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.

Examining who is conducting and leading National Institute of Health-funded research in U.S. schools of nursing.

BACKGROUND: Nursing science is essential for generating a unique body of knowledge that is foundational to the academic discipline of nursing. PURPOSE: The goal of this analysis is to detail the education and licensing of faculty and leadership in research-intensive schools of nursing and to present the current data on the National Institute of Health (NIH) funding patterns in schools of nursing. METHODS: The faculty composition analysis focused on the 40 U.S. schools of nursing receiving the most NIH funding through faculty serving as PIs on grants awarded in 2023. For the NIH funding patterns analysis, data were extracted from the NIH RePORTER database. DISCUSSION: Of the top 30 NIH-funded Schools of Nursing, all the Deans and Associate Deans of Academic Affairs are educated or licensed as nurses; whereas only 55% of Associate Deans of Research are educated or licensed as nurses. In 2022, nearly half of the top-ranked schools of nursing had less than half of their NIH funding awarded to faculty who are trained and licensed as nurses CONLUSION: The current trends in the research enterprise in schools of nursing implore us to assess if we are adequately training nurses to advance nursing science and more importantly to serve as leaders of nursing science.

Blinding reduces institutional prestige bias during initial review of applications for a young investigator award.

Organizations that fund research are keen to ensure that their grant selection processes are fair and equitable for all applicants. In 2020, the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation introduced blinding to the first stage of the process used to review applications for Beckman Young Investigator (BYI) awards: applicants were instructed to blind the technical proposal in their initial Letter of Intent by omitting their name, gender, gender-identifying pronouns, and institutional information. Here we examine the impact of this change by comparing the data on gender and institutional prestige of the applicants in the first four years of the new policy (BYI award years 2021-2024) with data on the last four years of the old policy (2017-2020). We find that under the new policy, the distribution of applicants invited to submit a full application shifted from those affiliated with institutions regarded as more prestigious to those outside of this group, and that this trend continued through to the final program awards. We did not find evidence of a shift in the distribution of applicants with respect to gender.

Introducing Five New Cancer Grand Challenges Teams.

SUMMARY: Cancer Grand Challenges is an international funding initiative that aims to unite the world's best scientists to tackle some of cancer's toughest problems by funding team science on a global scale. Here, we discuss the five newly funded teams and the challenges they will address over the coming years.

Efficacy of Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (CoBRE) grants to build research capacity in underrepresented states.

Federal funding for research has immediate and long-term economic impact. Since federal research funding is regionally concentrated and not geographically distributed, the benefits are not fully realized in some regions of the country. The Established (previously Experimental) Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) programs at several agencies, for example, the National Science Foundation, and the Institutional Development Award (IDeA) program at the National Institutes of Health were created to increase competitiveness for funding in states with historically low levels of federal funding. The Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (CoBRE) award program is a component of the IDeA program. The CoBRE grants support research core facilities to develop research infrastructure. These grants also support the research projects of junior investigators, under the guidance of mentoring teams of senior investigators, to develop human resources at these institutions. Few studies have assessed the effectiveness of these programs. This study examines the investment and outcomes of the CoBRE grants from 2000 through 2022. The maturation of junior investigators into independently funded principal investigators is comparable to other mentoring programs supported by NIH. The investment in research cores resulted in substantial research productivity, measured by publications. Despite the successes of individual investigators and increased research infrastructure and productivity, the geographic distribution of federal and NIH research dollars has not changed. These results will be informative in consideration of policies designed to enhance the geographic distribution of federal research dollars.

Gender differences in Dutch research funding over time: A statistical investigation of the innovation scheme 2012-2021.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the Dutch research council, NWO, took measures to combat gender bias disadvantaging female applicants in a popular three-tiered funding scheme called the Talent Programme. The innovation scheme consists of three grants for different career stages, called Veni, Vidi and Vici. OBJECTIVES: This paper studies the question whether or not NWO has been successful in removing gender differences in their funding procedure. METHODS: Using all available data from 2012 onwards of grant applications in the Talent Programme (16,249 applications of which 2,449 received funding), we study whether these measures had an effect using binomial generalized linear models. RESULTS: We find strong statistical evidence of a shift in gender effects in favour of female applicants in the first tier, the Veni (p < .001). Significant gender differences are not found in the two other tiers, the Vidi and Vici schemes. CONCLUSIONS: In recent years, female applicants are more likely to be awarded with a Veni grant than male applicants and this gender gap has increased over time. This suggests that gender differences still exist in the assessment of Talent Programme submissions, albeit in a different direction than a decade ago.

