regardless of age of eligibility. CONCLUSIONS: Interventional oncology trials that include patients < 18 years are less likely to be industry-sponsored compared to oncology trials exclusively in patients ≥ 18 years. Compared to other medical disciplines, a smaller proportion of industry-sponsored oncology trials included patients < 18 years. Trial sponsorship is associated with differential trial characteristics, such as trial duration and number of patients enrolled, regardless of age.

Gender disparities in academic vascular surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have identified significant gender discrepancies in grant funding, leadership positions, and publication impact in surgical subspecialties. We investigated whether these discrepancies were also present in academic vascular surgery. METHODS: Academic websites from institutions with vascular surgery training programs were queried to identify academic faculty, and leadership positions were noted. H-index, number of citations, and total number of publications were obtained from Scopus and PubMed. Grant funding amounts and awards data were obtained from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Society for Vascular Surgery websites. Industry funding amount was obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. Nonsurgical physicians and support staff were excluded from this analysis. RESULTS: We identified 177 female faculty (18.6%) and 774 male faculty (81.4%). A total of 41 (23.2%) female surgeons held leadership positions within their institutions compared with 254 (32.9%) male surgeons (P = .009). Female surgeons held the rank of assistant professor 50.3% of the time in contrast to 33.9% of men (P < .001). The rank of associate professor was held at similar rates, 25.4% vs 20.7% (P = .187), respectively. Fewer women than men held the full professor rank, 10.7% compared with 26.2% (P < .001). Similarly, women held leadership positions less often than men, including division chief (6.8% vs 13.7%; P < .012) and vice chair of surgery (0% vs 2.2%; P < .047), but held more positions as vice dean of surgery (0.6% vs 0%; P < .037) and chief executive officer (0.6% vs 0%; P < .037). Scientific contributions based on the number of each surgeon's publications were found to be statistically different between men and women. Women had an average of 42.3 publications compared with 64.8 for men (P < .001). Female vascular surgeons were cited an average of 655.2 times, less than half the average citations of their male counterparts with 1387 citations (P < .001). The average H-index was 9.5 for female vascular surgeons compared with 13.7 for male vascular surgeons (P < .001). Correcting for years since initial board certification, women had a higher H-index per year in practice (1.32 vs 1.02; P = .005). Female vascular surgeons were more likely to have received NIH grants than their male colleagues (9.6% vs 4.0%; P = .017). Although substantial, the average value of NIH grants awarded was not statistically significant between men and women, with men on average receiving $915,590.74 ($199,119.00-$2,910,600.00) and women receiving $707,205.35 ($61,612.00-$4,857,220.00; P = .416). There was no difference in the distribution of Society for Vascular Surgery seed grants to women and men since 2007. Industry payments made publicly available according to the Sunshine Act for the year 2018 were also compared, and female vascular surgeons received an average of $2155.28 compared with their male counterparts, who received almost four times as much at $8452.43 (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although there is certainly improved representation of women in vascular surgery compared with several decades ago, a discrepancy still persists. Women tend to have more grants than men and receive less in industry payments, but they hold fewer leadership positions, do not publish as frequently, and are cited less than their male counterparts. Further investigation should be aimed at identifying the causes of gender disparity and systemic barriers to gender equity in academic vascular surgery.

Disparities in National Institute of Health trauma research funding: The search for sufficient funding opportunities.

To evaluate disparities in the National Institute of Health (NIH) trauma research funding.Traumatic injury has increased in both prevalence and cost over the last decade. In the event of a traumatic injury, patients in the United States (US) rely on the trauma system to provide high-quality care. The current trauma research funding is not commensurate with the extent of the burden of trauma on the US population.In this qualitative study, the National Institutes of Health's Estimates of Funding for Various Research, Condition, and Disease Categories (RCDC) data were reviewed. The burden of traumatic injury on the US and the NIH trauma research funding was examined and compared with other diseases.In 2018, the NIH funded an estimated $639 million to traumatic injury research projects, <2% of the NIH budget. Comparatively, the NIH funded an estimated $6.3 billion towards cancer research in 2018. Cancer research receives extensively more funding than trauma research despite that trauma accounts for 24.1% of all years of potential life lost (YPLL) before age 75 compared with 21.3% for cancer.In the event of traumatic injury, trauma systems in the US should be able to provide high-quality care to patients yet cannot do so without adequate research funding. The federal funding contributed towards trauma research deserves a re-evaluation.

