Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 1.717
Filtrar
2.
Elife ; 102021 09 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34477108

RESUMO

Previous reports have described worsening inequalities of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. We analyzed Research Project Grant data through the end of Fiscal Year 2020, confirming worsening inequalities beginning at the time of the NIH budget doubling (1998-2003), while finding that trends in recent years have reversed for both investigators and institutions, but only to a modest degree. We also find that career-stage trends have stabilized, with equivalent proportions of early-, mid-, and late-career investigators funded from 2017 to 2020. The fraction of women among funded PIs continues to increase, but they are still not at parity. Analyses of funding inequalities show that inequalities for investigators, and to a lesser degree for institutions, have consistently been greater within groups (i.e. within groups by career stage, gender, race, and degree) than between groups.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica , Financiamento Governamental , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Pesquisa Biomédica/organização & administração , Pesquisa Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Financiamento Governamental/economia , Financiamento Governamental/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Masculino , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/organização & administração , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/estatística & dados numéricos , Racismo , Sexismo , Fatores Socioeconômicos , Estados Unidos
4.
IEEE Pulse ; 12(3): 21-23, 2021.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34156930

RESUMO

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for rapid and accurate diagnostic testing across populations quickly became evident. In response, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was determined not only to invest heavily in this area but to change the process by which grant proposals were reviewed and funded in order to spur faster development of viable technologies. The Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx) initiative was designed to speed innovation, commercialization, and implementation of potential COVID-19 diagnostic technology. As part of this effort, the RADx Tech initiative focuses on the development, validation, and commercialization of innovative point-of-care, home-based, and clinical lab-based tests that can detect SARS-CoV-2. This effort was enabled through the NIH's National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) Point-of-Care Technology Research Network (POCTRN).


Assuntos
Engenharia Biomédica/economia , Teste para COVID-19/economia , COVID-19 , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , Pandemias , Sistemas Automatizados de Assistência Junto ao Leito/economia , SARS-CoV-2 , Engenharia Biomédica/tendências , COVID-19/diagnóstico , COVID-19/economia , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Humanos , Estados Unidos
5.
J Surg Res ; 266: 6-12, 2021 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33975029

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Over time, NIH funding has become increasingly competitive. In addition, academic surgeons' research competes with time required for patient care, operating, and administrative work. Due to these competing interests for surgeons, we hypothesize that the percentage of NIH grants awarded to researchers from departments of surgery is decreasing. METHODS: The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool was queried for the number and value of new and renewal R01 grants, and career development awards noting which surgery departments received awards from 1998 to -2018. Statistical analysis was performed using univariate and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: The number of career development awards granted to researchers from departments of surgery decreased significantly over time (P = 0.007) while new R01's and R01 renewal awards were stable. The number of grants awarded to researchers from all procedural departments were compared to non-procedural departments and again, career development awards decreased significantly (P = 0.005) over time but new R01's and R01 renewals stayed stable. Looking at the difference in average dollar amount received for new R01, renewal R01, or career development awards between department of surgery awardees and non-surgery over time, there was no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: NIH funding is becoming increasingly competitive and surgeons have many competing interests. Our study found that there has been a significant decrease in career development awards to department of surgery awardees and procedural specialists. The decrease in receipt of these awards is particularly concerning given that they are meant to provide protected time for developing researchers and thus have potential consequences for future research.


Assuntos
Mobilidade Ocupacional , Docentes de Medicina/economia , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , Pesquisadores/economia , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/tendências , Cirurgiões/economia , Docentes de Medicina/tendências , Humanos , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/tendências , Pesquisadores/tendências , Cirurgiões/tendências , Estados Unidos
7.
Ann Surg ; 273(6): 1042-1048, 2021 06 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33914482