Grants and Funding in Podiatric Science.

Evidence-based research is essential to improving podiatric medicine and surgery; however, there are many barriers to conducting research, with a major limitation being lack of research funding. There are various grants and funding sources available to podiatric surgeon scientists, but navigating through the resources can be daunting. In this article, we provide a framework for grant writing and funding opportunities for podiatric surgeons to consider.

Why Stating Hypotheses in Grant Applications Is Unnecessary.

This Viewpoint argues that a hypothesis-centric approach to writing grant applications is problematic and instead suggests that funding applications should be evaluated by their relevance and methodological quality rather than by qualitative assertions before the study is conducted.

The intersection of health and housing: Analysis of the research portfolios of the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

BACKGROUND: Housing is a major social determinant of health that affects health status and outcomes across the lifespan. OBJECTIVES: An interagency portfolio analysis assessed the level of funding invested in "health and housing research" from fiscal years (FY) 2016-2020 across the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to characterize the existing health and housing portfolio and identify potential areas for additional research and collaboration. METHODS/RESULTS: We identified NIH, HUD, and CDC research projects that were relevant to both health and housing and characterized them by housing theme, health topic, population, and study design. We organized the assessment of the individual housing themes by four overarching housing-to-health pathways. From FY 2016-2020, NIH, HUD, and CDC funded 565 health and housing projects combined. The Neighborhood pathway was most common, followed by studies of the Safety and Quality pathway. Studies of the Affordability and Stability pathways were least common. Health topics such as substance use, mental health, and cardiovascular disease were most often studied. Most studies were observational (66%); only a little over one fourth (27%) were intervention studies. DISCUSSION: This review of the research grant portfolios of three major federal funders of health and housing research in the United States describes the diversity and substantial investment in research at the intersection between housing and health. Analysis of the combined portfolio points to gaps in studies on causal pathways linking housing to health outcomes. The findings highlight the need for research to better understand the causal pathways from housing to health and prevention intervention research, including rigorous evaluation of housing interventions and policies to improve health and well-being.

Massive study of dog aging likely to lose funding.

Organizers hope to save long-running project on canine aging and longevity.

National Institutes of Health grant funding for cerebrovascular diseases.

BACKGROUND: Federal research funding is highly sought after but may be challenging to attain. A clear understanding of funding for specific diseases, such as cerebrovascular disorders, might help researchers regarding which National Institutes of Health (NIH) institutes fund research into specific disorders and grant types. OBJECTIVE: To examine the current scope of NIH grant funding for cerebrovascular conditions. METHODS: The NIH-developed RePORTER was used to extract active NIH-funded studies related to cerebrovascular diseases through January 2023. Duplicate studies were removed, and projects were manually screened and labeled in subcategories as clinical and basic science and as research subcategories. Extracted data included total funding, grant types, institutions that received funding, and diseases studied. Python (version 3.9) and SciPy library were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: We identified 1232 cerebrovascular projects across seven diseases with US$699 952 926 in total funding. The cerebrovascular diseases with the greatest number of grants were ischemic stroke (705, or 57.2% of all funded projects), carotid disease (193, or 15.7%), and hemorrhagic stroke (163, or 13.2%). R01 grants were the most common mechanism of funding (632 grants, or 51.3%). The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) funded the most projects (504 projects; US$325 536 405), followed by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) (376 projects; US$216 784 546). CONCLUSION: Cerebrovascular disease receives roughly US$700 million in NIH funding. Ischemic stroke accounts for the majority of NIH-funded cerebrovascular projects, and R01 grants are the most common funding mechanism. Notably, NHLBI provides a large proportion of funding, in addition to NINDS.