Disproportionally low funding for trauma research by the National Institutes of Health: A call for a National Institute of Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Trauma is a major cause of death and disability in all ages. Previous reviews have suggested that National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for trauma is not commensurate with its burden of disease, but a detailed analysis has been lacking. We postulated that NIH spending on trauma research was lower than previously thought and was distributed widely, preventing a comprehensive research strategy that could decrease trauma morbidity and mortality. METHODS: The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool was initially screened using a search of over 20 terms including "trauma," "injury," "shock," "MVC," and excluding clearly unrelated conditions, for example, "cancer." The details of all grants that screened positive underwent manual review to identify true trauma-related grants. An expert panel was used to adjudicate any ambiguity. RESULTS: In FY2016, NIH awarded 50,137 grants, of which 6,401 (13%) were captured by our initial screen. Following review, 1,888 (28%) were identified as trauma-related; 3.7% of all NIH grants. These grants (US $720 million) represent only 2.9% of the NIH extramural budget. In addition, the grants were funded and administered by 24 of the institutes and centers across the NIH ranging from 0.01% (National Cancer Institute) to 11% (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases) of their extramural portfolios. CONCLUSION: Given the extreme burden of trauma-related disability and years of life lost, this review of extramural NIH funding definitively demonstrates that trauma is severely underfunded. The lack of a dedicated home for trauma research at NIH leads to a diffusion of grants across many institutes and makes it impossible to direct a focused and effective national research endeavor to improve outcomes. These data demonstrate the need for a National Institute of Trauma at the NIH to help set an agenda to reach the national goal of Zero Preventable Deaths.

Characteristics of Ophthalmology Trials Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, 2007-2018.

PURPOSE: To perform a comprehensive analysis of characteristics of ophthalmology trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: All 4,203 ophthalmologic clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov between October 1, 2007, and April 30, 2018, were identified by using medical subject headings (MeSH). Disease condition terms were verified by manual review. Trial characteristics were assessed through frequency calculations. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were determined for characteristics associated with early discontinuation. RESULTS: The majority of trials were multiarmed (73.6%), single-site (69.4%), randomized (64.8%), and had <100 enrollees (66.3%). A total of 33% used a data-monitoring committee (DMC), and 50.6% incorporated blinding. Other groups (51.6%) were funded by industry, whereas 2.6% were funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). NIH trials were significantly more likely to address oncologic (NIH = 15.5%, Other = 3%, Industry = 1.5%; P < 0.001) or pediatric disease (NIH = 20.9%, Other = 5.9%, Industry = 1.4%; P < 0.001). Industry-sponsored trials (69.6% of phase 3 trials) were significantly more likely to be randomized (Industry = 68.7%, NIH = 58.9%, Other = 60.8%; P < 0.001) and blinded (Industry = 57.2%, NIH = 42.7%, Other = 43.5%; P < 0.001). A total of 359 trials (8.5%) were discontinued early, and 530 trials (12.6%) had unknown status. Trials were less likely to be discontinued if funded by sources other than industry (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.95; P = 0.021) and/or had a DMC (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55-0.92; P = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: Ophthalmology trials in the past decade reveal heterogeneity across study funding sources. NIH trials were more likely to support historically underfunded subspecialties, whereas Industry trials were more likely to face early discontinuation. These trends emphasize the importance of carefully monitored and methodologically sound trials with deliberate funding allocation.

National Institutes of Health Funding for Tobacco Control: 2006 and 2016.

PURPOSE: The study objective was to describe and compare changes in newly funded National Institutes of Health (NIH) tobacco-related awards between fiscal year (FY) 2006 and FY2016. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of NIH data. SETTING: National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool database was used. SUBJECTS: National Institutes of Health tobacco-related awards newly funded during FY2006 and FY2016. MEASURES: Search terms included tobacco, smoking, nicotine, secondhand smoke, and e-cigarettes. Grants and funding amounts were retrieved. ANALYSIS: We calculated frequency distributions to determine the number and percentage of total NIH grants funded overall and by specific institute, and inflation-adjusted total and median funding amounts. We computed percentage differences in number of new grants, funding amounts, and percentage of funding allocated overall, and by institute. RESULTS: There was a 187% increase in the percentage of total NIH funding allocated to new tobacco-related awards from 0.09% in FY2006 to 0.25% in FY2016. Total number of awards increased by 67% in FY2016 (n = 144; $56 015 931) compared to FY2006 (n = 86; $22 076 987), and there was a 154% increase in inflation-adjusted total funding for tobacco control. The top funding institutes were National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Cancer Institute; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism was third in FY2006; and National, Heart, Lung and Blood Institute in FY2016. Research grants were the most frequently funded. Smoking cessation was a common topic area and increased by 64%. CONCLUSION: NIH funding is critical for advancing the science of nicotine and tobacco research.

