Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 708
Filtrar
2.
J Surg Res ; 257: 128-134, 2021 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32823010

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing the number of women and ethnic minority groups in surgery, the academic advancement of such individuals within surgical fields lags behind Caucasian men. We sought to identify gender and ethnic inequalities in the receipt of surgical society research grants for young faculty investigators and compare the scholarly productivity of these groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional and retrospective study, the gender and race of surgical society grant recipients were determined from surgical society Web sites. Surgical society grants aimed at providing research grants for junior faculty investigators were analyzed. Using the Scopus database, each recipient's scholarly productivity was determined by means of h-index, a standardized measure of the quantity and impact of an individual's published articles. We generated descriptive statistics to compare the gender, race, and h-index of grant recipients in the years 2006-2008 and 2016-2018. RESULTS: Between 2006 and 2008, there were 68 research grant recipients. Of these recipients, 79% were men and 21% were women. The racial breakdown was 54% Caucasian men, 22% Asian men, 1.4% African American men, 1.4% Hispanic men, 12% Caucasian women, 7% Asian Women, and 1.4% African American women. The average h-index of the male and female recipients is 25 (±14) and 24 (±14), respectively (P = 0.81). Between 2016 and 2018, there were 113 research grant recipients. Of these recipients, 66% were men and 34% were women. The racial breakdown was 47% Caucasian men, 16% Asian men, 3.5% African American men, 1% Hispanic men, 26% Caucasian women, 3.5% Asian women, and 3.5% African American women. The average h-index of the male and female recipients is 12 (±8) and 9 (±6), respectively (P = 0.046). Caucasian women had the only statistically significant change in the proportion of grant recipients from 2006-2008 to 2016-2018, with an increase from 12% to 26% (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Most surgical society research grants for young investigators continue to be awarded to Caucasian men, with Caucasian women earning a distant second in the 2016-2018 cohort. Ethnic minorities continue to be awarded less research grants than Caucasian recipients. Overall, the average h-index of women was less than men. This study highlights the persistent need for surgical societies to consider gender and ethnic disparities when awarding junior investigator grants, including barriers minority groups may face in achieving the same h-index as Caucasian men.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricos , Cirurgia Geral/educação , Grupos Minoritários/estatística & dados numéricos , Pesquisadores/estatística & dados numéricos , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Sucesso Acadêmico , Grupo com Ancestrais do Continente Africano/estatística & dados numéricos , Grupo com Ancestrais do Continente Asiático/estatística & dados numéricos , Estudos Transversais , Eficiência , Grupos Étnicos , Grupo com Ancestrais do Continente Europeu/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Hispano-Americanos/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Masculino , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores Sexuais , Sociedades Médicas/estatística & dados numéricos
5.
Lancet Glob Health ; 8(10): e1295-e1304, 2020 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32971052