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to evaluate the relationship between surgeon representation on NIH study sections and success in grant funding. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: NIH funding for surgeon-scientists is declining. Prior work has called for increased surgeon participation in the grant review process as a strategy to increase receipt of funding by surgeon-scientists. METHODS: A retrospective review of surgeon (primary department: General, Urology, Orthopedic, Ophthalmology, Otolaryngology, Neurosurgery) representation on NIH study sections and receipt of funding was performed using NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) and 2019 Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research data. NIH chartered study section panels and ad hoc reviewers for each 2019 review date were also obtained. RESULTS: In 2019, 9239 individuals reviewed in at least 1 of the 168 study sections [190 (2.1%) surgeons, 64 (0.7%) standing members, 126 (1.4%) ad-hoc]. Most surgeons on study sections were male (65%) professors (63%). Surgeons most commonly served on bioengineering, technology, and surgical sciences (29.6% surgeons), diseases and pathophysiology of the visual system (28.3%), and surgery, anesthesiology and trauma (21%). In 2019, 773 surgeons received 1235 NIH grants (>$580 M) out of a total of 55,012 awards (2.2%). Funded surgeons were predominantly male (79%), White (68%), non-Hispanic (97%), full professors (50%), and 43% had additional advanced degrees (MPH/PhD/MBA). surgery, anesthesiology and trauma, diseases and pathophysiology of the visual system, and bioengineering, technology, and surgical sciences were the most common study sections that reviewed funded grants to surgeon-scientists. Ninety-two surgeons both received grant funding and served on study section. Study sections with higher surgeon representation were more likely to fund surgeon-scientists (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon representation on NIH study sections is strongly associated with receipt of funding by surgeon-scientists. Increasing NIH study section representation by surgeons may help to preserve the surgeon-scientist phenotype.


Assuntos
Distinções e Prêmios , Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , Especialidades Cirúrgicas/economia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Estados Unidos
8.
PLoS One ; 16(4): e0250061, 2021.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33857240

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Systems epidemiology approaches may lead to a better understanding of the complex and dynamic multi-level constellation of contributors to cancer risk and outcomes and help target interventions. This grant portfolio analysis aimed to describe the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) investments in systems epidemiology and to identify gaps in the cancer systems epidemiology portfolio. METHODS: The analysis examined grants funded (2013-2018) through seven NIH systems science Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) as well as cancer-specific systems epidemiology grants funded by NCI during that same time. Study characteristics were extracted from the grant abstracts and specific aims and coded. RESULTS: Of the 137 grants awarded under the NIH FOAs, 52 (38%) included systems epidemiology. Only five (4%) were focused on cancer systems epidemiology. The NCI-wide search (N = 453 grants) identified 35 grants (8%) that included cancer systems epidemiology in their specific aims. Most of these grants examined epidemiology and surveillance-based questions (60%); fewer addressed clinical care or clinical trials (37%). Fifty-four percent looked at multiple scales within the individual (e.g., cell, tissue, organ), 49% looked beyond the individual (e.g., individual, community, population), and few (9%) included both. Across all grants examined, the systems epidemiology grants primarily focused on discovery or prediction, rather than on impacts of intervention or policy. CONCLUSIONS: The most notable finding was that grants focused on cancer versus other diseases reflected a small percentage of the portfolio, highlighting the need to encourage more cancer systems epidemiology research. Opportunities include encouraging more multiscale research and continuing the support for broad examination of domains in these studies. Finally, the nascent discipline of systems epidemiology could benefit from the creation of standard terminology and definitions to guide future progress.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Organização do Financiamento/economia , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , Neoplasias , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/economia , Humanos , Estados Unidos
9.
Elife ; 102021 04 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33847562

RESUMO

A previous report found an association of topic choice with race-based funding disparities among R01 applications submitted to the National Institutes of Health ('NIH') between 2011 and 2015. Applications submitted by African American or Black ('AAB') Principal Investigators ('PIs') skewed toward a small number of topics that were less likely to be funded (or 'awarded'). It was suggested that lower award rates may be related to topic-related biases of peer reviewers. However, the report did not account for differential funding ecologies among NIH Institutes and Centers ('ICs'). In a re-analysis, we find that 10% of 148 topics account for 50% of applications submitted by AAB PIs. These applications on 'AAB Preferred' topics were funded at lower rates, but peer review outcomes were similar. The lower rate of funding for these topics was primarily due to their assignment to ICs with lower award rates, not to peer-reviewer preferences.


Assuntos
Afro-Americanos , Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares , Pesquisadores/economia , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/economia , Pesquisa Biomédica/tendências , Humanos , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/tendências , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares/tendências , Fatores Raciais , Racismo/economia , Pesquisadores/tendências , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/tendências , Estados Unidos
12.
J Am Coll Surg ; 232(3): 265-274.e2, 2021 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33588041