Gender differences in career development awards in United States' anesthesiology and surgery departments, 2006-2016.

BACKGROUND: Although the status of women in anesthesiology has advanced by many measures, obtaining career development funding remains challenging. Here, we sought to compare the characteristics of funded career development awards from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) between the specialties of anesthesiology and surgery. We hypothesized that the two groups differ in percentage of faculty with awards, gender distribution among principal investigators, as well as the number of awards promoting diversity. METHODS: The NIH grant-funding database RePORT was queried for career development awards for the years 2006-2016 using the filters "Anesthesiology" and "Surgery." Grants were characterized based on the gender of the principal investigator and whether the funding opportunity announcement indicated promotion of underrepresented minorities (URM). The 2016 Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) report on "Distribution of U.S. Medical School Faculty by Sex and Rank" was used to adjust comparisons according to baseline gender distributions in anesthesiology and surgery departments. Cohorts were characterized using descriptive methods and compared using Chi-square or Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Based on our AAMC data query, in 2016, the number of women faculty members at the instructor or assistant professor level in U.S. medical schools was 2314 (41%) for anesthesiology and 2281 (30%) for surgery. Between 2006 and 2016, there were 88 career development grants awarded to investigators in anesthesiology departments compared to 261 in surgery departments. Of the grantees in each specialty, 29 (33%) were women in anesthesiology and 72 (28%) in surgery (P = 0.344). Awards to promote URM were identified for two grants (2%) in anesthesiology and nine grants (3%) in surgery (P = 0.737). Faculty members in surgery were more likely to receive an award than in anesthesiology (P < 0.0001), and women were less likely to receive an award than men (P = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: The major difference between US anesthesiology and surgery departments is that the number of faculty career development awards is significantly higher in surgery departments. Future efforts should aim to identify the reasons for such differences in order to inform strategies that can improve the likelihood for junior faculty members to receive career development funding.

Research on Skin Cancer-Related Behaviors and Outcomes in the NIH Grant Portfolio, 2000-2014: Skin Cancer Intervention Across the Cancer Control Continuum (SCI-3C).

Importance: The Surgeon General's Call to Action to Prevent Skin Cancer broadly identified research gaps, but specific objectives are needed to further behavioral intervention research. Objective: To review National Institute of Health (NIH) grants targeting skin cancer-related behaviors and relevant outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: A portfolio analysis of the title, abstract, specific aims, and research plans of identified grant applications from 2000 to 2014 targeting skin cancer-related behaviors or testing behavioral intervention effects on cancer-relevant outcomes along the cancer continuum. Main Outcomes and Measures: Funding trends were compared along the cancer control continuum, with respect to investigator demographics and use of theory, technology, policy, and changes to environmental surroundings (built environment). Results: A total of 112 submitted applications met inclusion criteria; of these, 40 (35.7%) were funded, and 31 of the 40 were interventions. Comparing the 40 funded grants with the 72 unfunded grants, the overall success rates did not differ significantly between male (33.3%) and female (37.3%) investigators, nor did the frequency of R01 awards (36.7% and 28.1%, respectively). Among intervention awards, most (24 of 31) addressed prevention. Fewer awards targeted detection alone or in conjunction with prevention (3) or cancer survivorship (4), and no grant addressed emotional sequelae or adherence behavior related to diagnosis or treatment. Fewer than half of funded grants aimed for clinically related targets (eg, sunburn reduction). Use of theory and technology occurred in more than 75% of grants. However, the full capability of proposed technology was infrequently used, and rarely did constructs of the proposed behavior change theory clearly and comprehensively drive the intervention approach. Policy or environmental manipulation was present in all dissemination grants but was rarely used elsewhere, and 19.4% included policy implementation and 25.8% proposed changes in built environment. Conclusions and Relevance: Grant success rate in skin cancer-related behavioral science compares favorably to the overall NIH grant success rate (approximately 18%), and the success rate of male and female investigators was not statistically different. However, gaps exist in behavioral research addressing all points of the skin cancer control continuum, measuring interventions that hit clinically related targets, and leveraging technology, theory, and environmental manipulation to optimize intervention approach.

