Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 86
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 99(6): e19027, 2020 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32028413

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Ferimentos e Lesões/terapia , Pesquisa Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/estatística & dados numéricos , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Ferimentos e Lesões/economia , Ferimentos e Lesões/epidemiologia
2.
Nat Hum Behav ; 3(3): 257-264, 2019 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30953009

RESUMO

Many granting agencies allow reviewers to know the identity of a proposal's principal investigator (PI), which opens the possibility that reviewers discriminate on the basis of PI race and gender. We investigated this experimentally with 48 NIH R01 grant proposals, representing a broad range of NIH-funded science. We modified PI names to create separate white male, white female, black male and black female versions of each proposal, and 412 scientists each submitted initial reviews for 3 proposals. We find little to no race or gender bias in initial R01 evaluations, and additionally find that any bias that might have been present must be negligible in size. This conclusion was robust to a wide array of statistical model specifications. Pragmatically, important bias may be present in other aspects of the granting process, but our evidence suggests that it is not present in the initial round of R01 reviews.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricos , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/estatística & dados numéricos , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares , Sexismo/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Racismo/estatística & dados numéricos , Estados Unidos
3.
Am J Health Promot ; 33(2): 279-284, 2019 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29847996

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Financiamento Governamental/economia , Financiamento Governamental/estatística & dados numéricos , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/estatística & dados numéricos , Sistemas Eletrônicos de Liberação de Nicotina , Humanos , Política Antifumo , Abandono do Hábito de Fumar , Poluição por Fumaça de Tabaco , Estados Unidos
4.
Acad Med ; 94(5): 708-714, 2019 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30520806

RESUMO

PURPOSE: This analysis examined the role of a National Institutes of Health (NIH) individual Mentored Career Development Award (K01, K08, K23) on launching and sustaining independent research careers for early-career scientists, and investigated the effects of these awards during and after the doubling of the NIH budget. METHOD: The authors used grants data from the NIH covering the period 1990 through 2016, and compared success in receipt of R01 equivalent awards (R01 Eq.) and Research Project Grants (RPGs) for K awardees and K applicants who did not receive funding. The analysis combined regression discontinuity design with coarsened exact matching, and regression. RESULTS: Overall, receipt of K award was associated with a 24.1% increase in likelihood of first independent NIH award (P < .01), and a larger number of R01 Eq. and RPG awards. After accounting for first major independent awards, K awards were uncorrelated with receiving second major independent research awards. Comparing different funding periods, K01 awards were predictive of subsequent R01 Eq. and RPG awards after but not during the NIH doubling, K08 awards were predictive only during the NIH doubling, and K23 awards were predictive during both periods. CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of Mentored Career Development Awards was linked to increased likelihood that early-career scientists successfully transitioned to an independent research career. These findings indicate that extending funding to additional K award applicants with meritorious scores could significantly strengthen the pipeline of biomedical researchers. In addition, enhancing K awards may be relevant to sustaining research careers for clinician scientists.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Escolha da Profissão , Educação Médica/organização & administração , Organização do Financiamento/economia , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , Pesquisadores/economia , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/economia , Adulto , Pesquisa Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricos , Educação Médica/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Mentores/estatística & dados numéricos , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/estatística & dados numéricos , Pesquisadores/estatística & dados numéricos , Estados Unidos
5.
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract ; 24(2): 269-285, 2019 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30426324

RESUMO

Financial support for institutional research is relatively stagnant, and thus institutions are likely to seek tuition revenue to offset the costs of research and teaching. It is likely that this has led to increases in tuition driven activities, and thus has limited research activities of academic physical therapy (PT) programs in particular. However, the relationships between sources of program revenue, the number of graduates from PT programs, and the scholarly production of PT faculty have not been studied. The purpose of this paper is to study the effects of types of funding-including research grants and tuition-on the number of physical therapy graduates from each program and the research productivity of physical therapy faculty. Data from 2008 to 2016 were utilized to perform a fixed-effects panel analysis. Panel models created predictions for the number of graduates and the number of peer-reviewed publications for programs from grant funding, annual tuition, and number of funded faculty members. In any given program, a 1% increase in annual tuition is associated with 24% more graduates per year, but a single percentage point increase in the mix of NIH grant funding over other funding types is associated with 8% fewer graduates, all else equal. For every 1% increase in annual tuition, a program can expect to have 41% fewer publications per year. Those institutions with higher numbers of graduates tended to have higher numbers of publications. Higher annual program tuition appears to be associated with both higher numbers of physical therapy graduates and lower levels of publications. Different funding sources have variable effects on degree production and scholarly productivity. Data are self-reported by programs on the Annual Accreditation Report, and cause and effect cannot be established through observational design.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricos , Apoio Financeiro , Fisioterapia/estatística & dados numéricos , Estudantes/estatística & dados numéricos , Universidades/estatística & dados numéricos , Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Pesquisa Biomédica/tendências , Eficiência , Docentes/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Modelos Econômicos , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/estatística & dados numéricos , Fisioterapia/economia , Fisioterapia/tendências , Editoração/estatística & dados numéricos , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Apoio ao Desenvolvimento de Recursos Humanos/estatística & dados numéricos , Estados Unidos , Universidades/economia , Universidades/tendências
6.
Physiol Genomics ; 50(11): 982-987, 2018 11 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30265594