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Each year, billions of US$ are spent globally on infectious disease research and development. However, there is little systematic tracking of global research and development. We present research on investments into infectious diseases research from funders in the G20 countries across an 18-year time period spanning 2000-17, comparing amounts invested for different conditions and considering the global burden of disease to identify potential areas of relative underfunding. METHODS: The study examined research awards made between 2000 and 2017 for infectious disease research from G20-based public and philanthropic funders. We searched research databases using a range of keywords, and open access data were extracted from funder websites. Awards were categorised by type of science, specialty, and disease or pathogen. Data collected included study title, abstract, award amount, funder, and year. We used descriptive statistics and Spearman's correlation coefficient to investigate the association between research investment and disease burden, using Global Burden of Disease 2017 study data. FINDINGS: The final 2000-17 dataset included 94 074 awards for infectious disease research, with a sum investment of $104·9 billion (annual range 4·1 billion to 8·4 billion) and a median award size of $257 176 (IQR 62 562-770 661). Pre-clinical research received $61·1 billion (58·2%) across 70 337 (74·8%) awards and public health research received $29·5 billion (28·1%) from 19 197 (20·4%) awards. HIV/AIDS received $42·1 billion (40·1%), tuberculosis received $7·0 billion (6·7%), malaria received $5·6 billion (5·3%), and pneumonia received $3·5 billion (3·3%). Funding for Ebola virus ($1·2 billion), Zika virus ($0·3 billion), influenza ($4·4 billion), and coronavirus ($0·5 billion) was typically highest soon after a high-profile outbreak. There was a general increase in year-on-year investment in infectious disease research between 2000 and 2006, with a decline between 2007 and 2017. Funders based in the USA provided $81·6 billion (77·8%). Based on funding per 2017 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), HIV/AIDS received the greatest relative investment ($772 per DALY), compared with tuberculosis ($156 per DALY), malaria ($125 per DALY), and pneumonia ($33 per DALY). Syphilis and scabies received the least relative investment (both $9 per DALY). We observed weak positive correlation (r=0·30) between investment and 2017 disease burden. INTERPRETATION: HIV research received the highest amount of investment relative to DALY burden. Scabies and syphilis received the lowest relative funding. Investments for high-threat pathogens (eg, Ebola virus and coronavirus) were often reactive and followed outbreaks. We found little evidence that funding is proactively guided by global burden or pandemic risk. Our findings show how research investments are allocated and how this relates to disease burden and diseases with pandemic potential. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Doenças Transmissíveis/economia , Saúde Global/economia , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Cooperação Internacional
8.
West J Emerg Med ; 21(3): 595-599, 2020 Apr 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32421506

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: To study diversity of researchers and barriers to success among Emergency Medicine Foundation (EMF) grant recipients in the last 10 years. METHODS: EMF grant awardees were approached to complete a brief survey, which included demographics, queries related to contributions to the literature, success in obtaining grants, and any perceived barriers they encountered. RESULTS: Of the 342 researchers contacted by email, a total of 147 completed the survey for a response rate of 43%. The respondents were predominately mid to late career white-male-heterosexual-Christian with an average age of 44 years (range 25-69 years of age). With regards to training and education, the majority of respondents (50%) were either Associate or Professor clinical rank (8% instructor/resident/fellow and 31% Assistant). Sixty-two percent of the respondents reported perceived barriers to career advancement since completion of residency. The largest perceived barrier to success was medical specialty (26%), followed by gender (21%) and age (16%). CONCLUSION: Our survey of EMF grant recipients in the last 10 years shows a considerable lack of diversity. The most commonly perceived barriers to career advancement by this cohort were medical specialty, gender, and age. An opportunity exists for further definition of barriers and development of mechanisms to overcome them, with a goal of increased success for those that are underrepresented.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica , Medicina de Emergência , Pesquisa sobre Serviços de Saúde , Pesquisadores , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto , Adulto , Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Pesquisa Biomédica/organização & administração , Pesquisa Biomédica/tendências , Barreiras de Comunicação , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Feminino , Pesquisa sobre Serviços de Saúde/economia , Pesquisa sobre Serviços de Saúde/organização & administração , Pesquisa sobre Serviços de Saúde/tendências , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pesquisadores/classificação , Pesquisadores/estatística & dados numéricos , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/métodos , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/organização & administração , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Estados Unidos
9.
Nurs Outlook ; 68(3): 270-283, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32268936

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: There has been a dramatic increase in the number of doctoral programs (PhD and DNP) that prepare nurse research scientists and advanced practitioners since establishment of the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 1985. PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to examine the historical context of federal research funding to schools/colleges of nursing to determine if the NINR/NIH budget is adequate. METHOD: Data were extracted from the NIH RePORT/ER database from 1993 to 2017. Additional data were obtained from the American Association of Colleges of Nursing. A return on investment analysis for four landmark nursing studies is included. FINDINGS: The percent of the NINR budget awarded to schools/colleges of nursing peaked in 2005; since 2011, more funding to schools/colleges of nursing was received from all other NIH institutes combined, compared to NINR. The return on investment for four nursing research studies, ranged from $1:$202 to $1:$1,206, and far exceeds the Standard and Poor's 500 Index (S&P 500) of 10%. DISCUSSION: Federal funding of nursing research is inadequate and a chokepoint relative to the number of doctoral programs. We suggest the NINR budget would need to increase at least fivefold to over $763 million to adequately fund nursing science. The impact of inadequate funding on the discipline is discussed.