Recent Trends in Oral Cavity Cancer Research Support in the United States.

The objectives were to characterize oral cavity cancer (OCC) funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) with a secondary aim of comparing NIH support provided to OCC and other malignancies. NIH awards supporting OCC inquiry from 2000 to 2014 were accessed from the NIH RePORTER database. These data were used to evaluate temporal trends and the role of human papilloma virus and to determine the academic training and professional profiles of the principal investigators. Comparison of 2014 funding levels with other malignancies was also performed, controlling for incidence. Overall funding totals decreased considerably after 2009. Funding administered through the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) was 6.5 times greater than dollars awarded by the National Cancer Institute in 2000. During the period evaluated, NIDCR support decreased in most years, while National Cancer Institute support increased and approached NIDCR funding levels. Funding for human papilloma virus-related projects gradually rose, from 3.4% of dollars in 2000 to 2004 to 6.2% from 2010 to 2014 ( P < 0.05). A majority of principal investigators had a PhD omnia solus (57%), and 13% possessed dual PhD/clinical degrees. Among clinicians with specialty training, otolaryngologists and oral/maxillofacial pathologists garnered the most funding. OCC had a 2014 funding:incidence ratio of $785, much lower than for other malignancies. There has been increased volatility in funding support in recent years possibly due to budget cuts and sequestration. The National Cancer Institute has played an increasingly important role in supporting OCC research, concomitant with decreasing NIDCR support. Our findings suggest that OCC is underfunded relative to other non-oral cavity malignancies, indicating a need to increase the focus on rectifying the disparity.

Understanding the Barriers to Hiring and Promoting Women in Surgical Subspecialties.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to characterize potential disparities in academic output, NIH-funding, and academic rank between male and female surgical faculty and identify subspecialties in which these differences may be more pronounced. STUDY DESIGN: Eighty metrics for 4,015 faculty members at the top-55 NIH-funded departments of surgery were collected. Demographic characteristics, NIH funding details, and scholarly output were analyzed. A new metric, academic velocity (V), reflecting recent citations is defined. RESULTS: Overall, 21.5% of surgical faculty are women. The percentage of female faculty is highest in science/research (41%) and surgical oncology (34%), and lowest in cardiothoracic surgery (9%). Female faculty are less likely to be full professors (22.7% vs 41.2%) and division chiefs (6.2% vs 13.6%). The fraction of women who are full professors is lowest in cardiothoracic surgery. Overall median numbers of publications/citations are lower for female faculty compared with male surgical faculty (21 of 364 vs 43 of 723, p < 0.001), and these differences are more pronounced for assistant professors. Current/previous NIH funding (21.3% vs 24%, p = NS) rates are similar between women and men, and surgical departments with more female full professors have higher NIH funding ranking (R(2) = 0.14, p < 0.05). In certain subspecialties, female associate and full professors outperform male counterparts. Overall, female authors have higher numbers of more recent citations. CONCLUSIONS: Subspecialty involvement and academic performance differences by sex vary greatly by subspecialty type and are most pronounced at the assistant professor level. Identification of potential barriers for entry of women into certain subspecialties, causes for the observed lower number of publications/citations among female assistant professors, and obstacles for attaining leadership roles need to be determined. We propose a new metric for assessment of publications/citations that can offset the effects of seniority differences between male and female faculty members.

A review of policy dissemination and implementation research funded by the National Institutes of Health, 2007-2014.