RESUMO

Chronic hypertension and preeclampsia are the most common complications of pregnancy. To clarify the contributions of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) to the field and identify potential research gaps, we performed portfolio analysis of awards related to preeclampsia and pregnancy-associated hypertension. A list of National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded awards between fiscal years 2008-present was obtained through an NIH RePORTER search using the following terms: "preeclampsia" and "pregnancy-associated hypertension." More in-depth analyses were performed on currently active awards supported by the NHLBI. The NHLBI is the lead institute at the NIH in funding research related to pregnancy-associated hypertension and second leading in funding research related to preeclampsia. The NHLBI currently supports 38 awards related to preeclampsia and six awards related to pregnancy-associated hypertension, with a combined total dollar investment of $21 million. Of the currently active, NHLBI-supported awards on preeclampsia and pregnancy-associated hypertension combined, 47% are related to basic science research, 30% to clinical, 14% to clinical trials, and 9% to early translational research. The focus of NHLBI-funded awards is primarily on vascular mechanisms and short and long-term cardiovascular complications of preeclampsia and pregnancy-associated hypertension. Despite steady funding for research on preeclampsia and pregnancy-associated hypertension, several gaps in knowledge exist. NHLBI held a workshop entitled Predicting, Preventing and Treating Preeclampsia to address some of these gaps and inform future research directions for the institute.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Hipertensão Induzida pela Gravidez/etiologia , National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (U.S.)/economia , Pré-Eclâmpsia/etiologia , Pesquisa Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricos , Orçamentos , Feminino , Humanos , National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (U.S.)/estatística & dados numéricos , National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (U.S.)/tendências , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/estatística & dados numéricos , Gravidez , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/economia , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/tendências , Estados Unidos
7.
BMC Anesthesiol ; 18(1): 95, 2018 07 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30049265

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Anestesiologia/estatística & dados numéricos , Organização do Financiamento/estatística & dados numéricos , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/estatística & dados numéricos , Centro Cirúrgico Hospitalar/estatística & dados numéricos , Docentes de Medicina/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Fatores Sexuais , Estados Unidos
8.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ; 115(10): 2329-2334, 2018 03 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29440428

RESUMO

This work examines the contribution of NIH funding to published research associated with 210 new molecular entities (NMEs) approved by the Food and Drug Administration from 2010-2016. We identified >2 million publications in PubMed related to the 210 NMEs (n = 131,092) or their 151 known biological targets (n = 1,966,281). Of these, >600,000 (29%) were associated with NIH-funded projects in RePORTER. This funding included >200,000 fiscal years of NIH project support (1985-2016) and project costs >$100 billion (2000-2016), representing ∼20% of the NIH budget over this period. NIH funding contributed to every one of the NMEs approved from 2010-2016 and was focused primarily on the drug targets rather than on the NMEs themselves. There were 84 first-in-class products approved in this interval, associated with >$64 billion of NIH-funded projects. The percentage of fiscal years of project funding identified through target searches, but not drug searches, was greater for NMEs discovered through targeted screening than through phenotypic methods (95% versus 82%). For targeted NMEs, funding related to targets preceded funding related to the NMEs, consistent with the expectation that basic research provides validated targets for targeted screening. This analysis, which captures basic research on biological targets as well as applied research on NMEs, suggests that the NIH contribution to research associated with new drug approvals is greater than previously appreciated and highlights the risk of reducing federal funding for basic biomedical research.


Assuntos
Aprovação de Drogas , Descoberta de Drogas/economia , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Aprovação de Drogas/economia , Aprovação de Drogas/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/estatística & dados numéricos , Pesquisa Médica Translacional/economia , Estados Unidos
9.
Clin Trials ; 15(1): 65-74, 2018 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28879782