Assuntos
Governo Federal , Financiamento Governamental/estatística & dados numéricos , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , Pesquisa em Enfermagem/economia , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Orçamentos , Bases de Dados Factuais , Humanos , National Institute of Nursing Research (U.S.)/economia , Estados Unidos
11.
Nurs Outlook ; 68(3): 293-300, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32138976

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Despite multiple federal initiatives and calls to action, nursing literature on the health of sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations remains sparse. Low levels of funding for SGM-focused research may be a factor. PURPOSE: To examine the proportion and focus of National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR)-funded projects that address SGM health, the number and type of publications arising from that funding, and the reach of those publications over time. METHODS: NINR-funded grants focused on SGM research and bibliometrics of resultant publications were identified using multiple search strategies in NIH RePORTER and PubMed and Scopus, respectively. FINDINGS: Since 1987, NINR has funded 25 projects addressing the health of SGM populations. Pre-doctoral fellowship funding resulted in more publications in nursing journals than research grant funding. DISCUSSION: There are clear differences in patterns of funding for fellowships and research grants with corresponding differences in publications and impact on the nursing literature.


Assuntos
Saúde das Minorias/economia , National Institute of Nursing Research (U.S.) , Pesquisa em Enfermagem/economia , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Minorias Sexuais e de Gênero , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Estados Unidos
14.
Health Res Policy Syst ; 18(1): 6, 2020 Jan 20.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31959198

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Public research funding agencies and research organisations are increasingly accountable for the wider impacts of the research they support. While research impact assessment (RIA) frameworks and tools exist, little is known and shared of how these organisations implement RIA activities in practice. METHODS: We conducted a review of academic literature to search for research organisations' published experiences of RIAs. We followed this with semi-structured interviews from a convenience sample (n = 7) of representatives of four research organisations deploying strategies to support and assess research impact. RESULTS: We found only five studies reporting empirical evidence on how research organisations put RIA principles into practice. From our interviews, we observed a disconnect between published RIA frameworks and tools, and the realities of organisational practices, which tended not to be reported. We observed varying maturity and readiness with respect to organisations' structural set ups for conducting RIAs, particularly relating to leadership, skills for evaluation and automating RIA data collection. Key processes for RIA included efforts to engage researcher communities to articulate and plan for impact, using a diversity of methods, frameworks and indicators, and supporting a learning approach. We observed outcomes of RIAs as having supported a dialogue to orient research to impact, underpinned shared learning from analyses of research, and provided evidence of the value of research in different domains and to different audiences. CONCLUSIONS: Putting RIA principles and frameworks into practice is still in early stages for research organisations. We recommend that organisations (1) get set up by considering upfront the resources, time and leadership required to embed impact strategies throughout the organisation and wider research 'ecosystem', and develop methodical approaches to assessing impact; (2) work together by engaging researcher communities and wider stakeholders as a core part of impact pathway planning and subsequent assessment; and (3) recognise the benefits that RIA can bring about as a means to improve mutual understanding of the research process between different actors with an interest in research.