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Recent literature suggests that the future of surgeon-scientists in the US has been threatened for the past several decades. However, we documented an overall increase in NIH funding for surgeon-scientists, as well as the number of NIH-funded surgeons, from 2010 to 2020. STUDY DESIGN: NIH-funded principal investigators (PIs) were identified for June 2010 and June 2020 using the NIH internal data platform iSearch Grants (version 2.4). Biographical sketches were searched for key terms to identify surgeon-scientists. Grant research types and total grant costs were collected. American Association of Medical Colleges data were used to determine total surgeon and physician populations. Bivariate chi-square analyses were performed using population totals and were corroborated using z-tests of population proportions using JMP (version 13.0.0). A 2-tailed p value <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: In June of 2020, a total of 1,031 surgeon-scientists held $872,456,710 in NIH funding. The percentage of funded surgeons significantly increased from 2010 (0.5%) to 2020 (0.7%) (p < 0.05), and the percentage of funded other physicians significantly decreased from 2.2% in 2010 to 1.6% in 2020 (p < 0.05). All surgeons sustained R grant funding at both time points (58% in 2020 and 60% in 2010), and specifically maintained basic science-focused R grants (73% in 2020 and 78% in 2010). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found surgeon-scientists are increasing in number and NIH funding and are becoming more diverse in their research efforts, while maintaining a focus on basic science.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , Pesquisadores/economia , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/tendências , Especialidades Cirúrgicas/economia , Cirurgiões/economia , Pesquisa Biomédica/tendências , Humanos , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/tendências , Pesquisadores/tendências , Especialidades Cirúrgicas/tendências , Cirurgiões/tendências , Estados Unidos
13.
Cell ; 184(3): 561-565, 2021 02 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33503447

RESUMO

Our nationwide network of BME women faculty collectively argue that racial funding disparity by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) remains the most insidious barrier to success of Black faculty in our profession. We thus refocus attention on this critical barrier and suggest solutions on how it can be dismantled.


Assuntos
Afro-Americanos , Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Administração Financeira , Pesquisadores/economia , Grupos de Populações Continentais , Humanos , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , Estados Unidos
14.
Cancer Discov ; 11(3): 524, 2021 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33483379

RESUMO

The federal spending bill enacted by the U.S. Congress in December for fiscal year 2021 totals $1.4 trillion, plus another $900 billion in emergency COVID-19 relief funding. The $1.4 trillion includes budget increases for the NIH, NCI, and FDA that help the agencies keep pace with inflation. Research advocates say more than $10 billion in emergency supplemental funds for the NIH is urgently needed to support medical research affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/legislação & jurisprudência , Governo Federal , Política de Saúde , Neoplasias/terapia , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto , Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , COVID-19/economia , Vacinas contra COVID-19/economia , Humanos , Oncologia/organização & administração , National Cancer Institute (U.S.)/economia , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , Neoplasias/economia , Sociedades Médicas , Estados Unidos , United States Food and Drug Administration/economia
15.
J Autism Dev Disord ; 51(8): 2751-2763, 2021 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33040269

RESUMO

Investments in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) research, guided by the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC), have focused disproportionately on etiology over a well-established stakeholder priority area: research to improve accessibility and quality of community-based services. This study analyzed National Institutes of Health ASD services research funding from 2008 to 2018 to examine funding patterns, evaluate the impact of IACC objectives, and identify future directions. Approximately 9% of total funds were allocated to services research. This investment remained relatively stable across time and lacked diversity across domains (e.g., area of focus, ages sampled, implementation strategies used). While advancements were observed, including increased prevalence of projects focused on adult samples and on dissemination/implementation and prevention areas, greater investment in service research is critically needed.


Assuntos
Transtorno do Espectro Autista/economia , Transtorno do Espectro Autista/epidemiologia , Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Pesquisa Biomédica/tendências , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/tendências , Adolescente , Transtorno do Espectro Autista/terapia , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Análise de Dados , Feminino , Administração Financeira/economia , Administração Financeira/tendências , Humanos , Masculino , Fatores de Tempo , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia
16.
Ann Emerg Med ; 77(1): 57-61, 2021 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32782083

RESUMO

STUDY OBJECTIVE: I determine the most recent data on National Institutes of Health (NIH) support for clinical emergency care research. METHODS: A search of the NIH category of emergency care from 2015 to 2018 was conducted, using a clinical focus and excluding animal and bench research projects, as well as career development grants. RESULTS: During the study period, the number of new emergency care projects submitted to NIH increased from 373 in 2015 to 434 in 2018. A total of 403 new applications were funded for $161.9 million, with an overall success rate of 24%. The total amount of support for both new and existing projects during the 4-year study period was $263 million. The number of funded R01 grants increased from 17 in 2015 to 32 in 2018, with an overall success rate of 21%. There were fewer emergency care grant submissions than those for other similar-sized disciplines. CONCLUSION: During the 4-year study period, emergency care research increased, but the number of grant submissions remains low.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica , Serviços Médicos de Emergência , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/estatística & dados numéricos , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Pesquisa Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricos , Serviços Médicos de Emergência/economia , Serviços Médicos de Emergência/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/economia , Estados Unidos
17.
Am J Ophthalmol ; 222: 285-291, 2021 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32941858