RESUMO

Background The National Institutes of Health is one of the largest biomedical research agencies in the world. Clinical trials are an important component of National Institutes of Health research efforts. Given the recent updates in National Institutes of Health trial reporting requirements, more information regarding the current state of National Institutes of Health-funded clinical trials is warranted. The objective of this analysis was to describe characteristics and trends of clinical trials funded by the National Institutes of Health over time and by Institutes and Centers of the National Institutes of Health. Methods Interventional studies funded by the National Institutes of Health and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov between 2005 and 2015 were included in the analysis. Trials were identified from the 27 March 2016 Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov database. A descriptive analysis of trials by year and National Institutes of Health Institute/Center was performed. Results There were 12,987 National Institutes of Health-funded clinical trials registered between 2005 and 2015. There were 1,580, 1,116, and 930 trials registered in 2005, 2010, and 2015, respectively. The majority were early-development trials (phases 0, 1, or 2; 53%), randomized (61%), and single-center (63%). Trial demographics have remained unchanged over time. Median trial sample size was 64 (interquartile range 29-192) with 10% of trials enrolling ≥500 participants. Most trials were completed within 5 years of enrollment start (69%). Trial characteristics varied considerably across National Institutes of Health Institutes and Centers. Results were reported under the assumptions that most National Institutes of Health-funded trials are registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and that trials are being registered completely and accurately. Conclusion In conclusion, there has been a decline in the number of trials being funded over time, explained in part by a relatively constant budget, increases in trial costs, or other factors that cannot be quantified. National Institutes of Health-funded trials are relatively small and tend to be single-centered. There are substantial differences in the number and types of trials done by Institutes and Centers within the National Institutes of Health.


Assuntos
Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto/organização & administração , Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Bases de Dados Factuais/estatística & dados numéricos , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/estatística & dados numéricos , Fatores Etários , Pesquisa Biomédica/organização & administração , Pesquisa Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Projetos de Pesquisa , Fatores Sexuais , Estados Unidos
10.
J Palliat Med ; 21(2): 182-187, 2018 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28792780

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The evidence base to support palliative care clinical practice is inadequate and opportunities to improve the palliative care evidence base remain despite the field's rapid growth. OBJECTIVE: To examine current NIH funding of palliative medicine research, changes since our 2013 report, and trends since our 2008 report. DESIGN: We sought to identify NIH funding of palliative medicine from 2011 to 2015 in two stages: (I) we searched the NIH grants database "RePorter" for grants with key words "palliative care," "end-of-life care," "hospice," and "end of life" and (II) we identified palliative care researchers likely to have secured NIH funding using three strategies. METHODS: We abstracted (1) the first and last authors' names from original investigations published in major palliative medicine journals from 2013 to 2015; (2) these names from a PubMed-generated list of original articles published in major medicine, nursing, and subspecialty journals using the above key words; and (3) palliative medicine journal editorial board members and key members of palliative medicine initiatives. We crossmatched the pooled names against NIH grants funded from 2011 to 2015. RESULTS: The author and NIH RePorter search identified 854 and 419 grants, respectively. The 461 grants categorized as relevant to palliative medicine represented 334 unique PIs. Compared to 2006-2010, the number of NIH-funded junior career development awards nearly doubled (6.1%-10%), articles published in nonpalliative care specialty journals tripled (13%-37%), published palliative care researchers increased by 2.5-fold (839-2120), and NIH-funded original palliative medicine research articles doubled (21%-39%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the challenging NIH funding climate, NIH funding to palliative care remained stable. The increase in early stage career development funding, palliative care investigators, and palliative medicine research published in nonpalliative medicine journals reflects important advances to address the workforce and evidence gaps. Further support for palliative care research is still needed.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Pesquisa Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricos , Organização do Financiamento/economia , Organização do Financiamento/estatística & dados numéricos , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/estatística & dados numéricos , Medicina Paliativa/economia , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto , Humanos , Estados Unidos
11.
West J Emerg Med ; 18(4): 621-623, 2017 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28611882

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Receiving an R01 grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is regarded as a major accomplishment for the physician researcher and can be used as a means of scholarly activity for core faculty in emergency medicine (EM). However, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires that a grant must be obtained for it to count towards a core faculty member's scholarly activity, while the American Osteopathic Association states that an application for a grant would qualify for scholarly activity whether it is received or not. The aim of the study was to determine if a medical degree disparity exists between those who successfully receive an EM R01 grant and those who do not, and to determine the publication characteristics of those recipients. METHODS: We queried the NIH RePORTER search engine for those physicians who received an R01 grant in EM. Degree designation was then determined for each grant recipient based on a web-based search involving the recipient's name and the location where the grant was awarded. The grant recipient was then queried through PubMed central for the total number of publications published in the decade prior to receiving the grant. RESULTS: We noted a total of 264 R01 grant recipients during the study period; of those who received the award, 78.03% were allopathic physicians. No osteopathic physician had received an R01 grant in EM over the past 10 years. Of those allopathic physicians who received the grant, 44.17% held a dual degree. Allopathic physicians had an average of 48.05 publications over the 10 years prior to grant receipt and those with a dual degree had 51.62 publications. CONCLUSION: Allopathic physicians comprise the majority of those who have received an R01 grant in EM over the last decade. These physicians typically have numerous prior publications and an advanced degree.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Medicina de Emergência/estatística & dados numéricos , Financiamento Governamental/estatística & dados numéricos , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/estatística & dados numéricos , Medicina Osteopática/estatística & dados numéricos , Médicos/estatística & dados numéricos , Medicina de Emergência/economia , Financiamento Governamental/economia , Humanos , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , Medicina Osteopática/economia , Médicos/classificação , Médicos/economia , Pesquisadores/classificação , Pesquisadores/economia , Estados Unidos
13.
JAMA Dermatol ; 153(5): 398-405, 2017 05 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28329179