BACKGROUND: Policy has a tremendous potential to improve population health when informed by research evidence. Such evidence, however, typically plays a suboptimal role in policymaking processes. The field of policy dissemination and implementation research (policy D&I) exists to address this challenge. The purpose of this study was to: (1) determine the extent to which policy D&I was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), (2) identify trends in NIH-funded policy D&I, and (3) describe characteristics of NIH-funded policy D&I projects. METHODS: The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool was used to identify all projects funded through D&I-focused funding announcements. We screened for policy D&I projects by searching project title, abstract, and term fields for mentions of "policy," "policies," "law," "legal," "legislation," "ordinance," "statute," "regulation," "regulatory," "code," or "rule." A project was classified as policy D&I if it explicitly proposed to conduct research about the content of a policy, the process through which it was developed, or outcomes it produced. A coding guide was iteratively developed, and all projects were independently coded by two researchers. ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed were used to obtain additional project information and validate coding decisions. Descriptive statistics--stratified by funding mechanism, Institute, and project characteristics--were produced. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2014, 146 projects were funded through the D&I funding announcements, 12 (8.2 %) of which were policy D&I. Policy D&I funding totaled $16,177,250, equivalent to 10.5 % of all funding through the D&I funding announcements. The proportion of funding for policy D&I projects ranged from 14.6 % in 2007 to 8.0 % in 2012. Policy D&I projects were primarily focused on policy outcomes (66.7 %), implementation (41.7 %), state-level policies (41.7 %), and policies within the USA (83.3 %). Tobacco (33.3 %) and cancer (25.0 %) control were the primary topics of focus. Many projects combined survey (58.3 %) and interview (33.3 %) methods with analysis of archival data sources. CONCLUSIONS: NIH has made an initial investment in policy D&I research, but the level of support has varied between Institutes. Policy D&I researchers have utilized a variety of designs, methods, and data sources to investigate the development processes, content, and outcomes of public and private policies.

Hallazgos clínicos y oftalmológicos en niños con neurofibromatosis 1 / Clinical and ophthalmological findings in children with type 1 neurofibromatosis

Este trabajo tuvo por objetivos determinar la incidencia en nuestro medio de los criterios diagnósticos del National Institutes of Health (NIH) en niños con Neurofibromatosis 1 (NF1), comparar con estadísticas publicadas, analizar los hallazgos oftalmológicos, el valor de los estudios complementarios y establecer criterios de seguimiento. Métodos: Se trata de un estudio retrospectivo que incluyó 245 pacientes que ingresaron al Hospital de Pediatría Garrahan entre los años 1988 y 2010. Se diagnosticó NF1 en la primera consulta multidisciplinaria, utilizando los criterios de NIH, efectuándose en algunos niños neuroimágenes y potencial evocado visual (PEV). Resultados: El 92% de los pacientes presentó manchas café con leche; 40.8% neurofibromas, 75.5% nódulos de Lisch; 38.8% efeliloides; 16.3% glioma del nervio óptico; 16.3% displasia esquelética y 49% fueron hereditarios. Evidenciamos 1.76 miopías por cada hipermetropía. Conclusiones: Las frecuencias halladas coinciden con reportes previos, a excepción de las efeliloides, con incidencia menor. Realizamos de elección resonancia magnética nuclear (RMN), aún en pacientes asintomáticos, repitiéndolas bianualmente y examen oftalmológico cada seis meses hasta los ocho años. No indicamos actualmente PEV (AU)

The objective of this study was to determine the incidence of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) diagnostic criteria in children with Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) in our setting, to compare them with the published statistical data, ophthalmological findings, the importance of complementary studies, and to establish follow-up criteria. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study including 245 patients that were admitted to the Pediatric Hospital Garrahan between 1988 and 2010. NF1 was diagnosed at the first multidisciplinary visit, using the NIH criteria. Neuroimaging and visual evoked potentials (VEP) were performed in some of the children. Results: 92% of the patients had café au laity spots; 40.8% neurofibromas; 75.5% Lisch nodules; 38.8% ephelides; 16.3% optic-nerve glioma; and 16.3% skeletal dysplasia. The disorder was hereditary in 49%. For each hypermetry,1.76 myopias were observed. Conclusions: These rates found were according to previous reports, except for ephelides, which were less common. Elective magnetic resonance imaging (MRI ) was performed, even in asymptomatic patients, and was repeated biannually and ophthalmological examination was done every six months until nine years of age. Currently, we do not indicate VEP

Recent trends in National Institutes of Health funding for surgery: 2003 to 2013.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to compare the compositions of federally funded surgical research between 2003 and 2013, and to assess differences in funding trends between surgery and other medical specialties. DATA SOURCES: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool database was queried for grants within core surgical disciplines during 2003 and 2013. Funding was categorized by award type, methodology, and discipline. Application success rates for surgery and 5 nonsurgical departments were trended over time. CONCLUSIONS: Inflation-adjusted NIH funding for surgical research decreased 19% from $270 M in 2003 to $219 M in 2013, with a shift from R-awards to U-awards. Proportional funding to outcomes research almost tripled, while translational research diminished. Nonsurgical departments have increased NIH application volume over the last 10 years; however, surgery's application volume has been stagnant. To preserve surgery's role in innovative research, new efforts are needed to incentivize an increase in application volume.