The unfunded grant, now what? Advice, approach, and strategy.

BACKGROUND: Grant writing takes significant time and effort and often may be elusive, especially on a first attempt. After the rejection of a grant, many investigators face a dilemma regarding the best next steps. In this article, we discuss the options of revision versus resubmission and how to navigate these decisions. METHODS: The literature was surveyed, including review articles, personal perspectives, and editorial pieces regarding the grant writing and funding processes. The National Institute of Health database was reviewed, and data were extrapolated from the past 10 years of funding percentages and rates of both R01 initial applications and resubmissions. Recommendations were then generated based on pertinent literature and experience from the authors. RESULTS: The grant writing process involves many checkpoints between conception and funding. Only approximately 15% of R01 and R01-equivalent grants are accepted for funding on the initial submission. However, this statistic increases to >30% if the appropriate steps are taken to revise and resubmit the grant. These steps include consulting co-investigators, modifying hypotheses, drafting a succinct "Introduction" document, and many more. Knowing the options after the rejection of an original submission plays a huge role in the ultimate success of the grant. CONCLUSION: Although receiving funding for an original grant can be difficult, with appropriate guidance, it may seem more feasible than initially expected. Adequately responding to the critiques of the grant and revising the grant appropriately can make or break the outcome of the grant.

Using a Modern Linked Research Database to Examine Gender Disparities in Orthopaedic Grant Funding from 2010 to 2022.

BACKGROUND: Gender disparities in research grant funding persist in many disciplines. With use of the Dimensions database, we sought to examine the extent of gender disparities in U.S. orthopaedic grant funding from 2010 onward. Our aim was to provide insights into the extent of gender disparities in the field of orthopaedic research and to highlight the potential need for future action to address these disparities. METHODS: Using orthopaedic-related search terms, we queried all U.S. grants awarded for orthopaedic research from 2010 to 2022. A total of 22,326 results were then manually screened to exclude those without a direct focus on orthopaedic research. The amounts received per principal investigator were reported in U.S. dollars and adjusted for inflation. Author gender was predicted with use of the Genderize.io algorithm application programming interface. The iCite Relative Citation Ratio (RCR) was utilized to assess the impact of the publications linked to each grant. RESULTS: A total of 1,723 grants were included. Men principal investigators received significantly higher median funding per grant in 2011, 2012, and 2013; however, this trend reversed with women receiving nonsignificantly higher funding in 2015, 2017, 2018, 2021, and 2022. In 2020, women received significantly higher median funding per grant than men ($166,234 versus $121,384; p = 0.04). Throughout the 13-year period, men principal investigators accounted for approximately 71% of grants, with a very weak increasing trend in the percent of grants attributed to women (R 2 = 0.16; p < 0.001). Grants with men principal investigators resulted in more publications than those with women principal investigators (mean publications, 11.1 versus 6.6; p = 0.001). Publications resulting from grants awarded to men had a significantly higher mean RCR than those resulting from grants awarded to women (2.42 versus 2.09; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the median amounts of funding per grant awarded to men and to women in 7 of the past 8 years, despite significantly greater funding per grant having been awarded to men from 2011 to 2013. Men principal investigators accounted for the majority of grants received during the study period, although this proportion was lower than the proportion of men among orthopaedic surgeons in 2022. This study could inform initiatives aimed at promoting equity in grant funding for orthopaedic research.

Current status of National Institutes of Health funding for thoracic surgeons in the United States: Beacon of hope or candle in the wind?