RESUMO

PURPOSE: This study analyzed sex differences among cornea specialists with regards to academic rank, scholarly productivity, National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, and industry partnerships. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: This was a study of faculty at 113 US academic programs. Sex, residency graduation year, and academic rank were collected from institutional websites between January and March 2019. H-indices and m-quotients were collected from the Scopus database. The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services databases were queried for data on NIH funding and industry partnerships. RESULTS: Of the 440 cornea specialists identified, 131 (29.8%) were female. The proportions of females and males at each academic rank (assistant 69.5% vs 41.8%; associate 17.6% vs 21.0%; full professor 13.0% vs 37.2%) were not significant after adjusting for career duration (P = .083, .459, and .113, respectively). Females had significantly lower median h-indices (4.0 [interquartile range {IQR} 7.0] vs 11.0 [IQR 17.0], P < .001) and shorter median career duration (12.0 [IQR 11.0] vs. 25.0 [IQR 20.0] years, P < .001) than males but similar median m-quotients (0.5 [IQR 0.8] vs 0.5 [IQR 0.8], P = 1.00). Sex differences in h-indices were not seen at each academic rank or career duration interval. Among NIH-funded investigators, the median grant funding was $1.6M (IQR $2.2M) for females and $1.2M (IQR $4.6M, P = .853) for males. Overall, 25.5% of females and 58.6% of males (P = .600) had industry partnerships. CONCLUSION: Sex differences within academic ranks and h-indices are likely due to a smaller proportion of females with advanced career duration.


Assuntos
Centros Médicos Acadêmicos/estatística & dados numéricos , Doenças da Córnea/terapia , Docentes de Medicina , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , Oftalmologistas/estatística & dados numéricos , Oftalmologia/educação , Especialização , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Fatores Sexuais , Estados Unidos
18.
J Surg Res ; 260: 163-168, 2021 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33341679

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Distinções e Prêmios , Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , Pesquisadores/economia , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto , Cirurgiões/economia , Logro , Adulto , Atitude do Pessoal de Saúde , Pesquisa Biomédica/organização & administração , Pesquisa Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricos , Escolha da Profissão , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Mentores/psicologia , Mentores/estatística & dados numéricos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/estatística & dados numéricos , Pesquisa Qualitativa , Pesquisadores/psicologia , Pesquisadores/estatística & dados numéricos , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/organização & administração , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Cirurgiões/psicologia , Cirurgiões/estatística & dados numéricos , Inquéritos e Questionários , Estados Unidos
19.
PLoS One ; 15(11): e0242271, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33186405

RESUMO

Prior research has shown a serious lack of research transparency resulting from the failure to publish study results in a timely manner. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has increased its use of publication rate and time to publication as metrics for grant productivity. In this study, we analyze the publications associated with all R01 and U01 grants funded from 2008 through 2014, providing sufficient time for these grants to publish their findings, and identify predictors of time to publication based on a number of variables, including if a grant was coded as a behavioral and social sciences research (BSSR) grant or not. Overall, 2.4% of the 27,016 R01 and U01 grants did not have a publication associated with the grant within 60 months of the project start date, and this rate of zero publications was higher for BSSR grants (4.6%) than for non-BSSR grants (1.9%). Mean time in months to first publication was 15.2 months, longer for BSSR grants (22.4 months) than non-BSSR grants (13.6 months). Survival curves showed a more rapid reduction of risk to publish from non-BSSR vs BSSR grants. Cox regression models showed that human research (vs. animal, neither, or both) and clinical trials research (vs. not) are the strongest predictors of time to publication and failure to publish, but even after accounting for these and other predictors, BSSR grants continued to show longer times to first publication and greater risk of no publications than non-BSSR grants. These findings indicate that even with liberal criteria for publication (any publication associated with a grant), a small percentage of R01 and U01 grantees fail to publish in a timely manner, and that a number of factors, including human research, clinical trial research, child research, not being an early stage investigator, and conducting behavioral and social sciences research increase the risk of time to first publication.


Assuntos
Ciências do Comportamento/economia , Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Organização do Financiamento , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , Publicações/economia , Publicações/estatística & dados numéricos , Ciências Sociais/economia , Ciências do Comportamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Pesquisa Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricos , Ciências Sociais/estatística & dados numéricos , Estados Unidos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...