National Institutes of Health funding in radiation oncology: a snapshot.

Currently, pay lines for National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants are at a historical low. In this climate of fierce competition, knowledge about the funding situation in a small field like radiation oncology becomes very important for career planning and recruitment of faculty. Unfortunately, these data cannot be easily extracted from the NIH's database because it does not discriminate between radiology and radiation oncology departments. At the start of fiscal year 2013 we extracted records for 952 individual grants, which were active at the time of analysis from the NIH database. Proposals originating from radiation oncology departments were identified manually. Descriptive statistics were generated using the JMP statistical software package. Our analysis identified 197 grants in radiation oncology. These proposals came from 134 individual investigators in 43 academic institutions. The majority of the grants (118) were awarded to principal investigators at the full professor level, and 122 principal investigators held a PhD degree. In 79% of the grants, the research topic fell into the field of biology, 13% in the field of medical physics. Only 7.6% of the proposals were clinical investigations. Our data suggest that the field of radiation oncology is underfunded by the NIH and that the current level of support does not match the relevance of radiation oncology for cancer patients or the potential of its academic work force.

Developing a new model for the invention and translation of neurotechnologies in academic neurosurgery.

BACKGROUND: There is currently an acceleration of new scientific and technical capabilities that create new opportunities for academic neurosurgery. To engage these changing dynamics, the Center for Innovation in Neuroscience and Technology (CINT) was created on the premise that successful innovation of device-related ideas relies on collaboration between multiple disciplines. The CINT has created a unique model that integrates scientific, medical, engineering, and legal/business experts to participate in the continuum from idea generation to translation. OBJECTIVE: To detail the method by which this model has been implemented in the Department of Neurological Surgery at Washington University in St. Louis and the experience that has been accrued thus far. METHODS: The workflow is structured to enable cross-disciplinary interaction, both intramurally and extramurally between academia and industry. This involves a structured method for generating, evaluating, and prototyping promising device concepts. The process begins with the "invention session," which consists of a structured exchange between inventors from diverse technical and medical backgrounds. Successful ideas, which pass a separate triage mechanism, are then sent to industry-sponsored multidisciplinary fellowships to create functioning prototypes. RESULTS: After 3 years, the CINT has engaged 32 clinical and nonclinical inventors, resulting in 47 ideas, 16 fellowships, and 12 patents, for which 7 have been licensed to industry. Financial models project that if commercially successful, device sales could have a notable impact on departmental revenue. CONCLUSION: The CINT is a model that supports an integrated approach from the time an idea is created through its translational development. To date, the approach has been successful in creating numerous concepts that have led to industry licenses. In the long term, this model will create a novel revenue stream to support the academic neurosurgical mission.

A comparison of cancer burden and research spending reveals discrepancies in the distribution of research funding.

BACKGROUND: Ideally, the distribution of research funding for different types of cancer should be equitable with respect to the societal burden each type of cancer imposes. These burdens can be estimated in a variety of ways; "Years of Life Lost" (YLL) measures the severity of death in regard to the age it occurs, "Disability-Adjusted Life-Years" (DALY) estimates the effects of non-lethal disabilities incurred by disease and economic metrics focus on the losses to tax revenue, productivity or direct medical expenses. We compared research funding from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to a variety of burden metrics for the most common types of cancer to identify mismatches between spending and societal burden. METHODS: Research funding levels were obtained from the NCI website and information for societal health and economic burdens were collected from government databases and published reports. We calculated the funding levels per unit burden for a wide range of different cancers and burden metrics and compared these values to identify discrepancies. RESULTS: Our analysis reveals a considerable mismatch between funding levels and burden. Some cancers are funded at levels far higher than their relative burden suggests (breast cancer, prostate cancer, and leukemia) while other cancers appear underfunded (bladder, esophageal, liver, oral, pancreatic, stomach, and uterine cancers). CONCLUSIONS: These discrepancies indicate that an improved method of health care research funding allocation should be investigated to better match funding levels to societal burden.