OBJECTIVE: Increasing forces threaten the viability of thoracic surgeon-initiated research, a core component of our academic mission. National Institutes of Health funding is a benchmark of research productivity and innovation. This study examined the current status of National Institutes of Health funding for thoracic surgeons. METHODS: Thoracic surgeon principal investigators on National Institutes of Health-funded grants during June 2010, June 2015, and June 2020 were identified using National Institutes of Health iSearchGrants (version 2.4). American Association of Medical Colleges data were used to identify all surgeons in the United States. Types and total costs of National Institutes of Health-funded grants were compared relative to other surgical specialties. RESULTS: A total of 61 of 4681 (1.3%), 63 of 4484 (1.4%), and 60 of 4497 (1.3%) thoracic surgeons were principal investigators on 79, 76, and 87 National Institutes of Health-funded grants in 2010, 2015, and 2020, respectively; these rates were higher than those for most other surgical specialties (P ≤ .0001). Total National Institutes of Health costs for Thoracic Surgeon-initiated grants increased 57% from 2010 to 2020, outpacing the 33% increase in total National Institutes of Health budget. Numbers and types of grants varied among cardiovascular, transplant, and oncology subgroups. Although the majority of grants and costs were cardiovascular related, increased National Institutes of Health expenditures primarily were due to funding for transplant and oncology grants. Per-capita costs were highest for transplant-related grants during both years. Percentages of R01-to-total costs were constant at 55%. Rates and levels of funding for female versus male thoracic surgeons were comparable. Awards to 5 surgeons accounted for 33% of National Institutes of Health costs for thoracic surgeon principal investigators in 2020; a similar phenomenon was observed for 2010 and 2015. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term structural changes must be implemented to more effectively nurture the next generation of thoracic surgeon scientists.

The Brain & Behavior Research Foundation's philanthropic support for neuropsychiatric research.

In the 36 years since its founding, the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation (BBRF) has become one of the world's largest non-government funders of grants for neuropsychiatric research. A number of lessons can be drawn from the BBRF experience. One is that scientific competence in the organization, and full control over selection of grantees, has always resided in a Scientific Council composed of leaders in the field. Fund-raising has been conducted separately, and all public dollars contributed have been used to fund grants. The Council has sought to support the best research, no matter who is doing it or where it is being done. Over 80% of 6300 grants awarded have jump-started the careers of young investigators judged to demonstrate unusual promise. These early-career grants have been the equivalent of seed funding, enabling the best and brightest entrants to the field to perform research that, if successful, can provide a basis for much larger, career-sustaining grants. Much of the funded research has been basic research, although many contributions leading to clinical advances have also resulted from BBRF grants. BBRF has learned that it pays to have a diversified research portfolio, with thousands of grantees attacking the problem of mental illness from many different angles. The Foundation's experience also demonstrates the power of patient-inspired philanthropic support. Donors repeatedly express satisfaction that some aspect of mental illness that they care deeply about is being addressed, and find comfort and support from the sense of joining with others in the mission.

Challenges in international health financing and implications for the new pandemic fund.

BACKGROUND: The failures of the international COVID-19 response highlighted key gaps in pandemic preparedness and response (PPR). The G20 and WHO have called for additional funding of $10.5 billion per year to adequately strengthen the global PPR architecture. In response to these calls, in 2022 the World Bank announced the launch of a new Financial Intermediary Fund (The Pandemic Fund) to catalyse this additional funding. However, there is considerable unclarity regarding the governance makeup and financial modalities of the Pandemic Fund, and divergence of opinion about whether the Fund has been successfully designed to respond to key challenges in global health financing. METHODS/RESULTS: The article outlines eight challenges associated with global health financing instruments and development aid for health within the global health literature. These include misaligned aid allocation; accountability; multistakeholder representation and participation; country ownership; donor coherency and fragmentation; transparency; power dynamics, and; anti-corruption. Using available information about the Pandemic Fund, the article positions the Pandemic Fund against these challenges to determine in what ways the financing instrument recognizes, addresses, partially addresses, or ignores them. The assessment argues that although the Pandemic Fund has adopted a few measures to recognise and address some of the challenges, overall, the Pandemic Fund has unclear policies in response to most of the challenges while leaving many unaddressed. CONCLUSION: It remains unclear how the Pandemic Fund is explicitly addressing challenges widely recognized in the global health financing literature. Moreover, there is evidence that the Pandemic Fund might be exacerbating these global financing challenges, thus raising questions about its potential efficacy, suitability, and chances of success. In response, this article offers four sets of policy recommendations for how the Pandemic Fund and the PPR financing architecture might respond more effectively to the identified challenges.