ABSTRACT
This study examines the influence of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding on the publication choices of dermatologists, particularly in terms of journal tiers and pay-to-publish (P2P) versus free-to-publish (F2P) models. Utilizing k-means clustering for journal ranking based on SCImago Journal Rank, h-index, and Impact Factor, journals were categorized into three tiers and 54,530 dermatology publications from 2021 to 2023 were analyzed. Authors were classified as Top NIH Funded or Non-Top NIH Funded according to Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research rankings. The study finds significant differences in publication patterns, with Top NIH Funded researchers in Tier I journals demonstrating a balanced use of P2P and F2P models, while they preferred F2P models in Tier II and III journals. Non-Top NIH Funded authors, however, opted for P2P models more frequently across all tiers. These data suggest NIH funding allows researchers greater flexibility to publish in higher-tier journals despite publication fees, while prioritizing F2P models in lower-tier journals. Such a pattern indicates that funding status plays a critical role in strategic publication decisions, potentially impacting research visibility and subsequent funding. The study's dermatology focus limits broader applicability, warranting further research to explore additional factors like geographic location, author gender, and research design.
Subject(s)
Biomedical Research , Dermatology , Journal Impact Factor , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Periodicals as Topic , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economics , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/trends , United States , Dermatology/economics , Dermatology/statistics & numerical data , Dermatology/trends , Humans , Periodicals as Topic/economics , Periodicals as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Periodicals as Topic/trends , Biomedical Research/economics , Biomedical Research/trends , Biomedical Research/statistics & numerical data , Publishing/statistics & numerical data , Publishing/trends , Publishing/economics , Bibliometrics , Research Support as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Research Support as Topic/trends , Research Support as Topic/economicsABSTRACT
Lawmakers propose reducing 27 institutes to 15.
Subject(s)
National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economics , United States , PoliticsABSTRACT
Cleveland Clinic fined $7.6 million for alleged mismanagement of NIH grants.
Subject(s)
Financing, Government , Health Facilities , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , China , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economics , Research Support as Topic , United States , Health Facilities/economics , Health Facilities/ethicsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Industry payments to US cancer centers are poorly understood. METHODS: US National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer centers were identified (n = 51). Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers from 2014 to 2021 were obtained from Open Payments and National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding from NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT). Given our focus on cancer centers, we measured the subset of industry payments related to cancer drugs specifically and the subset of NIH funding from the NCI. RESULTS: Despite a pandemic-related decline in 2020-2021, cancer-related industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased from $482 million in 2014 to $972 million in 2021. Over the same period, NCI research grant funding increased from $2â481â million to $2â724â million. The large majority of nonresearch payments were royalties and licensing payments. CONCLUSION: Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased substantially more than NCI funding in recent years but were also more variable. These trends raise concerns regarding the influence and instability of industry payments.
Subject(s)
Cancer Care Facilities , Drug Industry , National Cancer Institute (U.S.) , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Research Support as Topic , United States , Humans , National Cancer Institute (U.S.)/economics , Drug Industry/economics , Drug Industry/trends , Research Support as Topic/trends , Research Support as Topic/economics , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economics , Cancer Care Facilities/economics , Conflict of Interest/economics , Antineoplastic Agents/economics , Neoplasms/economicsABSTRACT
Drop in 21st Century Cures Act funding will slow BRAIN and All of Us projects.
Subject(s)
Genomic Medicine , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Neurosciences , Research Support as Topic , Humans , Financing, Government , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economics , United States , Neurosciences/economics , Genomic Medicine/economicsABSTRACT
Research investigating the impact of barriers to care on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among US adults with chronic inflammatory skin diseases (CISDs) is limited. In this study, we utilize multivariable-adjusted logistic regression to analyze the associations between cost barriers (e.g., delaying specialist and mental health care due to cost) and non-cost barriers (e.g., delaying care due to transportation issues and the lack of provider diversity) with HRQoL among US adults with several common CISDs in the National Institutes of Health's All of Us Research Program (AoURP). Among the 19,208 adults with CISDs included in our analysis, the prevalence of poorer HRQoL(i.e., "fair" or "poor" HRQoL) was significantly higher among adults with CISDs who experienced cost (aOR, 2.39;95% CI, 2.10-2.73) and non-cost barriers (aOR, 2.52; 95% CI, 2.20-2.88) than those with CISDs who did not experience those barriers. Since dermatologists are often the only physician caring for patients with CISDs, this study reinforces the critical role dermatologists have in addressing social determinants of health and advocating to reduce cost and non-cost barriers for their patients with CISDs.
Subject(s)
Health Services Accessibility , Quality of Life , Humans , Male , Female , United States , Cross-Sectional Studies , Adult , Middle Aged , Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data , Health Services Accessibility/economics , Chronic Disease , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economics , Aged , Young AdultABSTRACT
Belated Senate and House compromise eliminates policy riders restricting certain studies.
Subject(s)
Biomedical Research , Budgets , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economics , Policy , United States , Gain of Function Mutation , Biomedical Research/economics , Biomedical Research/trendsABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Bibliometrics , Biomedical Research , Efficiency , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Otolaryngology , United States , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economics , Humans , Male , Female , Biomedical Research/economics , Biomedical Research/statistics & numerical data , Otolaryngology/economics , Otolaryngology/statistics & numerical data , Research Support as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Research Support as Topic/economicsABSTRACT
Improving patient care is top priority for head of world's largest biomedical research funder.
Subject(s)
Biomedical Research , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Patient Care , Humans , Biomedical Research/economics , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economicsABSTRACT
Importance: Surgeon-scientists are uniquely positioned to facilitate translation between the laboratory and clinical settings to drive innovation in patient care. However, surgeon-scientists face many challenges in pursuing research, such as increasing clinical demands that affect their competitiveness to apply for National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding compared with other scientists. Objective: To examine how NIH funding has been awarded to surgeon-scientists over time. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used publicly available data from the NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results) database for research project grants awarded to departments of surgery between 1995 and 2020. Surgeon-scientists were defined as NIH-funded faculty holding an MD or MD-PhD degree with board certification in surgery; PhD scientists were NIH-funded faculty holding a PhD degree. Statistical analysis was performed from April 1 to August 31, 2022. Main Outcome: National Institutes of Health funding to surgeon-scientists compared with PhD scientists, as well as NIH funding to surgeon-scientists across surgical subspecialties. Results: Between 1995 and 2020, the number of NIH-funded investigators in surgical departments increased 1.9-fold from 968 to 1874 investigators, corresponding to a 4.0-fold increase in total funding (1995, $214 million; 2020, $861 million). Although the total amount of NIH funding to both surgeon-scientists and PhD scientists increased, the funding gap between surgeon-scientists and PhD scientists increased 2.8-fold from a $73 million difference in 1995 to a $208 million difference in 2020, favoring PhD scientists. National Institutes of Health funding to female surgeon-scientists increased significantly at a rate of 0.53% (95% CI, 0.48%-0.57%) per year from 4.8% of grants awarded to female surgeon-scientists in 1995 to 18.8% in 2020 (P < .001). However, substantial disparity remained, with female surgeon-scientists receiving less than 20% of NIH grants and funding dollars in 2020. In addition, although there was increased NIH funding to neurosurgeons and otolaryngologists, funding to urologists decreased significantly from 14.9% of all grants in 1995 to 7.5% in 2020 (annual percent change, -0.39% [95% CI, -0.47% to -0.30%]; P < .001). Despite surgical diseases making up 30% of the global disease burden, representation of surgeon-scientists among NIH investigators remains less than 2%. Conclusion and Relevance: This study suggests that research performed by surgeon-scientists continues to be underrepresented in the NIH funding portfolio, highlighting a fundamental need to support and fund more surgeon-scientists.
Subject(s)
Biomedical Research , Surgeons , United States , Humans , Female , Cross-Sectional Studies , Surgeons/economics , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economics , Databases, FactualSubject(s)
Biomedical Research , COVID-19 , Coronavirus , Financing, Organized , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Humans , Biomedical Research/economics , Biomedical Research/legislation & jurisprudence , Biomedical Research/trends , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19/virology , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economics , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/legislation & jurisprudence , Politics , United States , Viral Zoonoses/epidemiology , Viral Zoonoses/transmission , Viral Zoonoses/virology , AnimalsSubject(s)
Clinical Trials as Topic , Exercise Therapy , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome , Research Support as Topic , Humans , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economics , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/organization & administration , Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome/therapy , Research Support as Topic/methods , Research Support as Topic/organization & administration , United States , Exercise Therapy/adverse effectsABSTRACT
This study examines practices related to trial registration and results submission in ClinicalTrials.gov and publication of pediatric clinical trials funded by the National Institutes of Health.
Subject(s)
Clinical Trials as Topic , Information Dissemination , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Child , Humans , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economics , Registries , United States , Clinical Trials as Topic/economicsSubject(s)
COVID-19 , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Research Support as Topic , Child , Humans , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/economics , Financial Management , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economics , Research Support as Topic/economics , Research Support as Topic/organization & administration , United StatesABSTRACT
Importance: Women have made substantial advancements in academic surgery, but research funding disparities continue to hamper their progress, and current literature on the status of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding awarded to women surgeon-scientists appears to be conflicting. Objective: To examine gender-based differences in NIH funding awarded to surgeon-scientists by comparing total grant amounts awarded and the distribution of grants by gender and research type. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was performed using a previously created database of NIH-funded surgeons from 2010 to 2020. Active physician data from the Association of American Medical Colleges were used to calculate total surgeon populations. This study was performed at the NIH using the NIH internal data platform, iSearch Grants. A total of 715 men and women surgeon-scientists funded by the NIH in 2010 and 1031 funded in 2020 were included in the analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the number of women among the total number of surgeons who received NIH grants and the total grant amounts awarded to them. Bivariate χ2 analyses were performed using population totals and substantiated by z tests of population proportions. Results: This study included 715 physicians (n = 579 men [81.0%]) in 2010 and 1031 physicians (n = 769 men [74.6%]) in 2020. In 2020, women comprised 27.4% of the surgical workforce and 25.4% of surgeons with research funding in the US, but they received only 21.7% of total NIH research funding awarded to all surgeons. The number of funded women surgeon-scientists, however, significantly increased from 2010 to 2020 (262 [25.4%] in 2020 vs 136 [19.0%] in 2010; P < .001) as did their funding ($189.7 million [21.7%] in 2020 vs $75.9 million [12.3%] in 2010; P < .001). Furthermore, the proportion of US women surgeons overall with NIH funding significantly increased in 2020 vs 2010 (0.7% vs 0.5%; P < .001). Basic science, clinical outcomes, and clinical trial R01 grants also increased among women surgeon-scientists. Women and men K grant holders had a similar mean (SD) number of R01 application attempts before success (2.7 [3.01] vs 2.3 [3.15]; P = .60) and similar K-to-R award conversion rates (23.5% vs 26.7%; P = .55). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found an increasing number of women surgeon-scientists receiving NIH funding in 2020 vs 2010 as well as increases in the median grant amounts awarded. Although these results are promising, a discrepancy remains in the proportion of women in the surgical workforce compared with those funded by the NIH and the total grant amounts awarded to them.