Assuntos
Academias e Institutos/organização & administração , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Academias e Institutos/normas , Participação da Comunidade , Humanos , Liderança
15.
World Neurosurg ; 136: 270-282, 2020 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31953095

RESUMO

Bibliometric analyses are widely used to gauge the scholarly impact of any scientific publication. We conducted a bibliometric analysis of the 100 most influential articles on glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). We searched Scopus using the keywords "Glioblastoma multiforme," "GBM," Glioblastoma," and "Grade IV glioma." A list of the top 100 articles was prepared. The articles were sorted according to the number of citations. A detailed analysis was carried out to identify the characteristics of the most influential studies. The 100 most cited articles in the field were published over 38 years between 1978 and 2018, with the maximum number of articles published in the 10-year period from 2001 to 2010. The total number of citations for 100 articles was 148,594 and 4.8% were self-citations. Citations ranged from 9624 to 617, with a median of 935 (interquartile range, 906). The top cited articles originated from 22 countries, with the greatest contributions from the United States. Nature made the greatest contribution to the research on GBM, with a total of 14 articles, and Cancer Cell and New England Journal of Medicine were the second biggest contributors. Fifty-seven studies focused on the pathogenesis of GBM. There were 12 authors who had ≥5 articles in the top 100 citation list. Only 31% of the articles were funded by public and private sector organizations. Our analysis highlights the characteristics of the most influential articles on GBM and provides valuable insight into the research that has been conducted in this field.


Assuntos
Bibliometria , Glioblastoma , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Fator de Impacto de Revistas , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos
18.
Am J Emerg Med ; 38(7): 1357-1361, 2020 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31843332

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To describe differences in funded grants between male and female faculty in two academic emergency departments. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of grant funding at two academic emergency departments from January 2012-September 2018. We queried the grants department databases at each institution and obtained records of all funded grants for emergency medicine (EM) faculty. We extracted the following information for each award: gender of the principal investigator (PI), PI academic rank, grant mechanism (government, institutional, industry, organizational), and percent effort. Differences by gender were compared using Chi-square or Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon-rank sum. RESULTS: One-hundred and thirty grants were awarded to EM faculty at the two institutions during the study period. Of the funded grants, 35 (27%) of recipients were female. Among grant recipients, females held lower academic ranking than males (p-value < 0.001): Instructor (49% vs 51%), Assistant Professor (36% vs 64%), Associate Professor (9% vs 91%), and Professor (0% vs 100%), respectively. Organizational grants were dispersed equally between funded faculty, but females received a fewer government, industry, and institutional grants (p-value = 0.007). Female grant recipients were awarded a higher median percent of effort compared to males (14% [IQR: 3-51] vs 8% [IQR: 1-15], respectively, p-value = 0.023). CONCLUSION: In this multicenter analysis, gender discrepancies exist among funded grants of EM faculty. Male recipients had higher academic ranking than their female counterparts. Female recipients were less likely to have government, institutional, and industry grants but received a greater percent effort on funding that was awarded.


Assuntos
Medicina de Emergência , Docentes de Medicina , Financiamento Governamental/estatística & dados numéricos , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Centros Médicos Acadêmicos , Academias e Institutos , Pesquisa Biomédica , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores Sexuais , Centros de Traumatologia , Estados Unidos
19.
Einstein (Sao Paulo) ; 18: eAO5043, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês, Português | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31859786

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the technical-scientific production of research productivity fellows of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, in Pediatrics, from 2013 to 2016. METHODS: First, data were obtained identifying fellowship researchers using the Lattes Platform, and subsequently calculating the indicators present in their Lattes curricula using scriptLattes software v8.10. RESULTS: In the period studied, 17 fellowship researchers were identified. They published a total of 524 articles in journals, most of them ranked as high and intermediate Qualis. In addition, fellowship researchers conducted 158 supervisions during the period, published 119 books or chapters and 465 papers in conference proceedings. CONCLUSION: The Brazilian scientific production in Pediatrics has shown to be significant and of good impact, both nationally and internationally. However, the distribution of research groups is concentrated in specific regions of Brazil.


Assuntos
Bibliometria , Bolsas de Estudo/estatística & dados numéricos , Pediatria/estatística & dados numéricos , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Publicações/estatística & dados numéricos , Pesquisadores/estatística & dados numéricos , Pesquisa Biomédica/normas , Pesquisa Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricos , Brasil , Escolaridade , Bolsas de Estudo/normas , Humanos , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , Publicações/normas , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/normas , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Tempo
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...