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricos , Organização do Financiamento/estatística & dados numéricos , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/estatística & dados numéricos , Neoplasias Cutâneas/prevenção & controle , Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Tecnologia Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Organização do Financiamento/tendências , Comportamentos Relacionados com a Saúde , Humanos , Masculino , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , Pesquisadores/estatística & dados numéricos , Neoplasias Cutâneas/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Cutâneas/terapia , Estados Unidos
14.
J Dent Res ; 96(1): 17-22, 2017 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28033064

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Neoplasias Bucais/economia , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/economia , Pesquisa Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , National Cancer Institute (U.S.)/economia , National Cancer Institute (U.S.)/organização & administração , National Cancer Institute (U.S.)/estatística & dados numéricos , National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (U.S.)/economia , National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (U.S.)/organização & administração , National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (U.S.)/estatística & dados numéricos , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/organização & administração , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/estatística & dados numéricos , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Estados Unidos
15.
Nurs Outlook ; 64(3): 262-70, 2016.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27040502

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The mission of the Department of Health and Human Services is to enhance the health and well-being of the American people. It does this by providing oversight for more than 1,000 grant programs across 26 federal agencies at an annual cost of approximately $500 billion. The National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is one institute originated to support health care research from a nursing perspective. However, funding of nursing research from federal agencies has remained relatively flat for more than a decade, despite increases in total NIH funding. PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to describe the types of funding support provided by federal government agencies (including the NIH) to schools of nursing. METHOD: The NIH's Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool, Expenditures and Results system from 1988 to 2014 was accessed to collect information on the grant recipient institutions as well as the source, number, type, and dollar amounts of grants. DISCUSSION: The funding level and its implications for the future of nursing science are considered.


Assuntos
Financiamento Governamental/estatística & dados numéricos , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/estatística & dados numéricos , Pesquisa em Enfermagem/economia , Pesquisa em Enfermagem/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Estados Unidos
16.
J Am Coll Surg ; 223(2): 387-398.e2, 2016 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27109779

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Mobilidade Ocupacional , Docentes de Medicina/organização & administração , Seleção de Pessoal/organização & administração , Médicas/organização & administração , Sexismo/estatística & dados numéricos , Especialidades Cirúrgicas/organização & administração , Bases de Dados Factuais , Docentes de Medicina/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/organização & administração , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/estatística & dados numéricos , Seleção de Pessoal/estatística & dados numéricos , Médicas/estatística & dados numéricos , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/organização & administração , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Especialidades Cirúrgicas/estatística & dados numéricos , Estados Unidos
17.
Implement Sci ; 11: 1, 2016 Jan 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26727969

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Pesquisa Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricos , Financiamento Governamental/economia , Financiamento Governamental/estatística & dados numéricos , Disseminação de Informação/métodos , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Formulação de Políticas , Estados Unidos
18.
Eval Health Prof ; 39(1): 49-64, 2016 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25015081

RESUMO

This study's purpose was to identify distinct publishing trajectories among 442 participants in three prominent mentored health services research career development programs (Veterans Affairs, National Institutes of Health, and Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality) in the 10 years after award receipt and to examine awardee characteristics associated with different trajectories. Curricula vitae (CVs) of researchers receiving awards between 1991 and 2010 were coded for publications, grants, and awardee characteristics. We found that awardees published at constant or increasing rates despite flat or decreasing rates of first-author publications. Senior-author publications rose concurrently with rates of overall publications. Higher overall publication trajectories were associated with receiving more grants, more citations as measured by the h-index, and more authors per article. Lower trajectory groups were older and had a greater proportion of female awardees. Career development awards supported researchers who generally published successfully, but trajectories varied across individual researchers. Researchers' collaborative efforts produced an increasing number of articles, whereas first author articles were written at a more consistent rate. Career development awards in health services research supported the careers of researchers who published at a high rate; future research should further examine reasons for variation in publishing among early career researchers.


Assuntos
Distinções e Prêmios , Pesquisa sobre Serviços de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Pesquisadores/estatística & dados numéricos , Distribuição por Idade , Comportamento Cooperativo , Humanos , Grupos Minoritários , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/estatística & dados numéricos , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto , Distribuição por Sexo , Estados Unidos , United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality/estatística & dados numéricos , United States Department of Veterans Affairs/estatística & dados numéricos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA